Carson Blades
WEBF mate, never, I say again never, take what is in Jane's as fact! For years they perpetrated a myth that USS Independence (I think it was) had had her port lift moved aft as part of a SLEP.
I don't think 28 have ever been to sea with HC3 and certainly would struggle given non-folding head, non-folding tail and all sorts of other weight-saving measures.....never mind the airframe, which is dissolving away even on the HM1!
I don't think 28 have ever been to sea with HC3 and certainly would struggle given non-folding head, non-folding tail and all sorts of other weight-saving measures.....never mind the airframe, which is dissolving away even on the HM1!
Boffin - surely not......something made by Westlands not doing what it was procured for (rotting airframes in a shipborne helicopter)
Unfortunately despite having CH47s & Merlins in the "reserve fleet" you can't just give them to the front line, as the reserve fleet contains all the ac undergoing essential Major servicing, accident/battle damage repair and modification programmes. Hence, they are mostly in bits...
We can't just buy CH47s off the shelf..I think we would have done if we could source any. This is probably the rationale behind the Merlin Mk3A and the Chinook Mk3-to-SH decisions.
Taking Mk3 Merlin to sea is pointless; same deck space as a CH47, doesn't fold and half the payload. Folding Italian Merlin, with uprated engines and transmissions would be a player. Boeing are unlikely to support a marinised CH47 (unless you pay them a LOT of money)- the market is too small as the USMC have chosen a MV-22/CH-53F mix.
WEBF, yes JHC should have different size aircraft for different roles. The SK4/Puma replacement will possibly be the same airframe to fulfill the medium-sized helo roles; the FLynx is the small Colonel's taxi - the only (slightly hackneyed) snag is the CH47/Merlin issue.
But as NaB points out, the CH47 is far from optimised for the LitM role. But, in calm waters and as part of a TAG, it will always be there as it does things that other JHC assets simply can't.
We can't just buy CH47s off the shelf..I think we would have done if we could source any. This is probably the rationale behind the Merlin Mk3A and the Chinook Mk3-to-SH decisions.
Taking Mk3 Merlin to sea is pointless; same deck space as a CH47, doesn't fold and half the payload. Folding Italian Merlin, with uprated engines and transmissions would be a player. Boeing are unlikely to support a marinised CH47 (unless you pay them a LOT of money)- the market is too small as the USMC have chosen a MV-22/CH-53F mix.
WEBF, yes JHC should have different size aircraft for different roles. The SK4/Puma replacement will possibly be the same airframe to fulfill the medium-sized helo roles; the FLynx is the small Colonel's taxi - the only (slightly hackneyed) snag is the CH47/Merlin issue.
But as NaB points out, the CH47 is far from optimised for the LitM role. But, in calm waters and as part of a TAG, it will always be there as it does things that other JHC assets simply can't.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mk3 at sea
The Mk3 had always had a capability to operate off ships if required (it is in the basic specification of the aircraft), this should not be interpreted as being a naval aircraft, it's in the same kind of capability as Ch47 on a ship (ie on CVS, LHD etc not FF or DD)
No SHOL trial for a Mk3 has been carried out yet but there won't be any problems as the basic airframe should be OK as all EH101s are structurally and materially virtually the same. Deck handling has proven OK with the MMI aircraft (same U/C configuration).
The aircraft talked about is already flying, check out the DMRH and JSDAF variants, RTM322 powered folding aircraft. BTW the danes kept their folding ones, the Mk3As will not have folding heads (commonality with Mk3?)
DM
No SHOL trial for a Mk3 has been carried out yet but there won't be any problems as the basic airframe should be OK as all EH101s are structurally and materially virtually the same. Deck handling has proven OK with the MMI aircraft (same U/C configuration).
The aircraft talked about is already flying, check out the DMRH and JSDAF variants, RTM322 powered folding aircraft. BTW the danes kept their folding ones, the Mk3As will not have folding heads (commonality with Mk3?)
DM
DM
No argument that Mk3/3A will be able to launch and recover from a ship - clearly it must or you can't even do SHOLs. As ever, the problem is what you do with them if they're not airborne on an operational ship. No head or tail fold on an a/c with a 19m rotor diameter and 23m length = no useful maritime capability - hence the comments re the MMI variant.
No argument that Mk3/3A will be able to launch and recover from a ship - clearly it must or you can't even do SHOLs. As ever, the problem is what you do with them if they're not airborne on an operational ship. No head or tail fold on an a/c with a 19m rotor diameter and 23m length = no useful maritime capability - hence the comments re the MMI variant.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think they are being cagey
I have tried without success to find the civil cert records for the MRB, I do find it strange that the Carson site doesnt quote which FARs the blade has been certified against.
I have heard a rumour (appropriate for this site) that the blade has not been cleared by the FAA for passenger carrying aircraft i.e its use is limited to cargo/logging operations which begs the question how can we carry troops using them?
DM
I have heard a rumour (appropriate for this site) that the blade has not been cleared by the FAA for passenger carrying aircraft i.e its use is limited to cargo/logging operations which begs the question how can we carry troops using them?
DM
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have heard a rumour (appropriate for this site) that the blade has not been cleared by the FAA for passenger carrying aircraft i.e its use is limited to cargo/logging operations which begs the question how can we carry troops using them?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you have missed the point
of course the FAA don't certify UK aircraft, that is the platform IPTs job
but if the blade has not been designed to do the job we are asking of it (ie carry people) should we really be expecting it to achieve compliance with UK rules? therefore what degree of non compliance will our aircrews be required to accept and what additional risk does that introduce? (there is no slight on Carson meant here, they have a blade designed against a set of rules, I am just trying to find out what rules)
This also suggests that any future procurement would not HAVE to be Def Stan compliant thus the precedent will have been set as to the level of compliance actually needed, which should allow for a faster and cheaper procurement chain. I guess the team at BD won't be happy, they can't now expect to use one set of rules for a QinetiQ led procurement and yet hold everybody else to a higher standard (the end user should be better served in the long run though).
before anybody rips my head off I have no evidence either way regarding FAR29 compliance, as my earlier posts say, if anyone can point me towards exactly what the blade is certified to I would appreciate it.
thanks in advance DM
but if the blade has not been designed to do the job we are asking of it (ie carry people) should we really be expecting it to achieve compliance with UK rules? therefore what degree of non compliance will our aircrews be required to accept and what additional risk does that introduce? (there is no slight on Carson meant here, they have a blade designed against a set of rules, I am just trying to find out what rules)
This also suggests that any future procurement would not HAVE to be Def Stan compliant thus the precedent will have been set as to the level of compliance actually needed, which should allow for a faster and cheaper procurement chain. I guess the team at BD won't be happy, they can't now expect to use one set of rules for a QinetiQ led procurement and yet hold everybody else to a higher standard (the end user should be better served in the long run though).
before anybody rips my head off I have no evidence either way regarding FAR29 compliance, as my earlier posts say, if anyone can point me towards exactly what the blade is certified to I would appreciate it.
thanks in advance DM
Well, I know for a fact that Cougar Helicopters (in Canada) use it for public transport, so I assume it's been certificated to an appropriate standard.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that 212man
that clarifies it, they must be FAR29 compliant (or its equivalent)
Tourist you missed the point entirely, the design standards for passenger carrying aircraft and components ARE different to non-pax carrying aircraft so the blade does care. Pax carrying rules (ie FAR29 etc) are very rigorous regarding structural strength, damage tolerance and fatigue life calculation, logging etc has a completely different usage spectrum and flight envelope to pax carrying flights and that is why the rules are different.
read them before making silly comments like that
DM
Tourist you missed the point entirely, the design standards for passenger carrying aircraft and components ARE different to non-pax carrying aircraft so the blade does care. Pax carrying rules (ie FAR29 etc) are very rigorous regarding structural strength, damage tolerance and fatigue life calculation, logging etc has a completely different usage spectrum and flight envelope to pax carrying flights and that is why the rules are different.
read them before making silly comments like that
DM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Out in the big bad world
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crumbs, DM! Sense of humour out for repair? 
But why do you need to know? Are you a Wastelands spy ready to poo-poo any success the Carson blades may have or just an interested outsider? However, I suppose that if you needed to know, you would already know, you know?
Oh, it's too early.........
But why do you need to know? Are you a Wastelands spy ready to poo-poo any success the Carson blades may have or just an interested outsider? However, I suppose that if you needed to know, you would already know, you know?
Oh, it's too early.........
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No dangermouse, I think you missed the point.
If the blade is safe enough for me as a military pilot flying a military registered a/c, then it is safe enough for my cargo, be that a load of potatoes or passengers
If the blade is safe enough for me as a military pilot flying a military registered a/c, then it is safe enough for my cargo, be that a load of potatoes or passengers
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a spy
however I do know people at WHL (who really resent the term Wastelands, all the guys I know always have the best interests of the boys and girls flying the stuff in mind) and am sure that if a WHL designed SK blade had been chosen it would probably beat the Carson design and be fully Def Stan compliant as well, but the UK MoD didnt appear to want that and went for a quick off the shelf solution. I understand the timescales involved but replacing a major component like a blade that the airframe designer has no knowledge of (and isnt leading the testing of) seems a little risky to me, especially if the standards that are now being accepted for service are not those imposed on the original component.
I was interested to know what the blade was certified against as it starts an interesting line of thought regarding compliances for military front line operations, as my previous thread tried to say (poorly I guess), it opens the door for a quicker acquisition route for equipment as full Def Stan compliance no longer appers to be compulsory, which can only help UK industry and the end user.
Actually the fact that a piece of equipment has been determined to be 'safe enough' for one role doesnt read across to others. The IPTs accept levels of risk that change dependant on the mission involved. A cargo carrying sortie may well have more acceptable risk than a passenger carrying one due to the lower potential loss of life in case the worst happens. The civil world is different, there are levels that are just unacceptable regardless of the 'mission', the Military dont work that way.
DM
I was interested to know what the blade was certified against as it starts an interesting line of thought regarding compliances for military front line operations, as my previous thread tried to say (poorly I guess), it opens the door for a quicker acquisition route for equipment as full Def Stan compliance no longer appers to be compulsory, which can only help UK industry and the end user.
Actually the fact that a piece of equipment has been determined to be 'safe enough' for one role doesnt read across to others. The IPTs accept levels of risk that change dependant on the mission involved. A cargo carrying sortie may well have more acceptable risk than a passenger carrying one due to the lower potential loss of life in case the worst happens. The civil world is different, there are levels that are just unacceptable regardless of the 'mission', the Military dont work that way.
DM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Out in the big bad world
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JunglyAEO
Well said.
The only other point I was going to mention is that this capability was/is needed in a short space of time, and no amount of claims by Wastelands about how good their blade will be compared to a Carson blade would help their case, since it is a "paper" blade, with zero hours airborne time.
Time was, and still is, the pressing factor.
Well said.
The only other point I was going to mention is that this capability was/is needed in a short space of time, and no amount of claims by Wastelands about how good their blade will be compared to a Carson blade would help their case, since it is a "paper" blade, with zero hours airborne time.
Time was, and still is, the pressing factor.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with everything said above
I even acknowledged the timescale constraints, it just seemed to me (and thats why I asked the original question) were we cutting TOO many corners to expedite this acquisition, it would appear not and that is reassuring. It is equally important to recognise however that a quick UOR solution MAY come back and bite later on (Carson MRB effects on the airframe components probably havent been quantified yet)
Again whilst it is fair to say that anybody can bid for work, if a bid process is not used it's kind of difficult to enter the race. I stand to be corrected but wasnt the Carson acquisition a non bidded contract? (again for understandable timescale reasons). Maybe if WHL had bid for a SK re-blade the playing field may not have been level. Would a WHL proposal for a non Def Stan compliant blade been acceptable?, I guess we will never know.
I understand that the Carson blade purchase is a small number for part of the Mk4 fleet only so it might only be an interim acquisition whilst the real 'production' items are sourced which would give Industry in general the chance to bid for the long term solution
I hope that the RM aren't let down in all this
DM
Again whilst it is fair to say that anybody can bid for work, if a bid process is not used it's kind of difficult to enter the race. I stand to be corrected but wasnt the Carson acquisition a non bidded contract? (again for understandable timescale reasons). Maybe if WHL had bid for a SK re-blade the playing field may not have been level. Would a WHL proposal for a non Def Stan compliant blade been acceptable?, I guess we will never know.
I understand that the Carson blade purchase is a small number for part of the Mk4 fleet only so it might only be an interim acquisition whilst the real 'production' items are sourced which would give Industry in general the chance to bid for the long term solution
I hope that the RM aren't let down in all this
DM
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jungly AEO,
Oh deary me - so from all accounts you must be one of those earmarked to go and dont want to miss out on the chance of another gong on the chest. All this stuff about 'primitives surviving' and 'truisms of war' and 'going with what you have got' either smack of a swallowed staff college publication or a script from Blackadder.
The sad thing is that I really do hope that your optimism is right and that this post is pure drama queens making a mountain out of mole hill.
My thrust and passion (and very nearly a WEBF obsession) is that if we are as broke as not to equip our aircrew with the best, most technologically advanced, fighting, armed, defended, agile, manoeuvreable aircraft that the Her Majesty can get her hands on, then lets not spend the money on a half hearted attempt.
If at the end of the month I am that broke I dont go shopping - and if I really do need something at the end of the month, when the bank account is empty, I apply for a loan to ensure what I really need is properly done - or I go without.
When people's lives are at stake, this is a situation that requires the Treasury and the bean counters to put their hands in their pockets and stump up. There are CH47s out there and a US Foreign Military Sales will rapidly acquire them for us (that special relationship is not dead).
As to HMS OCEAN, folding heads, lifts - sorry - not convinced. The current 'war' for UK whether we like it or not is Afghanistan and Iraq, both do not need an Amphibious presence.
If those in positions of power were to take any risk it must surely be with the Amphib boys - if it is that strapped that it is piling everything into a committment without a ship in sight, then who cares about folding heads, lifts etc - lets win todays battle and let the procurement boys sort out the right aircraft with all of the bells and whistles when we have extricated ourselves from this 'War On Terror'.
Ironically, the Sea King (by its very name) is ideal at plugging the Amphib role where training must be continued for the wars of tomorrow. But in the interim (for this war - here and now - with troops in contact as we type), if both Canada and Australia are sourcing extra CH47s (and lets be honest this is what is really required in Theatre) then lets wake up, smell the coffee and give the Junglies 6 CH 47 to do the job properly.
I will get off my soap box, and I really do hope that the blades and mods provide what is required and all return home safely - there is no doubt that I will not mind one bit in being proven wrong on this one and if humble pie is required in the years ahead then I will eat it with a smile.
Now, if the CH47 is is too big and it is not lift that the boys on the ground want, but a smaller capability - then give the Junglies the 6 Dane Merlins. Not quite an HH-60 but better than a Sea King, even on steroids!
Fly safe
Oh deary me - so from all accounts you must be one of those earmarked to go and dont want to miss out on the chance of another gong on the chest. All this stuff about 'primitives surviving' and 'truisms of war' and 'going with what you have got' either smack of a swallowed staff college publication or a script from Blackadder.
The sad thing is that I really do hope that your optimism is right and that this post is pure drama queens making a mountain out of mole hill.
My thrust and passion (and very nearly a WEBF obsession) is that if we are as broke as not to equip our aircrew with the best, most technologically advanced, fighting, armed, defended, agile, manoeuvreable aircraft that the Her Majesty can get her hands on, then lets not spend the money on a half hearted attempt.
If at the end of the month I am that broke I dont go shopping - and if I really do need something at the end of the month, when the bank account is empty, I apply for a loan to ensure what I really need is properly done - or I go without.
When people's lives are at stake, this is a situation that requires the Treasury and the bean counters to put their hands in their pockets and stump up. There are CH47s out there and a US Foreign Military Sales will rapidly acquire them for us (that special relationship is not dead).
As to HMS OCEAN, folding heads, lifts - sorry - not convinced. The current 'war' for UK whether we like it or not is Afghanistan and Iraq, both do not need an Amphibious presence.
If those in positions of power were to take any risk it must surely be with the Amphib boys - if it is that strapped that it is piling everything into a committment without a ship in sight, then who cares about folding heads, lifts etc - lets win todays battle and let the procurement boys sort out the right aircraft with all of the bells and whistles when we have extricated ourselves from this 'War On Terror'.
Ironically, the Sea King (by its very name) is ideal at plugging the Amphib role where training must be continued for the wars of tomorrow. But in the interim (for this war - here and now - with troops in contact as we type), if both Canada and Australia are sourcing extra CH47s (and lets be honest this is what is really required in Theatre) then lets wake up, smell the coffee and give the Junglies 6 CH 47 to do the job properly.
I will get off my soap box, and I really do hope that the blades and mods provide what is required and all return home safely - there is no doubt that I will not mind one bit in being proven wrong on this one and if humble pie is required in the years ahead then I will eat it with a smile.
Now, if the CH47 is is too big and it is not lift that the boys on the ground want, but a smaller capability - then give the Junglies the 6 Dane Merlins. Not quite an HH-60 but better than a Sea King, even on steroids!
Fly safe
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 17th Aug 2007 at 21:22.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DangerMouse,
My point is that Def Stan and FAR29 are very different beasts. FAR plays no part whatsoever in Def Stan 'certification'. There are probably no aircraft in the entire inventory that are fully in 'compliance' with Def Stan anyway. The collected skills of the RTSA, IPT, QinetiQ, and Agusta Westland (yes, they ARE involved), will 'certify' the blades in an appropriate and rigorous way that will ensure that the blades are safe for use.
I was interested to know what the blade was certified against as it starts an interesting line of thought regarding compliances for military front line operations, as my previous thread tried to say (poorly I guess), it opens the door for a quicker acquisition route for equipment as full Def Stan compliance no longer appers to be compulsory, which can only help UK industry and the end user.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...erformance.htm
The Seaking HC4's out in Afghanistan have had the CARSON blades fitted as an UOR along with the new tail rotor.
The Seaking HC4's out in Afghanistan have had the CARSON blades fitted as an UOR along with the new tail rotor.
