Helicopter Replacements?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest as of this month:-
http://www.publications.parliament.u...70912w0006.htm
Scroll down to near the bottom.
"Progressively retiring the Gazelle"
To replaced progressively with?? Exactly my points.
Why is it with this Government they are hell bent on retiring aircraft either progressively or lately, en-masse and not having anything to replace them with?
http://www.publications.parliament.u...70912w0006.htm
Scroll down to near the bottom.
"Progressively retiring the Gazelle"
To replaced progressively with?? Exactly my points.
Why is it with this Government they are hell bent on retiring aircraft either progressively or lately, en-masse and not having anything to replace them with?
Razor,
What do we need a gazelle sized helo for anyway, esp as OP Banner is dead. The apache has its own sensors, we are buying many new ISTAR assets, defender, king air, ASTOR, predator all of which have longer legs and decent sensors. Do we need a small unarmed recce helo with no self-defence capability?
NO - we need LIFT capabilty, and LOTS of it, not a generals' taxi.
What do we need a gazelle sized helo for anyway, esp as OP Banner is dead. The apache has its own sensors, we are buying many new ISTAR assets, defender, king air, ASTOR, predator all of which have longer legs and decent sensors. Do we need a small unarmed recce helo with no self-defence capability?
NO - we need LIFT capabilty, and LOTS of it, not a generals' taxi.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite so, but we could also do with a natty Police style helo that can sit on overwatch for our boys on the ground when they are busting Iraqi's front doors in (glad I said 'front'
).
Mis-use of Sea King 4 & others for this role is denuding the force commander of Lift.
).Mis-use of Sea King 4 & others for this role is denuding the force commander of Lift.
Fair one, but I'd rather have an Apache with night sensors a cannon and Helfire if it were me on the ground. Maybe a few extra apache and crews to ease the burden? Pred on overwatch?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Valid point but the Lynx has also been scaled down dramatically. With orders to replace them as we have seen by a number not tallying up with what we get rid off.
Surely there is a need for a Lynx size cab on the battlefield still yet they are not replacing the Lynx with a great number are they?
The Mk3 Chinooks, when they come into service will be a big enhacement in capability but wait till it happens, the older Chinooks will end up being mothballed and so we will be back to square one again with the same amount of airframes, albeit a few slightly newer...not necessarily working.
With Predator, we only have a limited number (as usual) procuring a small amount. They can't all be in the same area as our troops are operating at the same time. What's the procurement, 4?
We buy Apache, and get rid of the Lynx TOW capability. Yet the Apaches can't as above be in the same area at the same time to provide overwatch to our troops. Because we always field too little...The Lynx which could have been ferrying small squads around could also provide fire support (like it did in Iraq with the Gazelle) with the TOW.
The US Army does not rely on just the Apache or Predator to provide a watch. They arm their UH-60s, OH-58D's etc with Hellfires and TOW and guns as do other NATO countries, so there must be a need for it?
Surely there is a need for a Lynx size cab on the battlefield still yet they are not replacing the Lynx with a great number are they?
The Mk3 Chinooks, when they come into service will be a big enhacement in capability but wait till it happens, the older Chinooks will end up being mothballed and so we will be back to square one again with the same amount of airframes, albeit a few slightly newer...not necessarily working.
With Predator, we only have a limited number (as usual) procuring a small amount. They can't all be in the same area as our troops are operating at the same time. What's the procurement, 4?
We buy Apache, and get rid of the Lynx TOW capability. Yet the Apaches can't as above be in the same area at the same time to provide overwatch to our troops. Because we always field too little...The Lynx which could have been ferrying small squads around could also provide fire support (like it did in Iraq with the Gazelle) with the TOW.
The US Army does not rely on just the Apache or Predator to provide a watch. They arm their UH-60s, OH-58D's etc with Hellfires and TOW and guns as do other NATO countries, so there must be a need for it?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair one, but I'd rather have an Apache with night sensors a cannon and Helfire if it were me on the ground. Maybe a few extra apache and crews to ease the burden? Pred on overwatch?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what I'm saying is that what we need is ISTAR (not necessarily a helo job), a big helicopter for moving lots of stuff around, a smaller, cheaper helicopter for moving less stuff around and a helicopter that can blow the t!ts off of anything it needs to. Chinook, [Super] Puma/UH-60/NH-90(?)/Mi-8/17 ( 
) and Apache (athough I think AH-1W would have been better in the current climate) seems to be a possible set of solutions.
) and Apache (athough I think AH-1W would have been better in the current climate) seems to be a possible set of solutions.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's wrong with the Merlin HC3? And please don't say "What's right with it" 
The same issue i stated above with the Lynx having it's TOW capability taken away (I'm sure some lads out in those sandy places wish they had a TOW now and then on the Lynx when the Apaches have been elsewhere). Is the same issue (albeit slightly different) with the Warrior IFV not being fitted with a TOW Box either.
Look how useful the TOW was/is in Iraq fitted to the Bradleys and of course it would be in Afghanistan against bunkers and other nuisance targets.
The Kuwaiti's fitted one to the Warrior so why didn't we?
The same goes to firing ports, every country utilises these on their IFV, yet we don't and the new Mastiffs we acquired, the ports were covered over so anyone inside can't see **** apart from a CCTV image which is blurry because of the movement of the vehicle.
We start to procure equipment half way through a conflict then it's slow in getting there...and .... we have Chinooks sitting at Boscombe with cobwebs just because of an avionics issue....and to get them into theatre we are downgrading their capability to do so.
The same issue i stated above with the Lynx having it's TOW capability taken away (I'm sure some lads out in those sandy places wish they had a TOW now and then on the Lynx when the Apaches have been elsewhere). Is the same issue (albeit slightly different) with the Warrior IFV not being fitted with a TOW Box either.
Look how useful the TOW was/is in Iraq fitted to the Bradleys and of course it would be in Afghanistan against bunkers and other nuisance targets.
The Kuwaiti's fitted one to the Warrior so why didn't we?
The same goes to firing ports, every country utilises these on their IFV, yet we don't and the new Mastiffs we acquired, the ports were covered over so anyone inside can't see **** apart from a CCTV image which is blurry because of the movement of the vehicle.
We start to procure equipment half way through a conflict then it's slow in getting there...and .... we have Chinooks sitting at Boscombe with cobwebs just because of an avionics issue....and to get them into theatre we are downgrading their capability to do so.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
The Mk3 Chinooks, when they come into service will be a big enhacement in capability but wait till it happens, the older Chinooks will end up being mothballed and so we will be back to square one again...
The re-engineered Mk3 Chinooks are still set to be issued to the sqn they were originally destined for with the Chinooks that will be displaced being re-introduced to 18/27 pool so that the operational workload can be spread across a larger fleet. There are no plans to mothball any Chinooks, at least there wasn't last time Harry Staish at Odious had a chat with us.
I believe (although someone with a more engineering based background may be able to confirm or deny this) that the limiting factor on the Chinook fleet isn't the age of the actual airframes but the availability of parts, which as the Chinook lines are still open shouldn't technically be an issue.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO a Pred B is a bit wizzy and quick to be providing static ISTAR coverage of a Single Op in a set location in a built up area isn't it? Hence the need for a helo type asset.
I suppose that that helo type asset cold be FireScout UAV or suchlike, but what happens when it all goes to ratsh!t on the ground and troops need immediate evac? A manned asset could potentially drop in and pull out any troops needing immediate medivac.
And what's wrong with Merlin? Nothing per se, but I would hate to use it for conducting overwatch using an IR turret over Basrah when it can be put to better use ferrying troops, equipment etc.
I suppose that that helo type asset cold be FireScout UAV or suchlike, but what happens when it all goes to ratsh!t on the ground and troops need immediate evac? A manned asset could potentially drop in and pull out any troops needing immediate medivac.
And what's wrong with Merlin? Nothing per se, but I would hate to use it for conducting overwatch using an IR turret over Basrah when it can be put to better use ferrying troops, equipment etc.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sitting on the toilet of Europe.... the UK
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"And what's wrong with Merlin? Nothing per se, but I would hate to use it for conducting overwatch using an IR turret over Basrah when it can be put to better use ferrying troops, equipment etc."
Agreed, Leave the Bus duties to bus drivers and put aviators with balls of steel over the threat!
Agreed, Leave the Bus duties to bus drivers and put aviators with balls of steel over the threat!
Faithess,
biting now: why does it take more balls to fly heavily armed/armoured AH in support of our lads on the ground than a lightly armed and (in most cases) unarmoured SH?
We all have our role, and they all take balls.
biting now: why does it take more balls to fly heavily armed/armoured AH in support of our lads on the ground than a lightly armed and (in most cases) unarmoured SH?
We all have our role, and they all take balls.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Razor61
Nothing wrong with the machine, crews or system per se, but we just don't need it. Big helo, small helo and nails helo are the requirement, so why get 2 big helos?
Mr-AEO
Nope. Target soak time, consistency of coverage (refuel anyone?) and operating costs are all in its favour. Also, I doubt it will be covering just one op - several consecutive ops in a (or several) large urban area(s) can be covered very well by it.
All those things are covered by other assets already - for example, CASEVAC is covered by whichever type inserted the troops in the first place or by short-readiness helos at other nearby locations. Do you think the troops want to lose their ISTAR cover for any period of time, even for CASEVAC? Answer is no, not unless absolutely necessary: it's what's watching their backs.
What's wrong with the Merlin HC3? And please don't say "What's right with it"
Mr-AEO
IMHO a Pred B is a bit wizzy and quick to be providing static ISTAR coverage of a Single Op in a set location in a built up area isn't it?
I suppose that that helo type asset cold be FireScout UAV or suchlike, but what happens when it all goes to ratsh!t on the ground and troops need immediate evac? A manned asset could potentially drop in and pull out any troops needing immediate medivac.
Marly Lite quite true, however I remain unconvinced that the AAC see it that way...However I am sure they don't have all the balls of steel in theater as theres bound to be some on 'inabilities' in the logs chain...
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merlin HC3
OK, I'm going to bite now: "Nothing wrong with the Merlin,... but we just don't need it".
I thought we needed all the lift we could get. In case it has escaped your attention, we are long past the stage of deciding whether to buy EH101 or mor Chinooks - that was back in the mid-90s. Yes, more Chinook would have given more lift per £, but that's not everything and the decision has been made so let's get on with it and make the best of what we have rather than carping about what might have been. Arguably, in an AOR like southern Iraq, the Merlin is actually better placed than Chinook with almost 4 hours of internal fuel and a cabin conditioning system for the summer (not that it makes a heap of difference!). It's also faster, smoother and (again arguably) better protected.
What should we buy next? Well, that depends on the requirement. There is overlap in the capabilities of CH47 and Merlin, but if the requirement is to secure continued employment levels in Yeovil if FLynx doesn't make the cut in sufficient numbers then we may get more Merlin. Not as good as getting more Chinook, but by no means a disaster.
I thought we needed all the lift we could get. In case it has escaped your attention, we are long past the stage of deciding whether to buy EH101 or mor Chinooks - that was back in the mid-90s. Yes, more Chinook would have given more lift per £, but that's not everything and the decision has been made so let's get on with it and make the best of what we have rather than carping about what might have been. Arguably, in an AOR like southern Iraq, the Merlin is actually better placed than Chinook with almost 4 hours of internal fuel and a cabin conditioning system for the summer (not that it makes a heap of difference!). It's also faster, smoother and (again arguably) better protected.
What should we buy next? Well, that depends on the requirement. There is overlap in the capabilities of CH47 and Merlin, but if the requirement is to secure continued employment levels in Yeovil if FLynx doesn't make the cut in sufficient numbers then we may get more Merlin. Not as good as getting more Chinook, but by no means a disaster.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought one point in reply to Mr AEO would be that your typical UK police helos don't have a SAM/AAA threat. Well, not yet I suppose...
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure,
Obviously any manned RW surveillance helo would need appropriate DAS. The same applies for loitering UAV's.
My main point is: stop using LIFT helo's for ISTAR.
Get rid of Gazelle (chocolate fireguard) and use the money for something else.
Obviously any manned RW surveillance helo would need appropriate DAS. The same applies for loitering UAV's.
My main point is: stop using LIFT helo's for ISTAR.
Get rid of Gazelle (chocolate fireguard) and use the money for something else.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Occasional Aviator
Agreed that either Chinook or Merlin could fill the role, and also agreed that we need all the lift we can get, but we do not need two logs chains supporting one role - that reduces the funds available for front line aircraft. One (effective) logs chain means more aircraft available than two (effective) logs chains. This may be our transition period from CH-47 to Merlin, but I doubt it (and I don't really care which we keep - I fly something else entirely ). Either way, keeping both types reduces our total lift capability.
Agreed that either Chinook or Merlin could fill the role, and also agreed that we need all the lift we can get, but we do not need two logs chains supporting one role - that reduces the funds available for front line aircraft. One (effective) logs chain means more aircraft available than two (effective) logs chains. This may be our transition period from CH-47 to Merlin, but I doubt it (and I don't really care which we keep - I fly something else entirely
). Either way, keeping both types reduces our total lift capability.