U.K. May Drop Helo Life Extension, Advance Medium-Lift Craft
Seems to me that there are significant differences between all 3 & no doubt each type has their place in the scheme of things but am I right in saying that only the Merlin can be deployed at sea for long periods (inc having the capability to be rotors folded automatically & struck down in to a ships hangar)?
Current theatres involve either hot, or hot and high performance and thats where the other airframes fall down.
The Merlin has done a good job in Iraq, but at altitudes not far above sea level. Afg is far above this.
Whatever is purchased needs to have good hot and high performance, which narrows down the field somewhat.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nr.EGHI, UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Last-minute" Review!
“The last-minute review of the program extending the life of much of the Puma fleet and some versions of the Sea King was revealed by Defence Procurement Minister Quentin Davis while he gave evidence on helicopter capabilities [on] June 2…”
Would it be a surprise if the review were to last until sometime into early 2010, then the results being considered into May 2010 then, oh, wait one!! General election and it’s no longer his (Davis') problem.
Would it be a surprise if the review were to last until sometime into early 2010, then the results being considered into May 2010 then, oh, wait one!! General election and it’s no longer his (Davis') problem.
Last edited by Sgt.Slabber; 4th Jun 2009 at 16:42. Reason: remove some formatting bits - original was written in MS Word
Fully support the arguments re pax/payload so far. Wildcat/SH60 are irrelevant in this as we're talking medium lift.
One of the drivers for medium lift is going to be the amphibious force requirements for getting bods ashore. Unless you go to a lot of airframes (and consequently spots) Lynx/Seahawk/NH90 ain't going to cut it.
Similarly, because one of the drivers is the CHF component of JHF, they still have to go to sea and hence get marinised. As MGD suggests, the wokka has done sterling work embarked, but whether that would be sustainable for several weeks is another question. When dealing with SHF HQ in 2007, none of them appeared to know what BR766 was or how it could assist them.......
Which brings us to AW's finest, Mr Merlin. HC3/3A impose exactly the same demands on ships as the Wokka. None of it folds and putting folding mechanisms on it will probably compromise performance (even the tie-down points have been removed to save weight). HC3/3A will therefore not do - we would need another variant keeping as much commonaility as possible, but getting over the emb8ggerances.
Or we could go CH53K...........
One of the drivers for medium lift is going to be the amphibious force requirements for getting bods ashore. Unless you go to a lot of airframes (and consequently spots) Lynx/Seahawk/NH90 ain't going to cut it.
Similarly, because one of the drivers is the CHF component of JHF, they still have to go to sea and hence get marinised. As MGD suggests, the wokka has done sterling work embarked, but whether that would be sustainable for several weeks is another question. When dealing with SHF HQ in 2007, none of them appeared to know what BR766 was or how it could assist them.......
Which brings us to AW's finest, Mr Merlin. HC3/3A impose exactly the same demands on ships as the Wokka. None of it folds and putting folding mechanisms on it will probably compromise performance (even the tie-down points have been removed to save weight). HC3/3A will therefore not do - we would need another variant keeping as much commonaility as possible, but getting over the emb8ggerances.
Or we could go CH53K...........
When dealing with SHF HQ in 2007, none of them appeared to know what BR766 was or how it could assist them.......
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Temporarily unsure of precise position
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BR 766 - the RN's big book of ships? You learn something new every day!
In this heartening spirit of full disclosure, one for the BALOs out there:
BS 666 - the Puma fleet's big book of b*llocks excuses for why they never do any UK tasking!
Standing by for incoming...
In this heartening spirit of full disclosure, one for the BALOs out there:
BS 666 - the Puma fleet's big book of b*llocks excuses for why they never do any UK tasking!
Standing by for incoming...
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me that there are significant differences between all 3 & no doubt each type has their place in the scheme of things but am I right in saying that only the Merlin can be deployed at sea for long periods (inc having the capability to be rotors folded automatically & struck down in to a ships hangar)?
SH-60B Seahawk
The SH-60B "Seahawk" is a single main rotor, twin-engine helicopter, manufactured by the United Technologies Corporation, Sikorsky Aircraft Division. The helicopter has a 20deg tractor-type canted tail rotor, a controllable stabilator, conventional fixed landing gear, emergency flotation, an external cargo hook, a rescue hoist, and bomb racks for carrying and launching external stores. In addition, it is equipped with a flight-rated auxiliary power unit, a sonobuoy-launch system, an anti-ice system, a fire-extinguishing system, an environmental control system, an automatic flight control system (AFCS), a single-point pressure refueling system, a helicopter in-flight refueling (HIFR) system, and the necessary avionics and instrumentation for instrument flight and mission accomplishment. The helicopter design is compatible with ships equipped with a recovery, assist, securing and traversing (RAST) system, and the main rotor blades and tail pylon can be folded for storage. In addition, the helicopter can operate on non-RAST equipped combatants and a variety of other naval ships.
Dimensions
The overall aircraft dimensions and clearances are:
Folded Length (rotor/tail pylon)------------------40 ft 11 in.
Rotor folded length (pylon flight position)-------53 ft 3 in.
Length overall (rotors turning)-------------------64 ft 10 in.
Fuselage length-----------------------------------50 ft 0 in.
Height--------------------------------------------17 ft 0 in.
Fuselage width-------------------------------------7 ft 9 in.
Folded width -------------------------------------10 ft 7 in.
Main rotor diameter-------------------------------53 ft 8 in.
Tail rotor diameter-------------------------------11 ft 0 in.
Ground clearance--------------------------------------11.2 in.
Turning radius------------------------------------41 ft 7 in.
Clearance for 180'--------------------------------84 ft 0 in.
The Engines
The helicopter is equipped with two T700-GE-401C engines. The T700-GE-40lC is a front-drive turboshaft engine, manufactured by the General Electric Company, Aircraft Engine Group. Some of the features of the engine include an integral inlet particle separator and self-contained systems incorporating modular construction. At sea level and 59'F (15'C), the T700-GE-401C shaft horsepower ratings are:
Contingency: 2-1/2 Min. duration...............1940
Intermediate: 30 Min duration..................1800
Max Continuous: No Limit.......................1662
...
SH-60B Seahawk Helicopter
The Seahawk has never been used as a troop transport/air assault helo, nor has the USMC ever asked for any Blackhawks. It's not a matter of technology. USMC insists on a larger nominal squad size than the US Army.
If the British Army wanted Chinooks with powered folding rotors, I'm sure that that is technically feasible. Or why not just buy some CH-53K's ... or V-22's? Maybe Westlands can build 'em under license. Should be up and running in no time.
SH-60B Seahawk
The SH-60B "Seahawk" is a single main rotor, twin-engine helicopter, manufactured by the United Technologies Corporation, Sikorsky Aircraft Division. The helicopter has a 20deg tractor-type canted tail rotor, a controllable stabilator, conventional fixed landing gear, emergency flotation, an external cargo hook, a rescue hoist, and bomb racks for carrying and launching external stores. In addition, it is equipped with a flight-rated auxiliary power unit, a sonobuoy-launch system, an anti-ice system, a fire-extinguishing system, an environmental control system, an automatic flight control system (AFCS), a single-point pressure refueling system, a helicopter in-flight refueling (HIFR) system, and the necessary avionics and instrumentation for instrument flight and mission accomplishment. The helicopter design is compatible with ships equipped with a recovery, assist, securing and traversing (RAST) system, and the main rotor blades and tail pylon can be folded for storage. In addition, the helicopter can operate on non-RAST equipped combatants and a variety of other naval ships.
Dimensions
The overall aircraft dimensions and clearances are:
Folded Length (rotor/tail pylon)------------------40 ft 11 in.
Rotor folded length (pylon flight position)-------53 ft 3 in.
Length overall (rotors turning)-------------------64 ft 10 in.
Fuselage length-----------------------------------50 ft 0 in.
Height--------------------------------------------17 ft 0 in.
Fuselage width-------------------------------------7 ft 9 in.
Folded width -------------------------------------10 ft 7 in.
Main rotor diameter-------------------------------53 ft 8 in.
Tail rotor diameter-------------------------------11 ft 0 in.
Ground clearance--------------------------------------11.2 in.
Turning radius------------------------------------41 ft 7 in.
Clearance for 180'--------------------------------84 ft 0 in.
The Engines
The helicopter is equipped with two T700-GE-401C engines. The T700-GE-40lC is a front-drive turboshaft engine, manufactured by the General Electric Company, Aircraft Engine Group. Some of the features of the engine include an integral inlet particle separator and self-contained systems incorporating modular construction. At sea level and 59'F (15'C), the T700-GE-401C shaft horsepower ratings are:
Contingency: 2-1/2 Min. duration...............1940
Intermediate: 30 Min duration..................1800
Max Continuous: No Limit.......................1662
...
SH-60B Seahawk Helicopter
The Seahawk has never been used as a troop transport/air assault helo, nor has the USMC ever asked for any Blackhawks. It's not a matter of technology. USMC insists on a larger nominal squad size than the US Army.
If the British Army wanted Chinooks with powered folding rotors, I'm sure that that is technically feasible. Or why not just buy some CH-53K's ... or V-22's? Maybe Westlands can build 'em under license. Should be up and running in no time.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Chinook was so easy to convert to use on a carrier wouldn't beoing be doing that as an option? or do we want to see another Chinook HC3 level balls up.
Don't the Italian Navy already have the assualt version with all the folding bits so why not produce a UK version of that to replace Sea King?
Don't the Italian Navy already have the assualt version with all the folding bits so why not produce a UK version of that to replace Sea King?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NURSE
"If Chinook was so easy to convert to use on a carrier wouldn't beoing be doing that as an option?"
as opposed to earning billions from the v22 development, not bloody likely
lets face it manual Chinook rotor fold would be very useful at a fraction of a fraction of the cost of the V22
"If Chinook was so easy to convert to use on a carrier wouldn't beoing be doing that as an option?"
as opposed to earning billions from the v22 development, not bloody likely
lets face it manual Chinook rotor fold would be very useful at a fraction of a fraction of the cost of the V22
Last edited by knowitall; 7th Jun 2009 at 00:49.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes and if it was so simple I would sugest the USMC would have had chinooks in the 70's/80's instead of the CH53 and the osprey programme would have been a non starter! Remember the chinook has been around a long time we're comparitive new commers to it.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Southern England
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don’t usually post on this site but I think a little balance is required here! Lots of Apples and Oranges being compared; new aircraft with old!
My gut feeling is if the UK was looking for a cheap but capable helicopter to replace the Puma and Sea King, it wouldn't go far wrong with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC_725. It may look like a Puma, but it is a completely different beast. In fact, it is so good and so reliable (after all, it's had 40 years of improvement) that its giving them a big problem in trying to sell the NH90, a helicopter it outperforms. It has none of the vices of the present Puma but many of the virtues. It has powerful engines with anticipators and a wider undercarriage that allows ship borne ops. http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/military/utility/1733.html
EC are building them at a fast rate of knots down at Marignane and, because there are some 600 of the family in service, spares and through-life costs are great value. Despite the recent incident in the North Sea, it is likely to be the aircraft of choice for the off-shore oil business for the foreseeable future. Brazil has just procured 50 of them at about £15M a go which compares very favourably with the £10M (published price of £300M divided by 30) we are about to spend on refurbing the present fleet.
I don't see why we should always buy from Westland. We need an on-shore capability for sure and there is a great argument for not exporting money to other countries unnecessarily through imports. However, they got the WildCat deal without competition, in order to retain a DA capability and the DIS specifically stated that we would continue to look to the international helicopter market where necessary. As the second biggest defence exporter in the world, we adopt a protectionist stance at our peril.
With the AW149 being a high risk option technically, Black Hawk being too small internally, Merlin being too big for some roles and almost twice as expensive, the 725 is not the bad option that has been portrayed on this thread . The price and the fact the production line is already up and running (and possibly could be duplicated in this country as the supply chain is already in place) make it a good runner.
By the way, I don't work for EC, have any connection with the programme or have any vested interests! Just think some balance is required.
My gut feeling is if the UK was looking for a cheap but capable helicopter to replace the Puma and Sea King, it wouldn't go far wrong with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC_725. It may look like a Puma, but it is a completely different beast. In fact, it is so good and so reliable (after all, it's had 40 years of improvement) that its giving them a big problem in trying to sell the NH90, a helicopter it outperforms. It has none of the vices of the present Puma but many of the virtues. It has powerful engines with anticipators and a wider undercarriage that allows ship borne ops. http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/military/utility/1733.html
EC are building them at a fast rate of knots down at Marignane and, because there are some 600 of the family in service, spares and through-life costs are great value. Despite the recent incident in the North Sea, it is likely to be the aircraft of choice for the off-shore oil business for the foreseeable future. Brazil has just procured 50 of them at about £15M a go which compares very favourably with the £10M (published price of £300M divided by 30) we are about to spend on refurbing the present fleet.
I don't see why we should always buy from Westland. We need an on-shore capability for sure and there is a great argument for not exporting money to other countries unnecessarily through imports. However, they got the WildCat deal without competition, in order to retain a DA capability and the DIS specifically stated that we would continue to look to the international helicopter market where necessary. As the second biggest defence exporter in the world, we adopt a protectionist stance at our peril.
With the AW149 being a high risk option technically, Black Hawk being too small internally, Merlin being too big for some roles and almost twice as expensive, the 725 is not the bad option that has been portrayed on this thread . The price and the fact the production line is already up and running (and possibly could be duplicated in this country as the supply chain is already in place) make it a good runner.
By the way, I don't work for EC, have any connection with the programme or have any vested interests! Just think some balance is required.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ummm... the CH-53E carries more personnel and internal cargo than CH-47D... as did the CH-53A vs CH-47A & CH-53D vs CH-47C.
Total payload is also larger, so why should the USMC want the less-capable of the two?
CH-53K vs CH-47F is a much greater difference!
Total payload is also larger, so why should the USMC want the less-capable of the two?
CH-53K vs CH-47F is a much greater difference!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don’t usually post on this site but I think a little balance is required here! Lots of Apples and Oranges being compared; new aircraft with old!
My gut feeling is if the UK was looking for a cheap but capable helicopter to replace the Puma and Sea King, it wouldn't go far wrong with this Eurocopter EC 725 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It may look like a Puma, but it is a completely different beast. In fact, it is so good and so reliable (after all, it's had 40 years of improvement) that its giving them a big problem in trying to sell the NH90, a helicopter it outperforms. It has none of the vices of the present Puma but many of the virtues. It has powerful engines with anticipators and a wider undercarriage that allows ship borne ops. Rotor & Wing Magazine :: Helicopter Intellect
EC are building them at a fast rate of knots down at Marignane and, because there are some 600 of the family in service, spares and through-life costs are great value. Despite the recent incident in the North Sea, it is likely to be the aircraft of choice for the off-shore oil business for the foreseeable future. Brazil has just procured 50 of them at about £15M a go which compares very favourably with the £10M (published price of £300M divided by 30) we are about to spend on refurbing the present fleet.
I don't see why we should always buy from Westland. We need an on-shore capability for sure and there is a great argument for not exporting money to other countries unnecessarily through imports. However, they got the WildCat deal without competition, in order to retain a DA capability and the DIS specifically stated that we would continue to look to the international helicopter market where necessary. As the second biggest defence exporter in the world, we adopt a protectionist stance at our peril.
With the AW149 being a high risk option technically, Black Hawk being too small internally, Merlin being too big for some roles and almost twice as expensive, the 725 is not the bad option that has been portrayed on this thread . The price and the fact the production line is already up and running (and possibly could be duplicated in this country as the supply chain is already in place) make it a good runner.
By the way, I don't work for EC, have any connection with the programme or have any vested interests! Just think some balance is required.
My gut feeling is if the UK was looking for a cheap but capable helicopter to replace the Puma and Sea King, it wouldn't go far wrong with this Eurocopter EC 725 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It may look like a Puma, but it is a completely different beast. In fact, it is so good and so reliable (after all, it's had 40 years of improvement) that its giving them a big problem in trying to sell the NH90, a helicopter it outperforms. It has none of the vices of the present Puma but many of the virtues. It has powerful engines with anticipators and a wider undercarriage that allows ship borne ops. Rotor & Wing Magazine :: Helicopter Intellect
EC are building them at a fast rate of knots down at Marignane and, because there are some 600 of the family in service, spares and through-life costs are great value. Despite the recent incident in the North Sea, it is likely to be the aircraft of choice for the off-shore oil business for the foreseeable future. Brazil has just procured 50 of them at about £15M a go which compares very favourably with the £10M (published price of £300M divided by 30) we are about to spend on refurbing the present fleet.
I don't see why we should always buy from Westland. We need an on-shore capability for sure and there is a great argument for not exporting money to other countries unnecessarily through imports. However, they got the WildCat deal without competition, in order to retain a DA capability and the DIS specifically stated that we would continue to look to the international helicopter market where necessary. As the second biggest defence exporter in the world, we adopt a protectionist stance at our peril.
With the AW149 being a high risk option technically, Black Hawk being too small internally, Merlin being too big for some roles and almost twice as expensive, the 725 is not the bad option that has been portrayed on this thread . The price and the fact the production line is already up and running (and possibly could be duplicated in this country as the supply chain is already in place) make it a good runner.
By the way, I don't work for EC, have any connection with the programme or have any vested interests! Just think some balance is required.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Out in the big bad world
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a plan for the French to visit a Naval Air Station in darkest Somerset with an EC725 or 775 back in 2006. Unfortunately, the nearby helicopter factory got wind of it and threw all of their toys out of the cot. This was probably due to their utter outrage that the military would have a look at a capable, affordable helo and would therefore think twice about accepting the overpriced pap that the company were producing. 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't surprise me at all. If sucessive govts had invested in R&D and not postponed buys or cut back buys of Kit Westland's might be in a better state but then Support Hele has always been a cinderella part of the RAF (despite it having been almost continuously on ops since the 1960's)as it isn't Fast Jets. Wonder if there will ever be a CAS from support Helecopters?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
