Fury at Def Sec over Helicopter Shortage
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere
Age: 49
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Puma replacement
Nurse
What you have to remember the types history is not that bad if you how many hours they have acheived in the North Sea
Most of the machines had flown over 30,000 hours and just as many many landings
If the Puma and SK 4 are to be replaced what will they be replaced with and do you think the Puma fleet can hold out for that long as I understand the puma are strugling down in Iraq and Afganistan due to the heat and sand.
Will be intresting though to see how the govt are going to solve the shortage of helicopters in this difficult time
What you have to remember the types history is not that bad if you how many hours they have acheived in the North Sea
Most of the machines had flown over 30,000 hours and just as many many landings
If the Puma and SK 4 are to be replaced what will they be replaced with and do you think the Puma fleet can hold out for that long as I understand the puma are strugling down in Iraq and Afganistan due to the heat and sand.
Will be intresting though to see how the govt are going to solve the shortage of helicopters in this difficult time
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ocean, Bulwark and the Bays can all operate Chinooks as can the last remaining Sir class. However they have to carry them as deck cargo as the last 3 have no hangers and on ocean the chinook with fixed rotors is to big for the lift. Argus also has the same problem. I wonder will the lifts on the CVF get over the problem?
Pumaboy I am well aware of the superpumas superb history in the North Sea however the Sun & Daily Mail would have a field Day.
The refit of the Puma fleet is ment take them through to that date. The Puma isn't in Afghanistan with UK forces by the way. However is the SK4 isn't refitted it won't last till its replacement! I would sugest that part of the future support helecopter needs to be brought forward (unfortunatley there probably isn't the budget to do it) to start replacing SK4/5/6 now to provide continuity of capicity.
2 projects that should be looked at asap is folding rotor head for chinook and more powerful version of the RTM322 for fitting across the merlin fleet
Basic answer is this govt will do nothing or next to nothing to sort out the underlying problems of the armed forces.
Pumaboy I am well aware of the superpumas superb history in the North Sea however the Sun & Daily Mail would have a field Day.
The refit of the Puma fleet is ment take them through to that date. The Puma isn't in Afghanistan with UK forces by the way. However is the SK4 isn't refitted it won't last till its replacement! I would sugest that part of the future support helecopter needs to be brought forward (unfortunatley there probably isn't the budget to do it) to start replacing SK4/5/6 now to provide continuity of capicity.
2 projects that should be looked at asap is folding rotor head for chinook and more powerful version of the RTM322 for fitting across the merlin fleet
Basic answer is this govt will do nothing or next to nothing to sort out the underlying problems of the armed forces.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mainly a 12' by 12'
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are missing the point of the debate - who thinks in reality that we are pressing ahead with life extension programmes because its a fashionable thing to do rather than buy new aircraft. We have enough helicopters but we have chosen to be tight about how many we modify for deployment so we have an artificially small pool to deploy from - average 25% of total number of aircraft in (modified) fleet is the current rule of thumb. This is even used by Treasury when UORs get presented to ensure that the MOD is not pulling on over on them. We plan on 50 hours per month per airframe when actually they can be sweated more with the same number of crews and techs - we should be pushing for 60-65 hours per month.
Do you really think that the Treasury is handing out new money over and above the declared Defence Budget. The Puma life extension is cheaper than a new aircraft buy (by the time you fund all lines of development funded, new simulators, spares, support equipment, training courses etc) and is actually low risk in terms of aircraft returning to service with trained crews and techs waiting for it. It also fills a particular gap in the lift market between Lynx and Merlin. How many times have we bought new aircraft and not had enough trained crews (Apache) or enough spares (Merlin and probably every other type thinking about it). In fact forget the cost of buying the actual equipment as £7-8M for a Blackhawk seems cheap. The cost of running the fleets is the actual killer in budget terms and we are looking to reduce the number of fleets (and fleets within fleets hence all Lynx Mk9 being fitted with new engines rather than the original 12 from 22) - on this basis Blackhawk is a stillborn so get over it. Look at the successful fleets we already have and watch us increase numbers. Top tip - don't hold you breath for Sea King as it is currently lifting 3 pax in Afghan summer heat. The fixed costs of operating a specific fleet are what they are, the more aircraft and the flying hours that you achieve the more efficient and 'cheaper' it gets.
ranting gets you courts martialled and a loss of seniority!
Do you really think that the Treasury is handing out new money over and above the declared Defence Budget. The Puma life extension is cheaper than a new aircraft buy (by the time you fund all lines of development funded, new simulators, spares, support equipment, training courses etc) and is actually low risk in terms of aircraft returning to service with trained crews and techs waiting for it. It also fills a particular gap in the lift market between Lynx and Merlin. How many times have we bought new aircraft and not had enough trained crews (Apache) or enough spares (Merlin and probably every other type thinking about it). In fact forget the cost of buying the actual equipment as £7-8M for a Blackhawk seems cheap. The cost of running the fleets is the actual killer in budget terms and we are looking to reduce the number of fleets (and fleets within fleets hence all Lynx Mk9 being fitted with new engines rather than the original 12 from 22) - on this basis Blackhawk is a stillborn so get over it. Look at the successful fleets we already have and watch us increase numbers. Top tip - don't hold you breath for Sea King as it is currently lifting 3 pax in Afghan summer heat. The fixed costs of operating a specific fleet are what they are, the more aircraft and the flying hours that you achieve the more efficient and 'cheaper' it gets.
ranting gets you courts martialled and a loss of seniority!
The biggest problem with replacing the Puma / SK4 fleet is that whatever you get, it will have to lift an appreciable number (say half troop or 16) of Royals complete with bergens. Blackhawk won't do this, but neither CH47 or Merlin HC3/3A are suitable for prolonged shipboard use - non-folding aircraft knacker your deck spot/range and the Merlin has had all it's lashing points removed for weight-saving!
Gruntier RTM322s for Merlin are I believe a non-starter until the gearbox is uprated.
CVF lifts are sized for the Wokka, but thats irrelevant if you can't routinely operate it from the amphibs. Incidentally, the impact of CH47-sized lift size and spots pushes up the size of any future amphib ship (LHD type) considerably.......
Gruntier RTM322s for Merlin are I believe a non-starter until the gearbox is uprated.
CVF lifts are sized for the Wokka, but thats irrelevant if you can't routinely operate it from the amphibs. Incidentally, the impact of CH47-sized lift size and spots pushes up the size of any future amphib ship (LHD type) considerably.......
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boffin
The Italians have actually solved alot of the engineering issues with their transport variant of the Merlin with folding rotors and tails. The argument on here is the Merlin isn't powerful enough. I know the Italian aircraft has GE engines. And a better engine and gearbox would benefit the whole merlin fleet.
The Italians have actually solved alot of the engineering issues with their transport variant of the Merlin with folding rotors and tails. The argument on here is the Merlin isn't powerful enough. I know the Italian aircraft has GE engines. And a better engine and gearbox would benefit the whole merlin fleet.
Indeed, the IT amphib variant would definitely be the one to go for - danger is that the treasury would force a 3/3A follow-on build "for commonality" irrespective of whether they could be used afloat at all. Not sure that they've sorted the GB issue though and that is the limiter in terms of power.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Trap 3
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotary Ramit......
You present a very good argument for the Puma case, perhaps a little too well informed to be a casual observer (pprune 'lurker' since Jul 2006 but only 1 post in 3 years)?
Would you care to explain what you mean by this comment, exactly?
You present a very good argument for the Puma case, perhaps a little too well informed to be a casual observer (pprune 'lurker' since Jul 2006 but only 1 post in 3 years)?
Originally Posted by Rotary Ramit
ranting gets you courts martialled and a loss of seniority!
Modern Elmo,
Would you really want to be the launch customer for an SH S-92? The Canadians are not exactly enamoured with the CH-148 at the moment, though admittedly the mission system seems to be the cause of many of the problems.
S-92 is bigger inside than a UH-60, but it seems to have lost some of the ruggedness of the -60 as a trade to make it light enough to be viable commercially.
That said, there are some attractive points to the S-92. A decent, though not huge, cabin. It seems very economical to run, and is producing impressive availability stats. As it is a likely platform for SAR-H it would ease the training LoD and cross-fertilisation between SAR and SH. However, it would not be quick to modify the -92 to a UK spec (comms/DAS etc) let alone jumping through the Def Stan hoops.....
Would you really want to be the launch customer for an SH S-92? The Canadians are not exactly enamoured with the CH-148 at the moment, though admittedly the mission system seems to be the cause of many of the problems.
S-92 is bigger inside than a UH-60, but it seems to have lost some of the ruggedness of the -60 as a trade to make it light enough to be viable commercially.
That said, there are some attractive points to the S-92. A decent, though not huge, cabin. It seems very economical to run, and is producing impressive availability stats. As it is a likely platform for SAR-H it would ease the training LoD and cross-fertilisation between SAR and SH. However, it would not be quick to modify the -92 to a UK spec (comms/DAS etc) let alone jumping through the Def Stan hoops.....
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, it would not be quick to modify the -92 to a UK spec (comms/DAS etc)
Oh, but UK avionics specs and software acceptance testing make it all so much better.
Or, how about modernized CH-46's?
CH-46 Sea Knight Helicopter
Oh, but UK avionics specs and software acceptance testing make it all so much better.
Or, how about modernized CH-46's?
CH-46 Sea Knight Helicopter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check out the Model 347 Chinook variant here:
The Boeing Sea Knight & Chinook
Scroll down a little from the top.
The Boeing Sea Knight & Chinook
Scroll down a little from the top.
This is great.
Collectively we are members of a bankrupt organisation with little chance of recovery in the short to medium term.
And yet, the RN are deciding where to base their new CH47. 3 Cdo Bde are a very potent force, yet they are one of several brigades, all requiring airlift support.
Collectively we are members of a bankrupt organisation with little chance of recovery in the short to medium term.
And yet, the RN are deciding where to base their new CH47. 3 Cdo Bde are a very potent force, yet they are one of several brigades, all requiring airlift support.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry if posted already:
Latest from Michael Yon's website (On board a UK Chinook):
Our helicopter roars in at low level. The cargo is not strapped down so that we can exit quickly. So loaded is the helicopter that the tail gunner sits on a box of cargo. The lack of helicopters have left soldiers on FOB Jackson without mail for three weeks, while other soldiers have been stuck here for at least two weeks while trying to get back to Bastion. The lack of helicopters is making this and other places into 'FOB Hotel Californias.' Even General Officers are having difficulty getting helicopters out of the main base at FOB Bastion. A British officer told me that the British military refused to haul Prime Minister Gordon Brown, citing lack of helicopter lift. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Gordon Brown insists that we have enough helicopters. He is wrong.
Latest from Michael Yon's website (On board a UK Chinook):
Our helicopter roars in at low level. The cargo is not strapped down so that we can exit quickly. So loaded is the helicopter that the tail gunner sits on a box of cargo. The lack of helicopters have left soldiers on FOB Jackson without mail for three weeks, while other soldiers have been stuck here for at least two weeks while trying to get back to Bastion. The lack of helicopters is making this and other places into 'FOB Hotel Californias.' Even General Officers are having difficulty getting helicopters out of the main base at FOB Bastion. A British officer told me that the British military refused to haul Prime Minister Gordon Brown, citing lack of helicopter lift. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Gordon Brown insists that we have enough helicopters. He is wrong.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cargo is not strapped down ...
? Wonder if that's really the case?
About the shortage of helos: maybe the British Army should share some of the blame for not asking harder sooner. I don't mean more lift for only this specific operation. One gets the impression that your army has been somewhat reluctant to get its collective head and arms around the air cavalry/airmobile concept.
? Wonder if that's really the case?
About the shortage of helos: maybe the British Army should share some of the blame for not asking harder sooner. I don't mean more lift for only this specific operation. One gets the impression that your army has been somewhat reluctant to get its collective head and arms around the air cavalry/airmobile concept.
