Fury at Def Sec over Helicopter Shortage
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now back in blighty - and gosh I can see that there is so much activity as the whole MoD/DEC ALM and IPT rapidly spin up to solve the shortage of lift capability - or answer B!
So any opportunity to rectify and respond to the shortage of lift has been kicked into the long grass where those that do not support the military or do not want to open H M Treasury purse strings sigh with relief that at last the media has moved onto other stories - despite the fact that the essential requirement has not been removed and that the troops on the ground still do not have the choice to move, re-supply or patrol with the assistance of helicopter lift.
In response to minigundiplomat's post - we are from the same organisation and although I agree that there is more than one brigade out there, just look how JHC had us wed to 16 Air Assault Brigade, with other brigades not getting a look in. Although we in the Chinook force are aligned to 16 Air Assault brigade, we do support many other organisations. I believe that if the Fisheads got CH47 (with or without blade folding at the moment) then yes they would be aligned to the Royal Marines (and importantly conduct the ship stuff that we don't like), but more importantly they too would be a JHC asset that could be used as part of the operations plot to not only cycle through Afghanistan, but support some of the other NOCP tasks that we are finding it very difficult to resource.
And if we are that broke - then lets not go outside the wire, lets not attempt Panther's Claw or any future deliberate op.
This is the politicians and MoD's choice - either stump up or shut up, as we cannot continue to ask our troops for much wanted tactical success without putting our hands in the H M Treasury's pockets. If the funds are not released, then it is apparent that every word about giving 'our boys' every bit of equipment they need for the job is simply and quite starkly just not true.
I wager that we see absolutely no activity on increasing helicopter lift at all (and please do not cite Merlin or T800 Lynx as this is all old news - and was the smoke and mirrors that H M Govt used the last time that 'drastic shortage of helicopter lift' hit the headlines.
All they are doing with the Merlin, Lynx T800 is re-branding and re-cycling old news. The Puma LEP decision is maybe the only new news that can possibly be seen as recent.
All of my posts truly believe that if there was political, MoD, DEC ALM and JHC will, combined with timely decision making that this would result in a significantly increased number of CH47 in Helmand within 12-18 months (possibly 6 months if the training pipeline could be resourced to surge for that long).
So any opportunity to rectify and respond to the shortage of lift has been kicked into the long grass where those that do not support the military or do not want to open H M Treasury purse strings sigh with relief that at last the media has moved onto other stories - despite the fact that the essential requirement has not been removed and that the troops on the ground still do not have the choice to move, re-supply or patrol with the assistance of helicopter lift.
In response to minigundiplomat's post - we are from the same organisation and although I agree that there is more than one brigade out there, just look how JHC had us wed to 16 Air Assault Brigade, with other brigades not getting a look in. Although we in the Chinook force are aligned to 16 Air Assault brigade, we do support many other organisations. I believe that if the Fisheads got CH47 (with or without blade folding at the moment) then yes they would be aligned to the Royal Marines (and importantly conduct the ship stuff that we don't like), but more importantly they too would be a JHC asset that could be used as part of the operations plot to not only cycle through Afghanistan, but support some of the other NOCP tasks that we are finding it very difficult to resource.
And if we are that broke - then lets not go outside the wire, lets not attempt Panther's Claw or any future deliberate op.
This is the politicians and MoD's choice - either stump up or shut up, as we cannot continue to ask our troops for much wanted tactical success without putting our hands in the H M Treasury's pockets. If the funds are not released, then it is apparent that every word about giving 'our boys' every bit of equipment they need for the job is simply and quite starkly just not true.
I wager that we see absolutely no activity on increasing helicopter lift at all (and please do not cite Merlin or T800 Lynx as this is all old news - and was the smoke and mirrors that H M Govt used the last time that 'drastic shortage of helicopter lift' hit the headlines.
All they are doing with the Merlin, Lynx T800 is re-branding and re-cycling old news. The Puma LEP decision is maybe the only new news that can possibly be seen as recent.
All of my posts truly believe that if there was political, MoD, DEC ALM and JHC will, combined with timely decision making that this would result in a significantly increased number of CH47 in Helmand within 12-18 months (possibly 6 months if the training pipeline could be resourced to surge for that long).
MM4,
Chinook IPTL is a Gp Capt.
DEC ALM (now ALM Cap) is a 1*.
DG Hels & Cmdr JHC are 2*.
CinC Air, CinC Land and CinC Fleet are 4* - go figure why we've not ordered more CH47...
All of the above could rapidly move to buy more assets - but they'd rather ringfence their individual vanity projects than buy helicopters, particularly with a Defence Review coming up.....Please redirect your fire at more appropriate targets.
Chinook IPTL is a Gp Capt.
DEC ALM (now ALM Cap) is a 1*.
DG Hels & Cmdr JHC are 2*.
CinC Air, CinC Land and CinC Fleet are 4* - go figure why we've not ordered more CH47...
All of the above could rapidly move to buy more assets - but they'd rather ringfence their individual vanity projects than buy helicopters, particularly with a Defence Review coming up.....Please redirect your fire at more appropriate targets.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evalu8ter,
No fire from me (the world looks rosey from where I sit/my cockpit) - but you are right, 'it does not figure'. But all of the starred positions that you mention (JHC, ALM, DG Hels etc) are not fighting the big 'vanity' projects (the old favourites of Carriers v Typhoon v FRES etc), as they have a very focused capability of Battlefield Helicopter lift - so what are the 'vanity projects' in the Battlefield Helciopter community that are clouding and delaying clear thinking and decision making?
With the essential requirement of 'how do we rapidly increase helicopter lift' being the master question, then I do not see any of your/our starred commanders in the key positions being able to stroke their 'individual vanity projects' without instantly standing out and looking a first class Melchett/Blimp?
This has been one of the few threads on PPrune where the debate has been well balanced, informed, and truly interested in the delivery of capability and not single service gains.
Who cares who flys what and how it is delivered, as long as it is sustainable, effective (in cost to the taxpayer as well as to the troops on the ground) and delivers what the troops on the ground require in the fastest possible timeframes (all with a weather eye on the simultaneous delivery for potential future wars and conflicts).
If there was any single service willy waving or obstruction then surely in the relatively closed communities of JHC, DEC, IPTs etc then it would be obvious and the offender (s) held to account and hopefully ignored/ over ruled?
As you have probably gathered, I am not a Whitehall Warrior, but your single service attitudes and land grabs/protectionism that you intimate must surely not be the stumbling block when the need is so great?
Please do not not depress me by saying that after all of this that the development and progress of future helicopter lift is being hampered/slowed down by say (for example) one of our Gp Capts putting their arms around 'their' aircraft or wanting any future uplift in capability to always go light blue?
I thought that after the whole 'one airforce - one nation' debacle that we had learned (and had become more savvy) and also, although I do have a great amount of loyalty to my uniform, I have more loyalty in delivering effect/support/lift to the troops on the ground.
The starred positions that you mention must ultimately see what their single service mentaility does to the whole procurement and delivery timescales etc.
No fire from me (the world looks rosey from where I sit/my cockpit) - but you are right, 'it does not figure'. But all of the starred positions that you mention (JHC, ALM, DG Hels etc) are not fighting the big 'vanity' projects (the old favourites of Carriers v Typhoon v FRES etc), as they have a very focused capability of Battlefield Helicopter lift - so what are the 'vanity projects' in the Battlefield Helciopter community that are clouding and delaying clear thinking and decision making?
With the essential requirement of 'how do we rapidly increase helicopter lift' being the master question, then I do not see any of your/our starred commanders in the key positions being able to stroke their 'individual vanity projects' without instantly standing out and looking a first class Melchett/Blimp?
This has been one of the few threads on PPrune where the debate has been well balanced, informed, and truly interested in the delivery of capability and not single service gains.
Who cares who flys what and how it is delivered, as long as it is sustainable, effective (in cost to the taxpayer as well as to the troops on the ground) and delivers what the troops on the ground require in the fastest possible timeframes (all with a weather eye on the simultaneous delivery for potential future wars and conflicts).
If there was any single service willy waving or obstruction then surely in the relatively closed communities of JHC, DEC, IPTs etc then it would be obvious and the offender (s) held to account and hopefully ignored/ over ruled?
As you have probably gathered, I am not a Whitehall Warrior, but your single service attitudes and land grabs/protectionism that you intimate must surely not be the stumbling block when the need is so great?
Please do not not depress me by saying that after all of this that the development and progress of future helicopter lift is being hampered/slowed down by say (for example) one of our Gp Capts putting their arms around 'their' aircraft or wanting any future uplift in capability to always go light blue?
I thought that after the whole 'one airforce - one nation' debacle that we had learned (and had become more savvy) and also, although I do have a great amount of loyalty to my uniform, I have more loyalty in delivering effect/support/lift to the troops on the ground.
The starred positions that you mention must ultimately see what their single service mentaility does to the whole procurement and delivery timescales etc.
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 30th Jul 2009 at 05:24.
MM4,
There are no BH "Vanity Projects" as there is little BH money at the moment. The £3Bn left after the £1.5Bn cut was largely pre-spent by the Govt (£1Bn on Flynx to sweeten the sale of Westlands to Finmeccanica), Fleet (£1Bn on the Merlin ASW upgrade - and nothing to do with ALM) and a fair chunk by ALM on the AH MTADS/PNVS upgrade (money well spent IMHO). What's left is nowhere near enough to buy new helicopters. ALM doesn't have a fixed budget - it is apportioned resource to meet the 4* endorsed plan for kit and support. If Flynx had been scrapped it would have been highly unlikely that the money would have stayed with ALM to purchase other assets.
If there is single-service attitudes in BH, then I'd argue it sits in the Puma/SK4 LEP debates as each force has strong lobbying power in and out of JHC, and both the RN/RAF want to keep the SO1 command positions.
The next big RW projects (FMH/Chinook & Merlin MLUs) will be the acid test of the MoD's committment to BH, even more so with an SDR coming up.
There are no BH "Vanity Projects" as there is little BH money at the moment. The £3Bn left after the £1.5Bn cut was largely pre-spent by the Govt (£1Bn on Flynx to sweeten the sale of Westlands to Finmeccanica), Fleet (£1Bn on the Merlin ASW upgrade - and nothing to do with ALM) and a fair chunk by ALM on the AH MTADS/PNVS upgrade (money well spent IMHO). What's left is nowhere near enough to buy new helicopters. ALM doesn't have a fixed budget - it is apportioned resource to meet the 4* endorsed plan for kit and support. If Flynx had been scrapped it would have been highly unlikely that the money would have stayed with ALM to purchase other assets.
If there is single-service attitudes in BH, then I'd argue it sits in the Puma/SK4 LEP debates as each force has strong lobbying power in and out of JHC, and both the RN/RAF want to keep the SO1 command positions.
The next big RW projects (FMH/Chinook & Merlin MLUs) will be the acid test of the MoD's committment to BH, even more so with an SDR coming up.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM4 Yes it has been an interesting thread. I would like to hope someone somewhere is thinking the same way.
The way ahead for JHC should be common airframes with the same capibility that can operate from ships/shore with no modification and with any shade of crew flying them.
It will be interesting if there is 2 SDR's in 12 months with a change of govt between them. Having watched during my childhood RAF and FAA support helicopters working hard in Northern Ireland and having seen in my service the state of the Helicopter fleet they have always been in my opinion a cinderella service to Navy and Airforce. But they have been on Ops constantly since the 1960's. The UK armed forces hopefully will grasp the concept that support helicopters are now mission critical.
I hope the LEP for Puma isn't going to kill of FSH though a mix of Chinook and/OR Merlin evolved for service at sea might help the capibility of CHF but long term could kill FSH.
As to alignments 16AA & 3Bde have always seen themselves as the prime users but all light role Brigades/battlegroups should be Air mobile and have suficient access to helicopters to allow training. This could cause issues with numbers deployed/in Maintenence/crew training and work up pulling on limited resources which would need to be addressed.
The way ahead for JHC should be common airframes with the same capibility that can operate from ships/shore with no modification and with any shade of crew flying them.
It will be interesting if there is 2 SDR's in 12 months with a change of govt between them. Having watched during my childhood RAF and FAA support helicopters working hard in Northern Ireland and having seen in my service the state of the Helicopter fleet they have always been in my opinion a cinderella service to Navy and Airforce. But they have been on Ops constantly since the 1960's. The UK armed forces hopefully will grasp the concept that support helicopters are now mission critical.
I hope the LEP for Puma isn't going to kill of FSH though a mix of Chinook and/OR Merlin evolved for service at sea might help the capibility of CHF but long term could kill FSH.
As to alignments 16AA & 3Bde have always seen themselves as the prime users but all light role Brigades/battlegroups should be Air mobile and have suficient access to helicopters to allow training. This could cause issues with numbers deployed/in Maintenence/crew training and work up pulling on limited resources which would need to be addressed.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa
Age: 53
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Chinooks?
MM4,
I agree with you 100% about the political will required (or lack of it) to provide more SH assets, but IMHO Evalu8ter is correct in that it is the Service 4*s that need to endorse the requirement for more UK helicopter lift capability, over other "pet projects".
Even if that happened, and a contract to provide more CH47 was signed today, Boeing's ability to deliver a new Chinook to the UK would be measured in years, not months. The Canadian Forces are just about to sign a contract for 15 F+ CH47 (to be called CH147) and the first ac won't arrive in Canada for 48 months.
However, with a GBP 2B deficit in the Defence Budget and many projects looking for funding from now until 2015, maybe funding for RW MLU/LEPs is the best that can be hoped for.
Fortunately, the Canadian Forces (I left the RAF in March after 19 years, the last 7 associated with Chinook) do have a "one airforce - one nation" approach to air assets. They all belong to the Canadian Air Force, even the maritime aircraft, all operated and supported by airforce pers.
I agree with you 100% about the political will required (or lack of it) to provide more SH assets, but IMHO Evalu8ter is correct in that it is the Service 4*s that need to endorse the requirement for more UK helicopter lift capability, over other "pet projects".
Even if that happened, and a contract to provide more CH47 was signed today, Boeing's ability to deliver a new Chinook to the UK would be measured in years, not months. The Canadian Forces are just about to sign a contract for 15 F+ CH47 (to be called CH147) and the first ac won't arrive in Canada for 48 months.
However, with a GBP 2B deficit in the Defence Budget and many projects looking for funding from now until 2015, maybe funding for RW MLU/LEPs is the best that can be hoped for.
Fortunately, the Canadian Forces (I left the RAF in March after 19 years, the last 7 associated with Chinook) do have a "one airforce - one nation" approach to air assets. They all belong to the Canadian Air Force, even the maritime aircraft, all operated and supported by airforce pers.
Last edited by Canadian WokkaDoctor; 30th Jul 2009 at 14:51. Reason: Original was witten as if I was still in the RAF
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nurse, MM4 and Evalu8tor
I agree with your common thrust. There was for a time a common medium support helo operated by both the FAA and RAF - it was the much-loved Wessex. What we need now is a modern equivalent.....
The arguement must be for a common airframe, compact enough to fit on board various ships, LPD, RFA's, Ocean, Bulwark etc. which can lift say a fully-equipped troop/section/patrol totalling up to say 12/14 "pairs of boots" - plus crewman and 2 pilots.
I would say it would need:
* two "big" engines rather than three as in the case of Merlin, CH53, Super Frelon.
* a wheeled, crash-worthy, undercarriage.
* Big doors on both sides of the fuselage.
* Folding main rotors and tail on a "hinge" to reduce deck space when embarked or hold space when being air transported.
* Provision for external stores/tanks for long-range missions/jamming pods/weapons
* Capable of fitting in the hold of a C-17 without main rotor head removal.
* Have enough performance to cope with "hot & high" places.
The Blackhawk ticks most of these boxes, but hasn't the cabin space of say a Sea King 4. Just as the F18 was scaled-up to become the Super Hornet the obvious answer, is to look at a scaled-up Blackhawk!
The sad thing is that we pioneered the use of helicopters in airborne ops, (remember Suez?) and the RAF and FAA used helicopters extensively in Borneo, Aden and the Falklands. Everyone seems to have forgotten how vital helicopters are in modern ops and that they really are essential, not just for inserting and extracting troops, but also re-supply, and casualty evacuation.
I know that there are other options, but the CH47 is perhaps too big and in any case a mixed fleet is inevitable as it is better to have the flexibility of say a fleet of 50 medium ac, rather than 25 heavy lift Chinooks. (How often do CH47's actually fly at max gross?)
Just my 2 pence worth.....
MB
What we need now is a modern equivalent.....The arguement must be for a common airframe, compact enough to fit on board various ships, LPD, RFA's, Ocean, Bulwark etc. which can lift say a fully-equipped troop/section/patrol totalling up to say 12/14 "pairs of boots" - plus crewman and 2 pilots.
I would say it would need:
* two "big" engines rather than three as in the case of Merlin, CH53, Super Frelon.
* a wheeled, crash-worthy, undercarriage.
* Big doors on both sides of the fuselage.
* Folding main rotors and tail on a "hinge" to reduce deck space when embarked or hold space when being air transported.
* Provision for external stores/tanks for long-range missions/jamming pods/weapons
* Capable of fitting in the hold of a C-17 without main rotor head removal.
* Have enough performance to cope with "hot & high" places.
The Blackhawk ticks most of these boxes, but hasn't the cabin space of say a Sea King 4. Just as the F18 was scaled-up to become the Super Hornet the obvious answer, is to look at a scaled-up Blackhawk!
The sad thing is that we pioneered the use of helicopters in airborne ops, (remember Suez?) and the RAF and FAA used helicopters extensively in Borneo, Aden and the Falklands. Everyone seems to have forgotten how vital helicopters are in modern ops and that they really are essential, not just for inserting and extracting troops, but also re-supply, and casualty evacuation.
I know that there are other options, but the CH47 is perhaps too big and in any case a mixed fleet is inevitable as it is better to have the flexibility of say a fleet of 50 medium ac, rather than 25 heavy lift Chinooks. (How often do CH47's actually fly at max gross?)
Just my 2 pence worth.....
MB
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Madbob Blackhawk may tick your list but fails the first part of the spefication of being able to lift a patrol sized group+kit.
Where Blackhawk would have been useful was to replace the Lynx AH9 but Flynx will now fill that role.
As has been said earlier future support helicopter needs to be able to lift a half platoon/troop thats 15-18 bodies plus all their webbing, bergans, personal and support weapons. And its crew.
I think the assertion that we need a variety of airframes to fulfil the UK lift capability is correct and JHC shouldn't go into a single type fleet.
Blackhawk might have had a role in Brigade AAC Sqns as a light transport alongside smaller airframes like Flynx in the laison/recce/OP role. With medium/heavy lift still being found by the FAA/RAF.
Shouldn't we be striving to increase/improve the capabilities of our forces not just our service.
Where Blackhawk would have been useful was to replace the Lynx AH9 but Flynx will now fill that role.
As has been said earlier future support helicopter needs to be able to lift a half platoon/troop thats 15-18 bodies plus all their webbing, bergans, personal and support weapons. And its crew.
I think the assertion that we need a variety of airframes to fulfil the UK lift capability is correct and JHC shouldn't go into a single type fleet.
Blackhawk might have had a role in Brigade AAC Sqns as a light transport alongside smaller airframes like Flynx in the laison/recce/OP role. With medium/heavy lift still being found by the FAA/RAF.
Shouldn't we be striving to increase/improve the capabilities of our forces not just our service.
As RR noted on post # 230
Most of our medium lift platforms in theatre offer abysmal performance in the summer months – even with new blades.
The UH-60M’s are flying with every seat filled at 50°C and 6000’ DA which using RR’s numbers would require 4 Sea King’s to move the same amount of troops, so not so sure I would agree with you regarding bums on seats.
I wonder just how well the post LEP Puma’s and BERP IV Merlin’s will perform in similar conditions?
Top tip - don't hold your breath for Sea King as it is currently lifting 3 pax in Afghan summer heat.
The UH-60M’s are flying with every seat filled at 50°C and 6000’ DA which using RR’s numbers would require 4 Sea King’s to move the same amount of troops, so not so sure I would agree with you regarding bums on seats.
I wonder just how well the post LEP Puma’s and BERP IV Merlin’s will perform in similar conditions?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok so the UH60 is lifting 10-11 pax is that with their bergans or just their belt order?
is the SK4 lifting 3 pax+ all their kit or just their Belt kit?
seperating troops from Bergans etc on a lift in is a receipe for a C&A party
is the SK4 lifting 3 pax+ all their kit or just their Belt kit?
seperating troops from Bergans etc on a lift in is a receipe for a C&A party
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Googling back to yesteryear:
Westland relief at £1.2bn helicopter order
Friday, 10 March 1995
The Cabinet yesterday rejected the advice of RAF chiefs and approved a mixed £1.2bn order for 22 British-built EH101 helicopters and 14 US Chinook helicopters - to protect jobs and the long-term future of the industry.
The decision to order the helicopters from the Yeovil-based Westland will cost taxpayers an extra £300m and was taken after the Accounting Officer, Malcolm McIntosh, the Chief of Defence Procurement, advised ministers it would be lawful provided "the overall benefits outweigh the costs".
The RAF had been lobbying hard for an all-Chinook order to supplement its existing fleet of helicopters, based on a design that has been in service for more than 30 years, including the Korean war and Vietnam. ( No, no Chinooks in Korean War. --Elmo )
The announcement by Malcolm Rifkind, the Defence Secretary, was welcomed by MPs on all sides of the Commons, including Paddy Ashdown, who is MP for Yeovil. Tory MPs had warned the Government it would cost the Tories seats across the West Country if the Yeovil-based Westland company failed to win the contract.
Mr Rifkind said the EH101 was a modern design with operational flexibility but the Chinooks were required because only they could carry some large loads.
...
Michael Heseltine, the President of the Board of Trade and Mr Rifkind were key players in the decision to overrule the RAF demands. It was reached by a small inner circle of ministers on Tuesday night, and recommended to the full Cabinet.
The decision to go for the mixed order, after the disclosure in The Independent that the RAF was engaged in a bitter battle for an all-Chinook order, will protect some of the 8,000 jobs at the Westland group plants, including the Isle of Wight, a Tory marginal seat.
Mr Rifkind said the order would also protect 1,100 jobs a year for the next 30 years in Westland suppliers, including Rolls Royce at Bristol, Racal in Slough, and GEC Marconi plants.
Boeing, makers of the Chinook, regarded as a tried and tested workhorse, had fought hard to win the order by offering a 200 per cent offset deal for jobs in Britain, if the whole order was for Chinook.
The US company is aggressively seeking orders in Europe after the end of big procurement contracts by the Pentagon. It will provide a 100 per cent offset for the order for 14 new helicopters, which include six replacements for existing helicopters. Only eight were ordered for expansion of the RAF helicopter fleet.
The decision involved heavy infighting behind the scenes at the Ministry of Defence, but little ministerial dissent. Mr Heseltine, who stormed out of the Cabinet in 1986 in protest at the threat to the helicopter company from US competition, was firmly behind Mr Rifkind's decision.
It underlined the Government's determination to give priority to jobs and industry, over the operational demands of the armed services.
It follows the ministerial row last year which ended in victory for Mr Heseltine in winning a Government commitment to participate in the European Future Large Aircraft (FLA) project, while Mr Rifkind won approval for a £1bn order 25 US-built Hercules heavy-lift aircraft.
Westland relief at £1.2bn order - News - The Independent
Westland relief at £1.2bn helicopter order
Friday, 10 March 1995
The Cabinet yesterday rejected the advice of RAF chiefs and approved a mixed £1.2bn order for 22 British-built EH101 helicopters and 14 US Chinook helicopters - to protect jobs and the long-term future of the industry.
The decision to order the helicopters from the Yeovil-based Westland will cost taxpayers an extra £300m and was taken after the Accounting Officer, Malcolm McIntosh, the Chief of Defence Procurement, advised ministers it would be lawful provided "the overall benefits outweigh the costs".
The RAF had been lobbying hard for an all-Chinook order to supplement its existing fleet of helicopters, based on a design that has been in service for more than 30 years, including the Korean war and Vietnam. ( No, no Chinooks in Korean War. --Elmo )
The announcement by Malcolm Rifkind, the Defence Secretary, was welcomed by MPs on all sides of the Commons, including Paddy Ashdown, who is MP for Yeovil. Tory MPs had warned the Government it would cost the Tories seats across the West Country if the Yeovil-based Westland company failed to win the contract.
Mr Rifkind said the EH101 was a modern design with operational flexibility but the Chinooks were required because only they could carry some large loads.
...
Michael Heseltine, the President of the Board of Trade and Mr Rifkind were key players in the decision to overrule the RAF demands. It was reached by a small inner circle of ministers on Tuesday night, and recommended to the full Cabinet.
The decision to go for the mixed order, after the disclosure in The Independent that the RAF was engaged in a bitter battle for an all-Chinook order, will protect some of the 8,000 jobs at the Westland group plants, including the Isle of Wight, a Tory marginal seat.
Mr Rifkind said the order would also protect 1,100 jobs a year for the next 30 years in Westland suppliers, including Rolls Royce at Bristol, Racal in Slough, and GEC Marconi plants.
Boeing, makers of the Chinook, regarded as a tried and tested workhorse, had fought hard to win the order by offering a 200 per cent offset deal for jobs in Britain, if the whole order was for Chinook.
The US company is aggressively seeking orders in Europe after the end of big procurement contracts by the Pentagon. It will provide a 100 per cent offset for the order for 14 new helicopters, which include six replacements for existing helicopters. Only eight were ordered for expansion of the RAF helicopter fleet.
The decision involved heavy infighting behind the scenes at the Ministry of Defence, but little ministerial dissent. Mr Heseltine, who stormed out of the Cabinet in 1986 in protest at the threat to the helicopter company from US competition, was firmly behind Mr Rifkind's decision.
It underlined the Government's determination to give priority to jobs and industry, over the operational demands of the armed services.
It follows the ministerial row last year which ended in victory for Mr Heseltine in winning a Government commitment to participate in the European Future Large Aircraft (FLA) project, while Mr Rifkind won approval for a £1bn order 25 US-built Hercules heavy-lift aircraft.
Westland relief at £1.2bn order - News - The Independent
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question: what is the mean altitude above mean sea level in the lower Helmand River Valley? I tend to think that "high and hot" is being used as an excuse.
* Caroline Davies
* guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 July 2009 17.13 BST
British troops have seized crucial canal crossings in the Taliban heartland as part of the US-led Operation Sword Strike to oust insurgents from the opium-producing province of Helmand, officials said today.
The push, said to be one of the largest British soldiers have made, is part of a wider offensive ... into the lower Helmand river valley in southern Afghanistan. ...
British troops seize canal crossings in push against Taliban in Afghanistan | World news | guardian.co.uk
* Caroline Davies
* guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 July 2009 17.13 BST
British troops have seized crucial canal crossings in the Taliban heartland as part of the US-led Operation Sword Strike to oust insurgents from the opium-producing province of Helmand, officials said today.
The push, said to be one of the largest British soldiers have made, is part of a wider offensive ... into the lower Helmand river valley in southern Afghanistan. ...
British troops seize canal crossings in push against Taliban in Afghanistan | World news | guardian.co.uk
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: wilderness
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Madbob
Q.
A. You have not been to Hellmand recently, 95% of the time they are brimming with kit or people, just look in the press for photos and comment
Surely the Army chief would rate as a VIP and if at all possible our boys would have moved him (commanders OJAR moment)... it tells its own story.
SIA
Q.
heavy lift Chinooks. (How often do CH47's actually fly at max gross?)
A. You have not been to Hellmand recently, 95% of the time they are brimming with kit or people, just look in the press for photos and comment
Take helicopters, for instance. Last week General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the army, flew in an American Black Hawk helicopter to visit British troops in Sangin, because no RAF Chinook or Sea King was available.
SIA
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Future Chinooks:
DATE:28/07/08
SOURCE:Flight International
US Army launches next-generation heavylift helicopter engine programme
By Stephen Trimble
US turboshaft engine makers are awaiting the first US Army contract awards that will launch an eight-year competition to replace the 47-year-old Honeywell T55 engine family. The army's Future Affordable Turbine Engine (Fate) aims to replace the T55 with a new engine in the 6,000-7,000shp (4,470-5,215kW) range to power either a growth version of the CH-47 Chinook or a follow-on rotorcraft. The goals for Fate include reducing specific fuel consumption by 35%, slashing production and maintenance costs each by 40-45% and improving shaft horsepower to weight ratio by 90%. The Army Aviation Technology Directorate is expected to soon award contracts ( Hasn't happened yet. -- Elmo ) ...
An all-new production engine would be available by the end of [ this ] decade. General Electric, Pratt & Whitney and Honeywell confirm they are participating in the Fate programme. Rolls-Royce, maker of the T406 and the AE1107C, has declined to comment.
Fate is proceeding even as the army continues to debate whether to launch an all-new Joint Heavy Lift rotorcraft, or perhaps invest in a growth version of the T55-powered Boeing CH-47 Chinook.( Joint Heavy Lift --> either big big helicopter or four engine tiltrotor capable of hovering with 28-30 short ton vehicle. -- Elmo )
Boeing confirms a decision to launch a growth Chinook has slipped from the FY2010 budgeting cycle to FY2012. But the company has narrowed its options for the larger design. The baseline CH-47's 25,400kg (56,000lb) airframe ( current newest model of H-47 ) would increase to 31,700kg, and the fuselage [ interior width ] would widen by 0.3m (1ft) to accommodate an up-armoured Humvee, says Jack Dougherty, director of CH-47 programmes. ( Or newer M114-size ground vehicle. No need for digression re Humvees. -- Elmo ) ...
US Army launches next-generation heavylift helicopter engine programme
DATE:28/07/08
SOURCE:Flight International
US Army launches next-generation heavylift helicopter engine programme
By Stephen Trimble
US turboshaft engine makers are awaiting the first US Army contract awards that will launch an eight-year competition to replace the 47-year-old Honeywell T55 engine family. The army's Future Affordable Turbine Engine (Fate) aims to replace the T55 with a new engine in the 6,000-7,000shp (4,470-5,215kW) range to power either a growth version of the CH-47 Chinook or a follow-on rotorcraft. The goals for Fate include reducing specific fuel consumption by 35%, slashing production and maintenance costs each by 40-45% and improving shaft horsepower to weight ratio by 90%. The Army Aviation Technology Directorate is expected to soon award contracts ( Hasn't happened yet. -- Elmo ) ...
An all-new production engine would be available by the end of [ this ] decade. General Electric, Pratt & Whitney and Honeywell confirm they are participating in the Fate programme. Rolls-Royce, maker of the T406 and the AE1107C, has declined to comment.
Fate is proceeding even as the army continues to debate whether to launch an all-new Joint Heavy Lift rotorcraft, or perhaps invest in a growth version of the T55-powered Boeing CH-47 Chinook.( Joint Heavy Lift --> either big big helicopter or four engine tiltrotor capable of hovering with 28-30 short ton vehicle. -- Elmo )
Boeing confirms a decision to launch a growth Chinook has slipped from the FY2010 budgeting cycle to FY2012. But the company has narrowed its options for the larger design. The baseline CH-47's 25,400kg (56,000lb) airframe ( current newest model of H-47 ) would increase to 31,700kg, and the fuselage [ interior width ] would widen by 0.3m (1ft) to accommodate an up-armoured Humvee, says Jack Dougherty, director of CH-47 programmes. ( Or newer M114-size ground vehicle. No need for digression re Humvees. -- Elmo ) ...
US Army launches next-generation heavylift helicopter engine programme
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inter-Service Rivalry Surrounds Joint Heavy Lift Aircraft Program
3 2,009
By Stew Magnuson
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...skepticism.jpg ( tiltrotor artwork)
... The latest source of contention is a potential multibillion-dollar program to build a new large cargo helicopter for the military services, known as the joint heavy lift aircraft. ( As I intuit things, a tiltrotor instead of a pure helo seems to be the leading candiate. --E. )
So far the program is “joint” in name only because the military service that is responsible for air transportation is not on board with the idea. An initial capabilities document has been signed by all the services except the Air Force.
“We are in a wrestling match a little bit with our Air Force partners, but we’re working through that,” said Col. Joseph Jellison, director of the Army’s concepts requirements directorate....
...
A change in attitude is coming from the top down, he added. Without naming him, Tenney implied that this new attitude comes from Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, who previously served as the commander of U.S. Transportation Command.
...
At the lower ranks, “there are cultural issues that are standing in the way and we’re working through those pieces,” Tenney said.
The cultural difference may be in how the services perceive the aircraft. The Marines and Army look at it as a “maneuver” vehicle — a way to hop their troops and equipment around a battlezone.
“That’s different than the traditional airlift community [who] see their role as a point-to-point delivery system where those points are very well defined and at well controlled locations,” Tenney said.
...
The two services had a rift over which would control the joint cargo aircraft program — another transport vehicle that was designed to carry troops and equipment shorter distances within a theater. Now designated the C-27J Spartan, the program overcame Air Force opposition to the Army flying a new fixed-wing aircraft.
“The Army wants to intrude on the Air Force’s turf, and the Air Force is holding the line,” said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group.
( Elmo would like to compete with the Teal Group, which seems to consist of Mr. Alfalfa and one or to other guys who opinionate re other peepuls' DoD and NASA projects. The Teal Group doesn't have any tangible projects or do actual research and analysis, far as I can tell. Just commentary. I'm not sure about how Teal Group makes its money. Writing "white papers" for lobbyists, maybe? )
“The history of joint procurement projects is largely unblemished by success especially when the two services are likely to fight a turf war at any time,” he added.
...
Meanwhile, about $40 million has been spent on basic research for 11 contracts during the past two years, Tenney said. None from the Air Force, naturally, but the Army, Navy, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and NASA have all chipped in, he said.
..
Early artists’ concepts of the program that came from contractors showed the JHL as a larger than normal helicopter. Tenney showed drawings that looked more akin to a C-130, but with tilt-rotary wings.
...
Mark Nixon, director of the vehicle technology directorate at the Army Research Laboratory, said basic wind tunnel research on longer rotary-wing diameters have shown early success.
However, helicopter manufacturers like to develop new aircraft based on familiar designs.
“And with JHL, we’re really out of our comfort zone and our box,” he said.
Tunney said the sea basing concept will require the aircraft to be as small as possible while still being able to fulfill the heavy lift job. The larger the airplane, the harder it is to land on a ship.
Other proposed requirements include a combat radius of 250 nautical miles, speeds of 300 knots and the ability to reach an altitude of at least 14,000 feet.
“Cruise efficiency is a big deal.” This is a 300-knot airplane. When you’re flying that fast drag is important, he said.
...
An additional crucial need for the Army is the capability to transport its Future Combat Systems vehicles, which are now approaching the 28-ton mark. ( The Stryker set of ground vehics. seems to becoming the de facto FCS set. -- E. ) The FCS program initially wanted their vehicles to be around 20 tons and transportable by C-130 aircraft. But that goal fell by the wayside as additional armor was required to protect crews. And as the weight of the equipment grew, the options for transporting FCS vehicles around battlefields shrunk.
The C-130, for example, was supposed to carry one non-line-of-sight canon. With that vehicle currently at about 27 tons, it must now be lifted on the larger C-17, which requires longer landing strips.
...
The Army’s current rotary-wing heavy lift vehicle, the CH-47F Chinook, carries about eight tons externally about 50 nautical miles. The Marines’ CH-53E Super Stallion can lift a 6.5-ton payload about the same distance. The CH-53K Heavy Lift Replacement, which is still under development, should transport about 13.5 tons, but at double the distance.
But realities on the battlefield seem to be outstripping these requirements, as a report on Globalsecurity.org pointed out. Ground vehicles that transport troops are growing heavier, not lighter. Up-armored humvees are commonplace, and are being replaced by mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles that, when empty, can weigh anywhere from seven to 16 tons. A Cougar-H MRAP can weigh up to 18 tons.
...
“We have analyzed that until most of us involved in this are sick of analyzing it,” Tenney said. “It is time to move forward,” he added.
...
Rotorcraft research and development is extremely weak, he said. Most of it goes into upgrades for current systems or aircraft derived from previous models — not advanced concepts.
...
3 2,009
By Stew Magnuson
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...skepticism.jpg ( tiltrotor artwork)
... The latest source of contention is a potential multibillion-dollar program to build a new large cargo helicopter for the military services, known as the joint heavy lift aircraft. ( As I intuit things, a tiltrotor instead of a pure helo seems to be the leading candiate. --E. )
So far the program is “joint” in name only because the military service that is responsible for air transportation is not on board with the idea. An initial capabilities document has been signed by all the services except the Air Force.
“We are in a wrestling match a little bit with our Air Force partners, but we’re working through that,” said Col. Joseph Jellison, director of the Army’s concepts requirements directorate....
...
A change in attitude is coming from the top down, he added. Without naming him, Tenney implied that this new attitude comes from Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, who previously served as the commander of U.S. Transportation Command.
...
At the lower ranks, “there are cultural issues that are standing in the way and we’re working through those pieces,” Tenney said.
The cultural difference may be in how the services perceive the aircraft. The Marines and Army look at it as a “maneuver” vehicle — a way to hop their troops and equipment around a battlezone.
“That’s different than the traditional airlift community [who] see their role as a point-to-point delivery system where those points are very well defined and at well controlled locations,” Tenney said.
...
The two services had a rift over which would control the joint cargo aircraft program — another transport vehicle that was designed to carry troops and equipment shorter distances within a theater. Now designated the C-27J Spartan, the program overcame Air Force opposition to the Army flying a new fixed-wing aircraft.
“The Army wants to intrude on the Air Force’s turf, and the Air Force is holding the line,” said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group.
( Elmo would like to compete with the Teal Group, which seems to consist of Mr. Alfalfa and one or to other guys who opinionate re other peepuls' DoD and NASA projects. The Teal Group doesn't have any tangible projects or do actual research and analysis, far as I can tell. Just commentary. I'm not sure about how Teal Group makes its money. Writing "white papers" for lobbyists, maybe? )
“The history of joint procurement projects is largely unblemished by success especially when the two services are likely to fight a turf war at any time,” he added.
...
Meanwhile, about $40 million has been spent on basic research for 11 contracts during the past two years, Tenney said. None from the Air Force, naturally, but the Army, Navy, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and NASA have all chipped in, he said.
..
Early artists’ concepts of the program that came from contractors showed the JHL as a larger than normal helicopter. Tenney showed drawings that looked more akin to a C-130, but with tilt-rotary wings.
...
Mark Nixon, director of the vehicle technology directorate at the Army Research Laboratory, said basic wind tunnel research on longer rotary-wing diameters have shown early success.
However, helicopter manufacturers like to develop new aircraft based on familiar designs.
“And with JHL, we’re really out of our comfort zone and our box,” he said.
Tunney said the sea basing concept will require the aircraft to be as small as possible while still being able to fulfill the heavy lift job. The larger the airplane, the harder it is to land on a ship.
Other proposed requirements include a combat radius of 250 nautical miles, speeds of 300 knots and the ability to reach an altitude of at least 14,000 feet.
“Cruise efficiency is a big deal.” This is a 300-knot airplane. When you’re flying that fast drag is important, he said.
...
An additional crucial need for the Army is the capability to transport its Future Combat Systems vehicles, which are now approaching the 28-ton mark. ( The Stryker set of ground vehics. seems to becoming the de facto FCS set. -- E. ) The FCS program initially wanted their vehicles to be around 20 tons and transportable by C-130 aircraft. But that goal fell by the wayside as additional armor was required to protect crews. And as the weight of the equipment grew, the options for transporting FCS vehicles around battlefields shrunk.
The C-130, for example, was supposed to carry one non-line-of-sight canon. With that vehicle currently at about 27 tons, it must now be lifted on the larger C-17, which requires longer landing strips.
...
The Army’s current rotary-wing heavy lift vehicle, the CH-47F Chinook, carries about eight tons externally about 50 nautical miles. The Marines’ CH-53E Super Stallion can lift a 6.5-ton payload about the same distance. The CH-53K Heavy Lift Replacement, which is still under development, should transport about 13.5 tons, but at double the distance.
But realities on the battlefield seem to be outstripping these requirements, as a report on Globalsecurity.org pointed out. Ground vehicles that transport troops are growing heavier, not lighter. Up-armored humvees are commonplace, and are being replaced by mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles that, when empty, can weigh anywhere from seven to 16 tons. A Cougar-H MRAP can weigh up to 18 tons.
...
“We have analyzed that until most of us involved in this are sick of analyzing it,” Tenney said. “It is time to move forward,” he added.
...
Rotorcraft research and development is extremely weak, he said. Most of it goes into upgrades for current systems or aircraft derived from previous models — not advanced concepts.
...
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Unsafe" gun runners supplying "Our Boys"
Posted by Richard Wednesday, 15 July 2009
Defence secretary Bob Ainsworth, it seems, has been rather less than frank about the availability of helicopter support for "Our Boys" in Afghanistan – but in a rather unusual way. There was one more helicopter available to deliver supplies than he was admitting.
The downside of this intriguing piece of news, however, might just explain his reticence. The additional machine was leased via Nato, operated by a Moldovan charter company, Pecotox Air, which has been banned from EU airspace for safety reasons and which has been implicated in arms trafficking.
These embarrassing details would not have emerged but for the unfortunate incident yesterday when it was reported the helicopter, a giant Mi-26T, registration ER-MCV (pictured above), was shot down by the Taleban a mile from the British military base in Sangin.
Misleadingly, the AP report (link above) cited the Moldovan operator claiming that the aircraft had been "ferrying humanitarian aid" when the crash took place, a detail quickly corrected by Reuters which had Western forces confirming that the helicopter had been "bringing supplies to a British base at Sangin." According to the Los Angeles Times, it was contracted specifically to supply British forces. ...
http://defenceoftherealm.***********...-our-boys.html
Posted by Richard Wednesday, 15 July 2009
Defence secretary Bob Ainsworth, it seems, has been rather less than frank about the availability of helicopter support for "Our Boys" in Afghanistan – but in a rather unusual way. There was one more helicopter available to deliver supplies than he was admitting.
The downside of this intriguing piece of news, however, might just explain his reticence. The additional machine was leased via Nato, operated by a Moldovan charter company, Pecotox Air, which has been banned from EU airspace for safety reasons and which has been implicated in arms trafficking.
These embarrassing details would not have emerged but for the unfortunate incident yesterday when it was reported the helicopter, a giant Mi-26T, registration ER-MCV (pictured above), was shot down by the Taleban a mile from the British military base in Sangin.
Misleadingly, the AP report (link above) cited the Moldovan operator claiming that the aircraft had been "ferrying humanitarian aid" when the crash took place, a detail quickly corrected by Reuters which had Western forces confirming that the helicopter had been "bringing supplies to a British base at Sangin." According to the Los Angeles Times, it was contracted specifically to supply British forces. ...
http://defenceoftherealm.***********...-our-boys.html
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meanwhile, this was in the press yesterday:-
By Bill Burchell
LONDON--The U.K. MoD is to go-ahead with a major life extension program for
the RAF's Puma HC1 helicopter fleet that will equip the aircraft with new
engines and avionics. The decision to approve the GBP300 million-plus
program was taken after the MoD decided it was "not feasible to advance the
purchase of the [replacement] Future Medium Helicopter" at this time.
Deliveries of the new aircraft to replace the upgraded Puma HC2s are
expected to commence from 2022 and replace Royal Navy Westland Sea Kings by
2017. Contrary to some expectation, the MoD opted not to progress a Sea King
life extension, but said it was continuing to assess how best to continue to
deliver the capability currently provided by the Sea King Mk4.
The MoD aims to invest around GBP6 billion in helicopters over the next 10
years, according to U.K. Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth, including GBP3.5
billion on 120 new aircraft plus upgrades to another 200.
Following national conjecture over the number of helicopters supporting the
U.K.'s military operations in Afghanistan, around GBP130 million has been
secured to upgrade the engines on 25 RAF Chinook HC2/2As. To date, 15
already have been modified with the rest due for completion between 2012 and
2014.
Engine upgrades also are underway on 22 British Army Lynx AH9 helicopters,
while six ex-Danish Air Force Agusta Westland AW101 Merlin helicopters are
being introduced to boost the RAF's fleet of the type by 25%, thereby
enabling the type's deployment to Afghanistan later this year.
By Bill Burchell
LONDON--The U.K. MoD is to go-ahead with a major life extension program for
the RAF's Puma HC1 helicopter fleet that will equip the aircraft with new
engines and avionics. The decision to approve the GBP300 million-plus
program was taken after the MoD decided it was "not feasible to advance the
purchase of the [replacement] Future Medium Helicopter" at this time.
Deliveries of the new aircraft to replace the upgraded Puma HC2s are
expected to commence from 2022 and replace Royal Navy Westland Sea Kings by
2017. Contrary to some expectation, the MoD opted not to progress a Sea King
life extension, but said it was continuing to assess how best to continue to
deliver the capability currently provided by the Sea King Mk4.
The MoD aims to invest around GBP6 billion in helicopters over the next 10
years, according to U.K. Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth, including GBP3.5
billion on 120 new aircraft plus upgrades to another 200.
Following national conjecture over the number of helicopters supporting the
U.K.'s military operations in Afghanistan, around GBP130 million has been
secured to upgrade the engines on 25 RAF Chinook HC2/2As. To date, 15
already have been modified with the rest due for completion between 2012 and
2014.
Engine upgrades also are underway on 22 British Army Lynx AH9 helicopters,
while six ex-Danish Air Force Agusta Westland AW101 Merlin helicopters are
being introduced to boost the RAF's fleet of the type by 25%, thereby
enabling the type's deployment to Afghanistan later this year.
