Fury at Def Sec over Helicopter Shortage
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shirlely, some friendly state could wet or dry lease aerial assets to fill the gap?
MIL -8 anyone?
Problems for U.S. Russian Helicopter Order
Jun 1, 2009
By Sharon Weinberger
The U.S. Army signed off on an unusual procurement contract in December 2007: A $322-million order for 22 Russian helicopters bought through a U.S. defense company for Iraq. The contract was a rush order, designed to deliver Mi-17 helicopters in a bid to quickly reequip the Iraqi air force and allow it to perform counterinsurgency operations. But 18 months after signing, not a single helicopter has been delivered, despite full payment. The Army now concedes the contract is over budget and nearly a year behind schedule.
Such are the perils of buying Russian equipment through the U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system, a unique requirement that is rapidly escalating into the billions of dollars for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Buying Mi-17s, and other Russian equipment, for the Iraqi military seems logical. The Iraqis flew and maintained Soviet (now Russian) aircraft in the Saddam Hussein era. Another important feature: Russian rotorcraft are significantly cheaper than U.S. helicopters, at least in theory.
The Mi-17 is the export designation for the Mi-8 airframe (NATO designation “Hip”), and after 40 years the aircraft still has brisk sales, with new orders from India, China, Pakistan and Colombia, among others. That has been good news for the factories that produce Mi-17s: Ulan Ude and Kazan. Just a few years ago, work at the plants had slowed to a crawl, but now even getting a slot in the production line can be a challenge.
...
Problems for U.S. Russian Helicopter Order | AVIATION WEEK for U.S. Russian Helicopter Order
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Ares
A Defense Technology Blog
More Fours Sighted
Posted by Douglas Barrie at 7/8/2009 5:28 AM CDT
Activity is ramping up on the UK Paveway IV front with clearance trials underway on the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Royal Navy’s strike wing deploying with the weapon onboard HMS Illustrious.
The UK’s Instrumented Production Aircraft (IPA) 1 is being used for Paveway IV jettison tests covering a variety of stores configurations. A total of 15 drops are planned, with three carried out so far.
Meanwhile IPA7 has been flown from Manching in Germany to examine the aircraft’s handling characteristics while carrying six of the Raytheon Paveway IVs, along with AIM-120 Amraam and AIM-9 Sidewinder rounds. The aircraft is also being used for missile approach warning trials. Defensive Aids Sub-System trials are being undertaken on IPA6. ...
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElem entId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a2 7ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a2a6e4cc0-fd05-4c63-bdb1-67d3706464e2
MIL -8 anyone?
Problems for U.S. Russian Helicopter Order
Jun 1, 2009
By Sharon Weinberger
The U.S. Army signed off on an unusual procurement contract in December 2007: A $322-million order for 22 Russian helicopters bought through a U.S. defense company for Iraq. The contract was a rush order, designed to deliver Mi-17 helicopters in a bid to quickly reequip the Iraqi air force and allow it to perform counterinsurgency operations. But 18 months after signing, not a single helicopter has been delivered, despite full payment. The Army now concedes the contract is over budget and nearly a year behind schedule.
Such are the perils of buying Russian equipment through the U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system, a unique requirement that is rapidly escalating into the billions of dollars for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Buying Mi-17s, and other Russian equipment, for the Iraqi military seems logical. The Iraqis flew and maintained Soviet (now Russian) aircraft in the Saddam Hussein era. Another important feature: Russian rotorcraft are significantly cheaper than U.S. helicopters, at least in theory.
The Mi-17 is the export designation for the Mi-8 airframe (NATO designation “Hip”), and after 40 years the aircraft still has brisk sales, with new orders from India, China, Pakistan and Colombia, among others. That has been good news for the factories that produce Mi-17s: Ulan Ude and Kazan. Just a few years ago, work at the plants had slowed to a crawl, but now even getting a slot in the production line can be a challenge.
...
Problems for U.S. Russian Helicopter Order | AVIATION WEEK for U.S. Russian Helicopter Order
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Ares
A Defense Technology Blog
More Fours Sighted
Posted by Douglas Barrie at 7/8/2009 5:28 AM CDT
Activity is ramping up on the UK Paveway IV front with clearance trials underway on the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Royal Navy’s strike wing deploying with the weapon onboard HMS Illustrious.
The UK’s Instrumented Production Aircraft (IPA) 1 is being used for Paveway IV jettison tests covering a variety of stores configurations. A total of 15 drops are planned, with three carried out so far.
Meanwhile IPA7 has been flown from Manching in Germany to examine the aircraft’s handling characteristics while carrying six of the Raytheon Paveway IVs, along with AIM-120 Amraam and AIM-9 Sidewinder rounds. The aircraft is also being used for missile approach warning trials. Defensive Aids Sub-System trials are being undertaken on IPA6. ...
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElem entId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a2 7ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a2a6e4cc0-fd05-4c63-bdb1-67d3706464e2
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is Typhoon value for money in the current climate? 232 is a shed load of AD....for every 4 of those you could have had another C17, and they're not a cheap platform either! Not to mention the equivalent Herc and SH force that could built for even half the Typhoon fleet cost!
232 supports a forward fleet of 137. The arithmetic shows that this figure is sufficient for seven frontline squadrons over the planned life of the jet.
Now to me, seven squadrons does not seem too many. You need five squadrons for UK AD and the Falklands commitment, and two spare to allow deployed AD or for work ups and deployments in the A-G role does not seem excessive.
But we won't get 232.
Tranche 2 has effectively been reduced by 24 jets, and if Tranche 3B doesn't happen, then Tranche 3 is smaller by another 48. It really looks like we'll get 160-180 Typhoons to support a forward fleet of 123 aircraft - sufficient for the five squadrons currently planned.
And that certainly isn't too many.
Now to me, seven squadrons does not seem too many. You need five squadrons for UK AD and the Falklands commitment, and two spare to allow deployed AD or for work ups and deployments in the A-G role does not seem excessive.
But we won't get 232.
Tranche 2 has effectively been reduced by 24 jets, and if Tranche 3B doesn't happen, then Tranche 3 is smaller by another 48. It really looks like we'll get 160-180 Typhoons to support a forward fleet of 123 aircraft - sufficient for the five squadrons currently planned.
And that certainly isn't too many.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUT, what's needed right now is more fixed wing and rotary air transport.
Our troops are being slaughtered and blown into small pieces not at 'work' but on their way towards 'work'.
Meanwhile, the new taxpayer employed boss of RBS is being paid an obscene salary.
Our troops are being slaughtered and blown into small pieces not at 'work' but on their way towards 'work'.
Meanwhile, the new taxpayer employed boss of RBS is being paid an obscene salary.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: wilderness
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last month Brigadier Ed Butler, who commanded 16 Air Assault Brigade in Helmand province in 2006 told MPs that the lack of helicopters meant the Taleban had been able to force British troops off the roads by using roadside bombs. He pointed out that in Northern Ireland there were 70 helicopters for 10,000 to 15,000 troops but in Afghanistan, with casualties rising steeply in the fiercest fighting since the Korean War, there were far fewer.
. Would you trust a 20+ yr old car to get you to work each and every day in a very harsh environment?SIA
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunatley the Typhoon hasn't deployed yet on ops and when it does I think some individuals will be eating their words. Look at criticism the Apache was getting on here from the Chinook crews a few years ago!
Yes the Chinook fleet is over 20 years old, So is the sea King fleet and the puma fleet. The FV432 fleet and scimitar fleet are even older as are the Type 22's, Hunt class MCMV's, S & T classes of submarines. this obselence hasn't crept up its been known in the system since they were bought. Now why are programmes not being planned on a long term basis IE why wasn't the Sea King replacement not being planned and budgeted for 15 years ago same with the chinook's etc etc? I would sugest the short term mentality that has crept into the whitehall ministries were planning beyond the next election no longer happens.
Yes the Chinook fleet is over 20 years old, So is the sea King fleet and the puma fleet. The FV432 fleet and scimitar fleet are even older as are the Type 22's, Hunt class MCMV's, S & T classes of submarines. this obselence hasn't crept up its been known in the system since they were bought. Now why are programmes not being planned on a long term basis IE why wasn't the Sea King replacement not being planned and budgeted for 15 years ago same with the chinook's etc etc? I would sugest the short term mentality that has crept into the whitehall ministries were planning beyond the next election no longer happens.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Guess
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To get back on the topic of lack of helo support, perhaps the good minister should travel up to BHX to speak to the C17 load of injured soilders coming back and explain to them and thier families the need not to supply more helos. But no the media and ministers won't be anywhere near! Tw@ts
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic (but you will see where I am going with this)...
The Def Sec may want to visit those that are are ill in hospital, or recoverying without limbs from their illness and ask theses people if their illness could have been avoided if more helicopters were available?
I recently dismissed an article that speculated that the current government would be remembered in history as the government that 'just didn't get it'. What is it that they do not get about the desperate and essential requirement for not only more helicopters, but helicopters that have more performance than the current valiant efforts of the Sea King and Puma forces?
The Def Sec may want to visit those that are are ill in hospital, or recoverying without limbs from their illness and ask theses people if their illness could have been avoided if more helicopters were available?
I recently dismissed an article that speculated that the current government would be remembered in history as the government that 'just didn't get it'. What is it that they do not get about the desperate and essential requirement for not only more helicopters, but helicopters that have more performance than the current valiant efforts of the Sea King and Puma forces?
Last edited by Front Seater; 9th Jul 2009 at 10:20.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sandhurst
Age: 50
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since when have helicopters been able to produce a magic forcefield that protect troops from mines and bullets?
Helicopters are needed but they won't stop blokes getting wounded, they could ensure that some are rescued to stay wounded and not end up dead though.
Helicopters are needed but they won't stop blokes getting wounded, they could ensure that some are rescued to stay wounded and not end up dead though.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Guess
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point front seater. I wonder just how many people know of the c17s full and tristars of criticaly injured and wounded every day. Perhaps the media should pay a visit to BHX. Then they can see the true impact of under funding !
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPMG,
I did have a detailed answer to your post - but I have edited to just simply remind you of how the helicopter helped rapidly move men and equipment around the battlefield (as in NI and early days in Bos) in order to assist with protection through surprise and always keeping the terrorist guessing.
Sadly I know that there is no Clingon super cloak force field just as I know that a combination of environment (= aircraft performance) and not enough helicopters results in ground forces having to operate in predictable and slow patrols that are subject to dickers and IEDs.
I did have a detailed answer to your post - but I have edited to just simply remind you of how the helicopter helped rapidly move men and equipment around the battlefield (as in NI and early days in Bos) in order to assist with protection through surprise and always keeping the terrorist guessing.
Sadly I know that there is no Clingon super cloak force field just as I know that a combination of environment (= aircraft performance) and not enough helicopters results in ground forces having to operate in predictable and slow patrols that are subject to dickers and IEDs.
Last edited by Front Seater; 9th Jul 2009 at 10:18.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is clear that a number of Contributors, here, are convinced that the only armed conflict we may be engaged in over the next 15 (ish) years will be against fanatical tribesmen in some (largely) landlocked s**t hole. There is no useful arguing with that mindset. They are convinced that if the unexpected does happen, we can buy the necessary missing asset off some obliging “shelf”.
We have, like it or not, obligations to overseas Dependencies and those that fall to Permanent Members of the UN Security Council. We also have National interest in natural resource assets in far flung places. Additionally, over half of our foreign trade is outside Europe and involves transport either on or over the high seas. A defence Force centred on even the best equipped Army on the planet would soon become very wet and very dead.
We have, like it or not, obligations to overseas Dependencies and those that fall to Permanent Members of the UN Security Council. We also have National interest in natural resource assets in far flung places. Additionally, over half of our foreign trade is outside Europe and involves transport either on or over the high seas. A defence Force centred on even the best equipped Army on the planet would soon become very wet and very dead.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Guess
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yawn GBZ, why every time subjects like this are brought up do the navy have to pipe up with the same old crap. I don't care about ships, this thread isn't about the threat on the high seas. It's about squadies being killed because of the lack of proper kit to help them ie helicopters!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enough Typhoons
Amazing isn't it what the intelligent ones spout. Any amount of typhoons is too many if ground troops are dying for lack of proper AT.
The Typhoons are a legacy of Fastjetcentric commanders and wargame scenario Int O's/ Journos with too much time on their hands and not enough sand in their boots. Jackonicko you are an a**e.
5d2d
The Typhoons are a legacy of Fastjetcentric commanders and wargame scenario Int O's/ Journos with too much time on their hands and not enough sand in their boots. Jackonicko you are an a**e.
5d2d
Oh for pete's sake...
I normally don't post on this kind of thread as I have far better things to do, but I'm laid up with swine flu so I will!
500days et al:
Yes I agree entirely, we don't have enough SH or AT. You're entirely right. What you have to realise is that the lack of these assets is not the fault of those who wanted and signed on the line for the Typhoon, or indeed any other fast jet. What you also need to realise is, though we might not need them right this second quite as much as AT/SH, we DO need them, and in sufficient quantities to allow them to do something.
One of the main reasons why we don't have Typhoon in the sandpit dropping LGBs on some Terry is that we only have 2 squadrons of them, which is enough to maintain southern QRA (one of the RAF's core tasks, before you ask!) and to gently work up to the A/G role, but not enough to sustain a deployment of X jets to the sandpit as the mighty harrier has been doing. If they were there, doing that job, I suspect you would be singing a slightly different tune.
As for the funding they take up, I put it to you that it makes no difference at all (practically) if we don't buy the whole lot or not, as the contract is so watertight as to mean pulling out would free up no funds whatsoever. The only shame is that we were so strapped for cash we sold our lot to the Saudis early on, which has increased the length of time until we get a reasonable number of the things so we can let them out of the QRA/airshow circuit.
As for the lack of SH/AT, I would suggest that the responsibility lies not with those who bought Typhoon, but those who thought it would be (a) a bloody brilliant idea to PFI the replacement AT/AAR assets and (b) those who were responsible for the chinook HC3 debacle....
If you want more assets than what we have coming on stream already, then unfortunately that requires more cash.
If someone could have forseen quite how much we were going to have our budget cut all the way back when they signed on the line for the 230 odd typhoons, and used their crystal ball to realise what a series of cock ups would happen in all the procurement streams, as well as the fact that we were going to be committed to fighting a war in a country where nearly half of our existing SH assets are about as much use as the proverbial chocolate fireguard without significant money being spent, then I'm sure that person would have raised a hand.
Anyhow, rant over, don't blame the 'phoon! If we want more SH NOW, we need to put our government to put its' cash where its' mouth is. Unfortunately, there isn't any left, so we'll have to make do and mend, just like we always do. The result of that is that some poor lad somewhere is going to get blown up by an IED, which isn't really acceptable. I present no solutions to that problem, apart from spending more money we don't have.
I normally don't post on this kind of thread as I have far better things to do, but I'm laid up with swine flu so I will!
500days et al:
Yes I agree entirely, we don't have enough SH or AT. You're entirely right. What you have to realise is that the lack of these assets is not the fault of those who wanted and signed on the line for the Typhoon, or indeed any other fast jet. What you also need to realise is, though we might not need them right this second quite as much as AT/SH, we DO need them, and in sufficient quantities to allow them to do something.
One of the main reasons why we don't have Typhoon in the sandpit dropping LGBs on some Terry is that we only have 2 squadrons of them, which is enough to maintain southern QRA (one of the RAF's core tasks, before you ask!) and to gently work up to the A/G role, but not enough to sustain a deployment of X jets to the sandpit as the mighty harrier has been doing. If they were there, doing that job, I suspect you would be singing a slightly different tune.
As for the funding they take up, I put it to you that it makes no difference at all (practically) if we don't buy the whole lot or not, as the contract is so watertight as to mean pulling out would free up no funds whatsoever. The only shame is that we were so strapped for cash we sold our lot to the Saudis early on, which has increased the length of time until we get a reasonable number of the things so we can let them out of the QRA/airshow circuit.
As for the lack of SH/AT, I would suggest that the responsibility lies not with those who bought Typhoon, but those who thought it would be (a) a bloody brilliant idea to PFI the replacement AT/AAR assets and (b) those who were responsible for the chinook HC3 debacle....
If you want more assets than what we have coming on stream already, then unfortunately that requires more cash.
If someone could have forseen quite how much we were going to have our budget cut all the way back when they signed on the line for the 230 odd typhoons, and used their crystal ball to realise what a series of cock ups would happen in all the procurement streams, as well as the fact that we were going to be committed to fighting a war in a country where nearly half of our existing SH assets are about as much use as the proverbial chocolate fireguard without significant money being spent, then I'm sure that person would have raised a hand.
Anyhow, rant over, don't blame the 'phoon! If we want more SH NOW, we need to put our government to put its' cash where its' mouth is. Unfortunately, there isn't any left, so we'll have to make do and mend, just like we always do. The result of that is that some poor lad somewhere is going to get blown up by an IED, which isn't really acceptable. I present no solutions to that problem, apart from spending more money we don't have.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: u.k.
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do find some comments strange ; I'm with the camp that says how about we make sure we can win the fight we're in and protect as many lives as possible ,before looking at capability to fight any others, shortsighted it may be but how many more troops have to be blown up by IEDs due to lack of SH?
I'm also confused as to why the first variant of Typhoon had to be the AD variant and not the GR ,considering the amount of live CAS sorties flown compared to confirmed RAF air-to-air kills over the last 25 yrs.
As a layman are to two variants that different that a change couldn't have been introduced into the production line when it was fairly obvious that the only wars we can afford to fight were going to be counter insurgency?
I'm also confused as to why the first variant of Typhoon had to be the AD variant and not the GR ,considering the amount of live CAS sorties flown compared to confirmed RAF air-to-air kills over the last 25 yrs.
As a layman are to two variants that different that a change couldn't have been introduced into the production line when it was fairly obvious that the only wars we can afford to fight were going to be counter insurgency?