Fury at Def Sec over Helicopter Shortage

[MaroonMan4]

Nurse,

I am not a Sea King expert and you do make some valid points (especially regarding the HC3 where I wholeheartedly agree, and the only solace is that when we go through the CH47 MLU that all of the costs and experience would have been gained from this debacle of a procurement). I assume (only through the open press) that the Puma LEP is a given and a non reversible.

This decision alone changes the dynamic, as I too would agree that the Puma force should be binned, but I do see the requirement for an aircraft that has a footprint/disc less than a CH47/Merlin, and as the Puma system is in place I can see why DEC ALM/JHC decided to continue with this plan.

Therefore we are left with the Fisheads to sort out as they (without LEP) are really hurting and need something that makes them more capable (such a waste of a superb bunch of aircrew and groundcrews, that actually deliver (on the whole ) not a lot through no fault of their own. They also potentially provide a source of aircrew and engineers that can be potentially pushed through the system the quickest, especially when Merlin arrives in theatre and instantly doubles (probably triples?) what a Sea King can lift.

As to whether CHF re-role as Merlin or CH47, that is very much a decision for DEC ALM/JHC (and boy have they had long enough (10-15 years!) to think about this!). Do they go down your plan of Merlin in amphibious role, or down a CH47 route, or do they have one squadron of each at Yeovilton, or does CHF take a bow and they absorb into Benson/Odiham as an amphib squadron (one Fishead squadron per aircraft type and the CHF staff officers absorbed into the relevant SHF HQ). Regardless, in answer to your question the reduction in airframes/squadron numbers cannot be allowed to happen (as per Joint Force Harrier) otherwise we have facilitated a low cost smoke and mirrors that only appeases H M Treasury and the Prime Minister's spin doctors. So 28 would sit along side 845 and 18/27 would sit alongside 846 (for exampe), with the Commando training squadron being the only sacrifice with an enlarged Merlin/CH47 OCU made up of the QHI/QHCIs (or whatever the RN call them) from 848.

I hasten to add that I am all for keeping CHF, and in the ideal world letting them have a force mix of CH47 and Merlin as that would truly make them an organic amphibious force, that not only prevents me from going to sea, but also falls into the operations plot like 3 Cdo Bde, so at some stage Odiham does (hopefully) get a break.

The only reason why I could possibly see CHF and Fishead squadrons having to re-locate to Benson or Odiham would be to appease the logisticians/fleet managers as there appears to be a a belief that operational capability is not sacrificed by fleet nodes (as seen by all of the AH to Wattisham, CH47 at Odiham and green Merlin at Benson). I do disagree, and as the AH found when moving from Dishforth and losing their Lynx/training areas there is every chance that trying to appease the logisticians by simply putting all aircraft types on one station would actually reduce operational capability.

In answer to the CH47 - the answer is yes, of course F - and it really is amazing that countries like Canada and Australia have been on the ball as to the requirement and funding, and yet here we are with our pants down. Hopefully our HC4 MLU will get us in the ball park of the F. But, if there really are no F models out there any CH47 will surely be better than the 'mighty' Sea King, and as long as downstream it is standardised during the HC4 MLU, then there is an interim fleets within fleets. Bottom line, ask a Sea King driver if he would prefer an older non-standard CH47 or his current aircraft, and once the loyalty and nostalgia and history was put to one side, for doing the job he/she would say CH47 I am sure.

But as I have indicated, where there is a (political) will there is a (DEC ALM/IPT) way and I believe that given the 'special relationship', operational requirement and Mr Boeing just loving to have his product on operations for marketing purposes, that there is every possibility that all is not lost if UK MoD really did want to acquire more CH47F in a very short time frame. It may cost extra or we may owe another nation a 'favour' but I believe that it is genuinely possible and to me is the true test of whether H M Govt/MoD are taking this seriously or just hoping that it will be lost in the long grass when the media finds something else that grabs a headline.

If the Commando Sea King fleet is rapidly re-roled to either/or both Merlin/CH47 on arrival of the current established Merlins in theatre, then a combination of the SAR and SKASaCs will be able to form a training pipeline. With the Commando Sea Kings gone there are only a few Sea Kings that require a training pipeline. Worst case use the ex green painted ex ASW airframes (Mk6?) and take a few of the 848 squadron QHIs for the basic conversion down at Culdrose, colocated with either the SAR or SKASaCs squadron. That should keep the Fishead basic Sea King training pipeline going, with a differences and CR course when on type.

[NURSE]

Maroon Man
For the FAA Merlin is the best option they have it in service alread and have the crews and infrastructure to support it with the ASW/ASV fleet It could also take on the AEW role as the Italians have also done. The draw back with the current HC3 Merlin fleet is how ship compatable is it? in its current form can the Merlin HC3 be maintained on Ocean and Ark Royal without modifying the airframe?


wouldn't something like that be a better option for the Navy?

I agree there is a need for Chinook support to CHF and the current arrangement appears to work. Or if more airframes were available IE in a new buy situation then the formation of a dedicated squadron would be a good option.

The SAR sea kings will cease to be a problem when SAR is privatised.

[spheroid]

If the Commando Sea King fleet is rapidly re-roled to either/or both Merlin/CH47 on arrival of the current established Merlins in theatre, then a combination of the SAR and SKASaCs will be able to form a training pipeline

The trouble with that of course is that the SAR and ASaC pipeline is currently toppers with both Squadrons spinning plates trying to train and regenerate crews in Afghanistan..... If you want that plan to work then you need to withdraw the Bags from Afghan and thats not going to happen.

[NURSE]

with more sea king HC4's in A'Stan wouldn't that help ease the pressure on the ASaC maintainers?

[MaroonMan4]

Nurse,

I am with you, but although you and I wax lyrical and attempt to balance some of the doom mongerers on this thread by offering possible solutions, we all must recognise that we are just 'shooting the breeze' and ultimately this is a MoD/DEC ALM and JHC HQ decision.

If there really is a requirement, and there really is a political will (read funding) then we all know that at the squadron level we can make it work - whether it is your amphibious Merlin idea, or my Chinook idea or a combination of the 2.

One thing I am pretty sure about, and that is whatever you and I discuss on this blog, has already been discussed and placed in context in town and Wilton.

If the politicians really have put the funding back into helicopters, then the ball is very much back in DEC ALM's and JHC HQ's court to make a decision.

This I fear is where we could lose vital time as single service 'protectionism' as those in the DECs/JHC revert to their service politics.

This is where good leadership will cut through this staff officer single service mentality for a true best practice/combat effect/operational capability-however painful it may be for an individual service/fleet in order to achieve the greater good.

If not - and all we have done is a media frenzy exercise and in one month nothing has happened and only confirmation of the Puma LEP is the only quantifiable increase in lift capability, then I am sad as we will still have removed the option of helicopter lift to the commander on the ground and thereby forcing his hand to go by land.

Spheroid - still not a show stopper, very simple - when JHC and Navy Command do the maths, they will work out what the RN Sea King training requirement is and divide 848 up accordingly (personally, for all of the increase in tactical lift capability, the loss (or reduction) of one RN training squadron appears a sound discussion point?). If it means that a few of the younger Sea King HC4s become conversion trainers for the SAR/SKASaCs then so be it. Any resources (air/ground crew) that are left once Navy Command has filled its projected training requirement can be re-allocated/alloted to either Merlin or CH47 OCU. Same principle applies, just colocate the necessary 848 aircraft and personnel at Culdrose to satisfy the RN Sea King trg requirement. Lets be honest,from a pure Sea King training perspective Culdrose is where the RN Sea King simulator and ground school is any way

[the funky munky]

If only our lords and masters hadn't cut SABR! FRC was the worst thing to happen to the Rotary wing world over the last 10 years. Cutting the budget from £4.5 Bn to £3 Bn put us back to square 1 thus we have had to LEP the aged Sea King and knackered/dangerous Puma.
The only reason we are in this mess is because the budgets have been squeezed, the original thought was to lease new aircraft but guess what its unaffordable so LEP came along.
One thing that does jar though, you are all discussing giving CHF Chinook, it can't be folded and struck down in the hangar of CVS/CVF or Ocean. It is just not suited to the littoral environment or are you assuming CHF will always play in the sandpit?. SABR heavy was going to be CH53 which is fully folding and is perfect, just ask the USMC.

Perfectly agree we should have a version of the 101 MMI but where are you gonna find £1 Bn to buy replace Sk4? And then a further £2 Bn for the rest of FMH?

Face facts the MoD is broke. Treasury are making us pay for UORs out of our own budgets so the spiral is becoming more vicious. Therefore either we extend what we have or take them out of theatre all together.

[MaroonMan4]

Funky Munky,

If we are broke, then lets re-align our expectations. If you are broke, do you go out on the town? Equally, if we are that broke then the politicians shouldn't be asking us to 'go out on the town'.

Their choice, they want the tactical success.

[jim2673]

LX3/8 is going to be replaced with SCMR (Wildcat).
How about we pull all Merlin MK1 from the ass end of the T23.
Replace T23 flights with LX3/8 as applicable and let them run the Lynx fleet down.
Fish head ship tours will be heavily constained by lack of funding....Real world events in AFG....lots of diembarked LX Flights
Take a dozen or so Merlin Mk1 and convert to Merlin MK1C for theatre.....How difficult is it to remove and/or disable the whale hunter/radar.
Not an ideal solution but a possible one none the less in advance of a order for CH47/NH90/Merlin Mk 4/AW139 ETC
LX7 is shagged in theatre until LX9A with T800 is cleared.

OR

Urinate into wind.

[NURSE]

Unfortunatley Jim2673 the Merlin Mk1 & Lynx 8's are also busy looking for pirates and smugglers in various parts of the world.

The RN Merlin also isn't fitted with the Ramp or has anywhere near the carrying capicity of the HC3 when its in the "Utility" role unlike the Italian Navy Transport/Assualt version.

[Modern Elmo]

SABR heavy was going to be CH53 which is fully folding and is perfect, just ask the USMC.

No, they're not. The H-53's the USMC currently has are rattletraps.

Furthermore, The tandem rotor or coaxial main rotor design is better than single main rotor and tail rotor for the heavier lift/transport role.

Instead of building H-53K's, the DoD should be requesting wider, upgraded Chinooks, with Navy, powered folding rotor versions of same available.

I am diplomatically avoiding any comments on the hover payload fraction of the British Merlin.


... Several of the previous posts err in assuming that:

(a) Any helo in operation now will be desirable fifteen or so years from now;

(b) Fifteen or so years from now has much relevance to operations in Afghanland NOW. At times, the future is now.

[Jolly Green]

The US Marine Corps CH-53E (3 engine, 1980's procurement) fleet does have folding heads and tails. The CH-53D fleet (2-engine, 1960's buy) was designed with it, but may have been modified to the non-folding rotor head. The 53 is designed to operate off of a ship.

The the CH-47 was never designed to fold. The US Army has figured out how to make it fit best on a ship, but fold and spread is a manual operation requiring a lot of time and a huge deck footprint. I don't see any navy buying them, ever.

[HectorusRex]

Helicopter fleet to be reduced to save £1.4 billion The Times learns

Helicopter fleet to be reduced to save £1.4 billion The Times learns
Michael Evans, Defence Editor
Helicopter fleet to be reduced to save £1.4 billion The Times learns - Times Online
The Armed Forces helicopter fleet is to be reduced by more than half over the next ten years to save £1.4 billion from the defence budget, The Times has learnt.
Under the Ministry of Defence’s plans for the future the total fleet will be reduced to 291 by 2019. This will involve the Fleet Air Arm reducing from 166 to 66 helicopters, the Army Air Corps from 198 to 112, and the RAF from 138 to 113.
The revelation came after the country’s most senior military officer emerged from talks with Gordon Brown to say that the deployment of more helicopters to Afghanistan would save lives.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, gave the Prime Minister a “shopping list” of equipment and troop demands for Afghanistan from Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the Army.
The involvement of Sir Jock and the decision to go direct to No 10 highlighted the drama of a week in which General Dannatt has grabbed the headlines by making public his concerns about the campaign in Afghanistan during a visit to the troops in Helmand province.
Speaking in Downing Street after requesting more helicopters, additional troops and extra spy-in-the-sky unmanned surveillance drones, Sir Jock said: “In this situation where you have lots of improvised explosive devices, the more you can increase your tactical flexibility by moving people by helicopters, then the more unpredictable your movements become to the enemy. Therefore it is quite patently the case that you could save casualties by doing that.”
With two of the most senior military chiefs making public statements about the requirement for more helicopters and other equipment for the troops in Helmand, the Prime Minister was left in no doubt that the three services are now allied in demanding more resources for the campaign.
Downing Street said General Dannatt’s recommendations would be looked at “very seriously”.
Asked on the Radio 4 Today programme whether the Army had now become more political, General Dannatt replied: “Military business is always through a political framework. Whether it’s political with a big ‘P’ or a little ‘P’, it’s naive to think that soldiers can just do rifles and boots and whatever, we have to sit within a savvy, wider envelope.”
“Yes, of course, there is a line which generals speaking publicly should not cross. If some people think I crossed it that’s their judgment and I respect their judgment, but I don’t believe I crossed it,” he added.
General Dannatt said that he had warned the MoD that he would be bringing back a shopping list of demands from his Afghanistan trip, and that there would be a “financial cost” involved. The “strategic enterprise” in Afghanistan would be at risk, he said, if the troops did not have the surveillance equipment they needed to try to catch the Taleban planting improvised explosive devices (IEDs). “If we fail in our offensive counter-IED campaign it’ll have strategic consequences because, quite rightly, if we were to carry on the number of casualties that we had last week the people of our own country might say, ‘hang on, I think this is a price not worth paying’ — but that would be a disaster in strategic terms,” General Dannatt said.
“We have got to be able to see what the Taleban are doing better [with] overhead surveillance — we have a certain amount of capability — we’ve got to be able to target where they’re laying these things. We’ve also got to have sufficient people on the ground to build up our human intelligence picture so that we know what’s going on with the Taleban laying their IEDs so we can kill or capture people who are doing this to deter them from doing it again, or just simply to remove them. It’s really critical we do that,” he said.
General Dannatt, who retires on August 28, said that if more money was not going to be forthcoming from the Treasury, the MoD would have to “reorder some of our internal priorities”. He admitted that this would not be welcomed in the MoD because more money would have to go to the Army, to the detriment of the Royal Navy and RAF.

[MaroonMan4]

Jolly,

You are right, which Navy would buy CH47? But then again, which Navy has its Commando/amphibious assets cut down so much that it has to borrow Air Force CH47 to get the job done, all under the premise of a Joint Command. Also it is widely recognised that in most cases the CH47 satisfys most of the lift requiements for both amphibious and land forces.

I am sure that if we do embark (forgive the pun) down the re-roling of CHF to CH47 then either deck space will be made available (off load the other rotary wing assets to other boats (Albion/Bulwark/RFAs etc).

If we assume that CHF (as part of JHC) will also support land as well as amphibious forces (as 3 Cdo Bde currently does) then as per the CH47's operations from the back of the O Boat since 1998/9 (including Al Faw) it has proven to increase lift considerably without a blade fold in sight.

And I believe that CH47 will still be a requirement in the battlespace in the next 10-15 years, and can cope with all environments. Of course I am naturally going to be a supporter of the CH47 - to me it is one of the few aircraft that genuinely does what is advertised on the tin.

My main reason for dismissing other aircraft types is that the UK IPT, DES, DEC ALM and JHC already has experts on its staff, has a system in place (training, logisitcs, TLS), has the experience (both good and bad) and therefore has better chance at seeing the industry hoodwinking and contractual poo traps.

In order to deliver a timely increase in battle helicopter lift effect to ground forces I would suggest that the solution is to increase the system that we already have in place. That is the main challenge I believe.

From a personal perspective I believe that we can all do 'blue sky thinking' and yet again re-visit the 'what if' but I believe the moment we start to go over the old (and new) ground of Mi 17, AB139, CH53, NH90 etc then we instantly add years and years onto any procurement, when actually when we look at the operational analysis, physically go on operations (across the entire spectrum of conflict) and do the job then a force mix of CH47, Merlin, and AH are doing a superb job, just not enough of them.

It is the Puma and Sea King that are currently the airframes that have been woefully neglected and patched up like your grandma's car. Although not my personal choice I can see why the funding for Puma LEP has been approved as the Puma does have a smaller disc area/loading than the CH47/Merlin.

Therefore by default it is the wheezy Sea King capability that needs not only the immediate attention, but could potentially deliver the quickest turn around of air and groundcrew to deliver an increase to the troops on the ground (and along the way satisfy the NAOs concern regarding a 60% (?) shortage in amphibious lift). The arrival of the Merlin and Lynx T800 could give the majority of Sea Kings fleet time/breathing space to re-role (in time to pick up the downgraded HC3s or to take on the new CH47Fs?).

Again, back to DEC ALM/ JHC - when the decision is made to re-role the Commando Sea King, what does DEC ALM/JHC want from the amphibious capability? Does it want a CHF force mix of Merlin (i.e. Nurse's Italian assault) and CH47? Or does it want a single capability for logisitics/fleet management purposes (i.e. CHF all Merlin or all CH47)? Do the crews return to Yeovilton or are they absorbed into Benson and Odiham?

When this fundamental question is answered, then a truly efficient and rapid transition can take place. As I have said, these are not new questions.

[NURSE]

The figures would appear to be the worse case scenario in Flynx and Future support helecopter don't happen.

The helecopter fleet will reduce with the privatisation of Search and Rescue loosing about 30 aircraft.

[NURSE]

Maroon Man I would totally agree with a CH47 equipped CHF instead of the Merlin assualt if the chinook could be adapted to work of ships fully including being able to be put below into hangers and not just be deck cargo. If the Chinook was capable of being given folding blades i'm sure Beoing would offer that option. Most of the Assualt ships and modern RFA's were built with chinook in mind and the decks are of the dimensions to operate them its the space below where the problems lie.
However is the UK going to go down the route of a specialist chinook fit again? I would suspect not. But the sooner descisions are made on the long term future of chinook the better the Aussies and Cannuks were very quick to jump on the CH47F programme and the sooner we do the same the better.
And I do agree there needs to be a fundmental change in attitude to SH in all 3 services with some long term joined up thinking. I think SH sqns have been on operations constantly since the 1960's. The CHF will have to borrow not only Chinooks but also Apache in order to conduct future operations. But then all ops now are ment to be joint enterprises.

[Evalu8ter]

Nurse,
SABR heavy was going to be a marinised folding-head CH47 (with fat tanks/radar etc etc...). -53 was looked at but -53E was out of production (and ruinously expensive to run) and -53X was too far in the future. The real pi**er is that SABR CH47 would have been arriving next year if the SABR budget hadn't been raped by £1.5Bn......

RAF Merlins don't fold - the capability was removed in an effort to boost its' lift capability (no sniggering now....). Therefore, to marinise Merlin you'd need to buy back that weight just to stay even. Happily better engines/xmsns do exist thanks to VH-71, so any CHF Merlins would need these. I agree that the Italian marinised Merlin is a good option for CHF, as long as the booties still have access to CH47 for the really heavy stuff.

The Aussies, Dutch and UAE have all ordered CH47F; the Canadians are not yet on contract. Even if we were to order now we wouldn't see an ac for 3 years and, as MM4 points out, they would be yet another fleet within fleets - unless we decided to recapitalise the whole fleet on a -47F basis. The Mk4 Chinook is not the MLU, it is a palliative measure to address issues with certain kit at the moment- though it could provide the basis for the MLU. The MLU is not planned to start for a few years yet.

We undeniably need a Puma sized ac for certain land-centric tasks, though, hopefully, any future medium buy will have some littoral capability.

[NURSE]

I know the RAF merlin doesn't fold and that the Italian ones have different engines I hope at a future date the HC3's get a better one. And do totally agree that both the marines should have access to the chinook (and apache) as needed and the Future support helicopter needs to be littoral capable. The best option being 1 standard buy instead of an RAF version and a Fleet Air Arm version.

[MaroonMan4]

Some really good points made, and I hope that maybe DEC ALM and JHC maybe consider some of them (if they haven't already done so, which I suspect is the case).

The key decision remains - what does JHC want to look like in the future, as it has the real opportunity to right the wrongs for today, and position itself for the future.

If we all agree that if the Puma LEP is a wise move and that the Commando Sea King fleet should be the first to be re-roled, then the powers that be need to make a decision on how it wants to deliver its amphibious lift capability, as well as supporting current land operations.

Although I admit I have a vested interest in leaving CHF as an autonomous (under JHC - but dedicated to 3 Cdo Bde), organic (lift and strike) capability because I really am one of those light blue that hate the O Boat. But also I do recognise that the maritime environment does require specialist skills, knowledge and experience. I also like the idea of CHF supporting 3 Cdo Bde on land operations that would potentially give our SHF and the Army AH a rest.

Sadly I believe that the AH and to a certain degree the CH47 fleet are not that bit interested in maintaining a true amphibious capability, and probably in the AH case would have to start from scratch every time it wanted to embark as the whole double earmarking concept has just not worked.

Before any talk of re-roling the Commando Sea Kings and CHF can take place, someone has to make that much awaited, much delayed, but vitally important decision on how JHC wants to deliver its amphibious capability, as well as continue to support and improve the lift to current operations.

[Clockwork Mouse]

Of course if the British Army were allowed to fund, procure and operate their own fleet of battlefield support helicopters, as do all the armies in the rest of the civilised world, there probably wouldn't be the shortage we are now experiencing as they wouldn't have given undue priority to large numbers of sexy but redundant fast, pointy things.

I now await the usual welter of outraged abuse from the perpetrators of the current insanity!

[NURSE]

I do agree there is a need for CHF to be kept with its amphibious focus and capibility that can be deployed on ships if we still have an amphibious fleet in the future!
As it seams that the Puma LEP is the way ahead Maroon man's idea is a good way ahead but I would sugest that FSH programme be split to purchase a version of the Merlin with more powerful engines folding rotors and tail to replace the Seaking HC4 preferable on a 1 for 1 basis of the HC4 fleet. hopefully sorting out some of the HC3's short commings and when the HC3 is refurbished it gets new engines etc.
And at the earliest opportunity the future of the chinook fleet be decided when it goes to the CH-47F and wether we go down the route of all having folding rotors.
The Puma replacement can be deffered slightly but it should have Littoral capability.