Fury at Def Sec over Helicopter Shortage
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob tells the truth !!!
Quick make a note Bob tells the truth re eight Chinooks!!!
House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 July 2009 (pt 0021)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Bob Ainsworth):
16 July 2009 : Column 550
Let me tell the House what I will do. I will, if necessary, bend people out of shape to ensure that the Lynx has all the necessary capability from this October, so that we do not have to withdraw it in the spring. I will consider again whether there is any way in which we can bring the eight useless Chinooks that we bought back in 1996 into service any more quickly. Our plan is to get additional Chinooks out there next summer, and if we can do it more quickly, we will. I will consider again whether we can squeeze more out of every frame that we have. When troops are in the field, I am going to satisfy myself that every single muscle is being flexed in every single part of our helicopter capability.
House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 July 2009 (pt 0021)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Bob Ainsworth):
16 July 2009 : Column 550
Let me tell the House what I will do. I will, if necessary, bend people out of shape to ensure that the Lynx has all the necessary capability from this October, so that we do not have to withdraw it in the spring. I will consider again whether there is any way in which we can bring the eight useless Chinooks that we bought back in 1996 into service any more quickly. Our plan is to get additional Chinooks out there next summer, and if we can do it more quickly, we will. I will consider again whether we can squeeze more out of every frame that we have. When troops are in the field, I am going to satisfy myself that every single muscle is being flexed in every single part of our helicopter capability.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clockwork mouse not all armies in the "civilised" world have their own SH the Canadians, Dutch, New Zealanders all rely on their airforce. The Split the UK has makes things that bit more complicated. and this infrastructure needs sorting.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Desert mainly, occasionally arctic and rarely jungle
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clockwork Mouse - No welter of outraged abuse, just correcting the facts.
Hate to be the one to break this to you but the British Army does fund, procure and operate SH and even prior to the formation of JHC the Army was responsible for funding and procuring as all SH came from the Army Vote. Helicopters v Infantry/Armour/Arty it's hardly a surprise we're in the mess we're in is it...
If you think putting a load of AAC pilots in CH47/Merlin et al is instantly going to make life better you are both deluded (Lynx and AH manning hardly rosy at the moment) and undertaking a grave disservice to the SH aircrew and what they achieve on ops alongside their equally committed and brave Green and Dark Blue brethren.
If you want to debate fast pointy wizzy things v AT then I completely agree that the Crabs got the balance wrong (but still acknowledging that F3 and Jag had to be replaced).
Hate to be the one to break this to you but the British Army does fund, procure and operate SH and even prior to the formation of JHC the Army was responsible for funding and procuring as all SH came from the Army Vote. Helicopters v Infantry/Armour/Arty it's hardly a surprise we're in the mess we're in is it...
If you think putting a load of AAC pilots in CH47/Merlin et al is instantly going to make life better you are both deluded (Lynx and AH manning hardly rosy at the moment) and undertaking a grave disservice to the SH aircrew and what they achieve on ops alongside their equally committed and brave Green and Dark Blue brethren.
If you want to debate fast pointy wizzy things v AT then I completely agree that the Crabs got the balance wrong (but still acknowledging that F3 and Jag had to be replaced).
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The British Army does fund, procure and operate SH and even prior to the formation of JHC the Army was responsible for funding and procuring as all SH came from the Army Vote
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am afraid that the whole maritime pre-embarkation training and currencies do not fit well with the 16 Air Assault Brigade operational and exercise plots, amphibious operations just do not factor in the AH training or mindset. We cetainly no longer have the experience or the crews to sustain a true amphibious capability (agreed, double earmarking was a ruse to convince the Navy to let go of their Lynx sqn).
Clockwok Mouse,
What is your point and relevance? Of course Land run all BH, through JHC
If as has been said there is funding available and if there is a real chance of trying to rectify some of the previous issues that historically could not be tackled due to lack of resources/money, then I would agree that if CHF was to be taken seriously and JHC did really want to deliver an amphibious capability (that also assisted with the land campaign and current operations), then maybe instead of cobbling together RAF CH47 and AH that are really not interested in or resourced to sustain a maritime capability, then maybe replace the RM Lynx with AH at the same time as sorting out the Sea Kings.
I too do like the idea of Wattisham having a rest (with CHF taking up the weight when the RM Bde deploys) - and I also am not too sure how concurrently doing 16 Air Assault's business (on operations and NOCP) and also supporting the RN will go down with Mrs Front Seater.
I do not get paid enough to make these decisions, but there are people out there that do, and as per the whole SH debate I agree we really cannot progress anywhere with any efficiency or speed to rectify the present situation unless we know where we are going and how we want to fight our wars and campaigns in the future.
Clockwok Mouse,
What is your point and relevance? Of course Land run all BH, through JHC
If as has been said there is funding available and if there is a real chance of trying to rectify some of the previous issues that historically could not be tackled due to lack of resources/money, then I would agree that if CHF was to be taken seriously and JHC did really want to deliver an amphibious capability (that also assisted with the land campaign and current operations), then maybe instead of cobbling together RAF CH47 and AH that are really not interested in or resourced to sustain a maritime capability, then maybe replace the RM Lynx with AH at the same time as sorting out the Sea Kings.
I too do like the idea of Wattisham having a rest (with CHF taking up the weight when the RM Bde deploys) - and I also am not too sure how concurrently doing 16 Air Assault's business (on operations and NOCP) and also supporting the RN will go down with Mrs Front Seater.
I do not get paid enough to make these decisions, but there are people out there that do, and as per the whole SH debate I agree we really cannot progress anywhere with any efficiency or speed to rectify the present situation unless we know where we are going and how we want to fight our wars and campaigns in the future.
Last edited by Front Seater; 18th Jul 2009 at 11:48.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Getting JHC and NC to do the maths is the first stumbling block.... Move 848 to Culdrose.... easy in principal but Culdrose is toppers.... the Wardroom is full .....Squadrons are sharing buildings...the place is a mess.... (it probably something as significant as this to shake it into the 21st C)...... Your plan makes perfect sense but I'm just concerned that once the bean counters get hold of the idea then they would stop it.
Sticking neck out...
Isn't just more helicopters the wrong answer? What is the point in rounding up Pongos in bits (or worse) when we should be attacking the IEDs and Terry?
Neck back in...
Seriously, more SHs is not the only answer. More, C-IED capablity, armed overwatch (both UAV and NTISR), attack helos, more ISTAR (SIGINT, GMTI and SAR) are all in short supply and SAVE LIVES - if the UK wants to do this "on the cheap" then MQ-9 REAPER and MQ-1 PREDATOR offer up the "lion's share" of these capabilities to varying degrees. Furthermore, the RA's H450/WATCHKEEPERs could deliver some of these if funded correctly. Furthermore, "Direct-Fires" air platforms such as AC130 or A-10 would also be v-useful and SAVE LIVES.
Does anyone know what else was on Sir Jock's shopping list from the Air perspective???
LJ
Isn't just more helicopters the wrong answer? What is the point in rounding up Pongos in bits (or worse) when we should be attacking the IEDs and Terry?
Neck back in...
Seriously, more SHs is not the only answer. More, C-IED capablity, armed overwatch (both UAV and NTISR), attack helos, more ISTAR (SIGINT, GMTI and SAR) are all in short supply and SAVE LIVES - if the UK wants to do this "on the cheap" then MQ-9 REAPER and MQ-1 PREDATOR offer up the "lion's share" of these capabilities to varying degrees. Furthermore, the RA's H450/WATCHKEEPERs could deliver some of these if funded correctly. Furthermore, "Direct-Fires" air platforms such as AC130 or A-10 would also be v-useful and SAVE LIVES.
Does anyone know what else was on Sir Jock's shopping list from the Air perspective???
LJ
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Desert mainly, occasionally arctic and rarely jungle
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting statement. Not when I was in MoD they didn't.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon,
Yes, yes and yes to everything you say.....but please read the entire thread before posting and you will see that many on here (including myself) agree that more helicopters is not the solution, but I think the majority of people on this thread see an increase in helicopter lift as an essential part of a solution.
The very fact that commanders on the ground have the choice in the way that they conduct their business rather than being forced down one road move solution is enough for me as an operator.
Of course more UAVs/UCAVs, of course more ISR - yes yes and again yes. But in my comfort zone of helicopters, on a military aviation blog, I focus on how we in the rotay world can rapidly and efficiently deliver an increase in lift that may (and I use the word deliberately) provide increased protection to the ground manoeuvre commander as he can elect to bounce his patrols from grid to grid avoiding high threat canalised roads and vehicle choke points. In certain circumtances with enough CH47, true air mobility will allow a commander to drive out of Camp Bastion in vehicles, conduct a patrol and then be air lifted randomly and with complete surprise to the next patrol objective. And if not CH47 to lift vehicles, then even more Merlins or Puma LEP will be able to bounce foot patols around the Area of Opeations, randomly, and again adding surprise to the enemy as areas identified as a high threat by the int community are flown over to an area identified as a lower threat for landing and re-establishing a patrol dominance/security. As per Northern Ireland and the Balkans. I say again, where did we throw away those Lessons (hard) Learned from those campaigns? South Armagh was humming with helicopters because of the road side bomb/ IED threat.
Not rocket science.
That alone Leon must surely add to protection?
The message that it adds flexibility and choice to the commander on the ground - something that sadly we are not capable of at the moment (and on the current forecast will not be able to for the forseeable future with 10,000+ boots on the ground)
Yes, yes and yes to everything you say.....but please read the entire thread before posting and you will see that many on here (including myself) agree that more helicopters is not the solution, but I think the majority of people on this thread see an increase in helicopter lift as an essential part of a solution.
The very fact that commanders on the ground have the choice in the way that they conduct their business rather than being forced down one road move solution is enough for me as an operator.
Of course more UAVs/UCAVs, of course more ISR - yes yes and again yes. But in my comfort zone of helicopters, on a military aviation blog, I focus on how we in the rotay world can rapidly and efficiently deliver an increase in lift that may (and I use the word deliberately) provide increased protection to the ground manoeuvre commander as he can elect to bounce his patrols from grid to grid avoiding high threat canalised roads and vehicle choke points. In certain circumtances with enough CH47, true air mobility will allow a commander to drive out of Camp Bastion in vehicles, conduct a patrol and then be air lifted randomly and with complete surprise to the next patrol objective. And if not CH47 to lift vehicles, then even more Merlins or Puma LEP will be able to bounce foot patols around the Area of Opeations, randomly, and again adding surprise to the enemy as areas identified as a high threat by the int community are flown over to an area identified as a lower threat for landing and re-establishing a patrol dominance/security. As per Northern Ireland and the Balkans. I say again, where did we throw away those Lessons (hard) Learned from those campaigns? South Armagh was humming with helicopters because of the road side bomb/ IED threat.
Not rocket science.
That alone Leon must surely add to protection?
The message that it adds flexibility and choice to the commander on the ground - something that sadly we are not capable of at the moment (and on the current forecast will not be able to for the forseeable future with 10,000+ boots on the ground)
If the Government was really serious about buying more helicopters they could buy the fleet of WG30 helicopters that were up for sale not too long ago. It would require the agreement of AW to support them. Apart from the certification issues it is probably the quickest way to supply SH and they are British. There are also a few ex-military Wessex around which could be flown at short notice. Crewing is another problem.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like the idea OLDLAE,stick new engines in them and a DAS suite and you've got a very quick fix all you need then are the crews,groundies and engineers to fix them and you've got a new regiment of support helicopters all for a relatively low outlay.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are probably dozens of capable helicopters in storage in Arizona that could be put back into service, however there are not the (UK) qualified crews, nor the defensive toys that they need in sandy places. To suggest WG30 or Wessex is I hope a tonque in cheek comment.
An option may be to employ aircraft without defensive toys on UK training and routine tasking to enable fully equiped aircraft to deploy en-masse. Though mixed standard fleets is not what UK mil plc normally approve of.
Bottom line; we now pay the price for a lack of investment in the last 20 years. Even Chinooks date back to about 1982, Pumas 1971 and Sea Queen about the same. The Merlin fleet should be the be all and end all these days supported by upgraded Chinook. The HCII Puma is well overdue is place in the RAF Museum, and should have been replaced years ago.
Quick fix would be to contract the likes of Bristow & British Intl on contract for rear echelon bus runs, or make use of short rough landing strips for the likes of G222/Spartan fixed wing.
An option may be to employ aircraft without defensive toys on UK training and routine tasking to enable fully equiped aircraft to deploy en-masse. Though mixed standard fleets is not what UK mil plc normally approve of.
Bottom line; we now pay the price for a lack of investment in the last 20 years. Even Chinooks date back to about 1982, Pumas 1971 and Sea Queen about the same. The Merlin fleet should be the be all and end all these days supported by upgraded Chinook. The HCII Puma is well overdue is place in the RAF Museum, and should have been replaced years ago.
Quick fix would be to contract the likes of Bristow & British Intl on contract for rear echelon bus runs, or make use of short rough landing strips for the likes of G222/Spartan fixed wing.
Never too certain of the truth in these stories, but an interesting and relevant article in today's press on Helicopters.
MoD rejected three deals to buy Black Hawk helicopters | UK news | The Observer
MoD rejected three deals to buy Black Hawk helicopters | UK news | The Observer
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Undoubtedly Blackhawks are doing a superb job in Theatre, especially the ones that sit alongside us and the MERTs.
But they are not your average Blackhawk.
Although I can see why people may instantly throw their arms up when industry has made such a quick and substantial offer (and I am impressed), but if the posts are re-read above buying the hard ware is not the issue. Where there is a political will, MoD/DEC ALM and IPTs will find a procurement way.
Unless Blackhawk was going to be a complete Foreign Military Sales that saw UK air and ground crews trained in the US to an LCR standard, with all of the spares and TLS included, with the UK modifications, with crews travelling across the pond to do the Simulator, then it would not be viable.
The long term cost of establishing another fleet and training/supply system, combined with a simulator etc would be cost prohibitive and I believe would not deliver an increase in lift for a number of years yet.
The same goes for a WG30
or Wessex or Mi17, or AW 139/149 or NH 90 or any other new airframe that would require a completely new system (training, logisitics, TLS etc).
This is why although I understand, but not necessarily agree, with the Puma LEP as the first step to ensure a disc and foot print that is smaller than the CH47/Merlin in the UK inventory.
If we really do want to rapidly increase lift within 18-24 months I believe that as soon as the Merlin and Lynx T800 arrive in theatre, then the majority of the Commando Sea Kings (or all of the Commando Sea Kings if some of the specialist roles are handed over to the re-fitted SKASaCs/or re-fitted Lynx T800).
By next Autumn Sea King crews could be using every bit of spare training capacity in the UK Merlin and/or CH47 training pipeline ready to take on the 8 HC3s or the new CH47s (hopefully F fatboys) that have been procured by some true international smart procurement by DEC ALM/IPTs. If there is not space in the UK training system and a surge is not possible, then off to the states they go for a conversion and conduct a differences course/CR on return.
1 CH47 equals approximately 3 Commando Sea Kings - now that is a quick win and if a one for one exchange of aircraft was conducted as a crew came off the training pipeline, the tranistion of Commando Sea King crews alone over a 24 month period would see a significant increase of lift.
If everyone gets a move on and actually makes a decision, I believe that there could be the first re-roled Commando Sea King crews flying CH47 in theatre next summer.
In comparison to the other types suggested this option is sustainable with the complete system in place. It will just need significant expansion.
But they are not your average Blackhawk.
Although I can see why people may instantly throw their arms up when industry has made such a quick and substantial offer (and I am impressed), but if the posts are re-read above buying the hard ware is not the issue. Where there is a political will, MoD/DEC ALM and IPTs will find a procurement way.
Unless Blackhawk was going to be a complete Foreign Military Sales that saw UK air and ground crews trained in the US to an LCR standard, with all of the spares and TLS included, with the UK modifications, with crews travelling across the pond to do the Simulator, then it would not be viable.
The long term cost of establishing another fleet and training/supply system, combined with a simulator etc would be cost prohibitive and I believe would not deliver an increase in lift for a number of years yet.
The same goes for a WG30
or Wessex or Mi17, or AW 139/149 or NH 90 or any other new airframe that would require a completely new system (training, logisitics, TLS etc).This is why although I understand, but not necessarily agree, with the Puma LEP as the first step to ensure a disc and foot print that is smaller than the CH47/Merlin in the UK inventory.
If we really do want to rapidly increase lift within 18-24 months I believe that as soon as the Merlin and Lynx T800 arrive in theatre, then the majority of the Commando Sea Kings (or all of the Commando Sea Kings if some of the specialist roles are handed over to the re-fitted SKASaCs/or re-fitted Lynx T800).
By next Autumn Sea King crews could be using every bit of spare training capacity in the UK Merlin and/or CH47 training pipeline ready to take on the 8 HC3s or the new CH47s (hopefully F fatboys) that have been procured by some true international smart procurement by DEC ALM/IPTs. If there is not space in the UK training system and a surge is not possible, then off to the states they go for a conversion and conduct a differences course/CR on return.
1 CH47 equals approximately 3 Commando Sea Kings - now that is a quick win and if a one for one exchange of aircraft was conducted as a crew came off the training pipeline, the tranistion of Commando Sea King crews alone over a 24 month period would see a significant increase of lift.
If everyone gets a move on and actually makes a decision, I believe that there could be the first re-roled Commando Sea King crews flying CH47 in theatre next summer.
In comparison to the other types suggested this option is sustainable with the complete system in place. It will just need significant expansion.
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 19th Jul 2009 at 07:21.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC
I just followed your link, and have to admit that one one the banners underneath has left me with a sickening feeling in my stomach.
Banner reads:
US condemns video of soldier missing in Afghanistan
This was the first time I had heard of this, and am hoping this situation ends as well as is humanly possible.
(Sorry for thread creep and glum link anybody)
Banner reads:
US condemns video of soldier missing in Afghanistan
This was the first time I had heard of this, and am hoping this situation ends as well as is humanly possible.
(Sorry for thread creep and glum link anybody)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maroon Man I agree with your plan however with 1 modification at the same time the Sea King fleet is run down an order is placed for its replacement not some future Jam tomorrow project but an immediate order for 1 for 1 replacement of the Sea King HC4. As the scrapping of CHF would be seen by many as a move to chop the FAA.
I have to say the 1 CH47=3 Sea King HC4 analogy is a bit dangerous as 1 Chinook can only be in 1 place at a time where as 3 Sea Kings can be in 3 seperate places at once!
I have to say the 1 CH47=3 Sea King HC4 analogy is a bit dangerous as 1 Chinook can only be in 1 place at a time where as 3 Sea Kings can be in 3 seperate places at once!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nurse,
Agreed, and that is where we retun to the question of how the DEC/JHC want to deliver lift - and in most cases operational evaluation has the the CH47 as the capability that best suits the tasks.
I would suggest that why have 3 Commando Sea Kings, with 3 crews and 3 when one aircraft could do the job - especially as those 3 Sea Kings actually do not lift anything as near as much as the CH47.
I reiterate a one for one swap during the re-role (I too believe that in sorting the current operations lift deficit, we should also rectify the NAO reports findings which was most scathing with the lack of amphibious rotary lift - especially if it means that I will not have to go to sea
), and therefore you could have 3 'Commando' CH47s in 3 different places (each with approx 3 Sea Loads per 1 CH47), which surely must increase lift capability significantly than the 3 Commando Sea Kings in 3 different places?
Agreed, and that is where we retun to the question of how the DEC/JHC want to deliver lift - and in most cases operational evaluation has the the CH47 as the capability that best suits the tasks.
I would suggest that why have 3 Commando Sea Kings, with 3 crews and 3 when one aircraft could do the job - especially as those 3 Sea Kings actually do not lift anything as near as much as the CH47.
I reiterate a one for one swap during the re-role (I too believe that in sorting the current operations lift deficit, we should also rectify the NAO reports findings which was most scathing with the lack of amphibious rotary lift - especially if it means that I will not have to go to sea
), and therefore you could have 3 'Commando' CH47s in 3 different places (each with approx 3 Sea Loads per 1 CH47), which surely must increase lift capability significantly than the 3 Commando Sea Kings in 3 different places?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree'd
The Tech issue is now wether the CH47 can get a folding rotor. (I would sugest if it was feasible it would have been done already)
Or Wether we get a Proven capability in the Merlin.
Given our history of specialised Chinooks I would sugest Merlin would probably be the result. However if/when the folding rotor hub is perfected it should be included in all UK Chinooks.
The Tech issue is now wether the CH47 can get a folding rotor. (I would sugest if it was feasible it would have been done already)
Or Wether we get a Proven capability in the Merlin.
Given our history of specialised Chinooks I would sugest Merlin would probably be the result. However if/when the folding rotor hub is perfected it should be included in all UK Chinooks.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read through the Papers this morning it would appear the MoD turned down 12 ex UAE Pumas I wonder why. And also there has been 3 rejections of the Blackhawk.
I know the Blackhawk was rejected as a wessex replacement. Can anyone enlighten me why the Blackhawk keeps being rejected? Apart from the Logistics/training support needed to support the aircraft in service?
I know the Blackhawk was rejected as a wessex replacement. Can anyone enlighten me why the Blackhawk keeps being rejected? Apart from the Logistics/training support needed to support the aircraft in service?