Fury at Def Sec over Helicopter Shortage
Nurse,
A folding head for the CH47 was designed by Boeing for SABR. Why has nobody else taken the Chinook to sea? Because few forces have a true amphib capability (and truthfully only the USMC really do...). Of those that do play at LitM they all use small/medium platforms and would probably consider the CH47 too expensive, and certainly wouldn't want to fund the NRE for developing blade fold by themselves.
Interstingly,I hear the new Dutch Amphib vessels are all designed to operate CH47s (non-folding). Boeing are also wary of losing potential V-22 exports by having fully marinised CH-47s available.
Folding Merlin in the CHF role is not combat proven. You could almost argue that until the Merlin has done a year in the 'Stan it's not fully combat proven. Not wishing to criticise the efforts of the guys and cabs in Bos/Iraq but, bluntly, neither were the same kinetic theatre that AFG is. When the Merlin has sucked up RPGs, multiple SA/HMG/Frag hits and carried on flying after heavy landings then it'll be combat proven.
As to why we keep turning down UH60s, IMHO it is quite simple. Until this week, helicopters were not vote-winning and, more importantly, not pet projects for the individual services (which I believe is really why we are where we are..). Nobody wants to grow the RW force long term as it would impact upon budgets for procuring and running the projects that the services really want - Typhoon, F35, CVF, Astute and FRES. The RAF, in particular, don't want to see too much of its' future strength in RW in case the "ownership debate" is reopened and it leeches a critical amount of manpower to the army - thereby risking its' independance. Oh, and the Blackhawk is too capable and not designed/built in Yeovil.....That said, the UH60 is still a small cabin - however remember that many platforms flatter to decieve hot n high - a SK/merlin might have 24 seats in the back but they'll not fill them in the current theatre - 12 seats anywhere in a UH60 sounds a better bet to me.
A folding head for the CH47 was designed by Boeing for SABR. Why has nobody else taken the Chinook to sea? Because few forces have a true amphib capability (and truthfully only the USMC really do...). Of those that do play at LitM they all use small/medium platforms and would probably consider the CH47 too expensive, and certainly wouldn't want to fund the NRE for developing blade fold by themselves.
Interstingly,I hear the new Dutch Amphib vessels are all designed to operate CH47s (non-folding). Boeing are also wary of losing potential V-22 exports by having fully marinised CH-47s available.
Folding Merlin in the CHF role is not combat proven. You could almost argue that until the Merlin has done a year in the 'Stan it's not fully combat proven. Not wishing to criticise the efforts of the guys and cabs in Bos/Iraq but, bluntly, neither were the same kinetic theatre that AFG is. When the Merlin has sucked up RPGs, multiple SA/HMG/Frag hits and carried on flying after heavy landings then it'll be combat proven.
As to why we keep turning down UH60s, IMHO it is quite simple. Until this week, helicopters were not vote-winning and, more importantly, not pet projects for the individual services (which I believe is really why we are where we are..). Nobody wants to grow the RW force long term as it would impact upon budgets for procuring and running the projects that the services really want - Typhoon, F35, CVF, Astute and FRES. The RAF, in particular, don't want to see too much of its' future strength in RW in case the "ownership debate" is reopened and it leeches a critical amount of manpower to the army - thereby risking its' independance. Oh, and the Blackhawk is too capable and not designed/built in Yeovil.....That said, the UH60 is still a small cabin - however remember that many platforms flatter to decieve hot n high - a SK/merlin might have 24 seats in the back but they'll not fill them in the current theatre - 12 seats anywhere in a UH60 sounds a better bet to me.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Trap 3
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd bet you're right pba, but a solution has been worked around that situation previously, by licencing to Westland.
The politics involved in the issue are the most sickening aspect of it. I could rant for hours on this subject but it's pretty much all been said before. Old one-eyed Broon must be chuffed to bits that this has pushed the "MP's Expenses" argument into the shadows.
The politics involved in the issue are the most sickening aspect of it. I could rant for hours on this subject but it's pretty much all been said before. Old one-eyed Broon must be chuffed to bits that this has pushed the "MP's Expenses" argument into the shadows.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nurse,
Let me make one thing clear - although I respect the history and the ethos of the FAA, I really do not care 2 hoots about loss of Fishead squadrons, just as I despise the one nation one air force concept.
But from a pure delivery of capability perspective then of course it should be a replacement of one Commando Sea King for one CH47. If HM Treausry believe that they can re-role 3 Commando Sea Kings for 1 CH47 there is no real net gain in tactical lift, and it is only H M Treasury/H M Govt spin doctors that win, not the troops on the ground.
The only concession I would make is that CHF does not need a forward fleet (as Jacko terms it) of 29 CH47s. I think that the Commando Sea King squadrons have 10-12 frontline, so 24 CH47s at Yeovilton. The remaining 6 should be alloted to the UK Joint CH47 OCU.
As previously discussed the Fisheads do not lose a squadron name as 848 is retained, with Sea Kings re-located to Culdrose to ensure that the RN SAR and SKASaC conversion pipeline is maintained and as already identified this requirement will reduce in the near future when SAR H comes on line. If (as Spheroid suggests) Culdrose needs a kick up the bum, then so be it and I am sure that Navy Command will pull its weight to assist JHC.
Therefore taking a step back with non-bias Joint perspective, with the sole purpose to efficiently and rapidly increase sustainable tactical lift for current operations, as well as rectify the shortfalls in the NAO report for future Battlefield Helicopter lift, then as soon as the Merlin and Lynx T800 arrived in theatre I would initiate the transition of the Commando Sea King fleet to CH47s.
If the SKASaC and/or Lynx T800 can be equipped for some of the specialist roles, then not just some, but all of the Sea King air and ground crew can be pushed through any spare capacity in the UK CH47 training system. If there is no spare capacity then agreement is sought for US CH47 conversion training and a UK differences/CR on return. If a timely decision is made then the first Fishead crews should be flying the first of the re-modded HC3s in theatre by next summer.
In this timeframe the initial re-modded HC3s should be available for operations at Yeovilton (aren't the old Sea Harrier hangars still empty or available for modification?), and also procurement of extra CH47 (ideally F fatboys). Yes there will initially be fleets within fleets (until a MLU rationalisation programme) but has anyone looked inside all of the UK helicopter cockpits around at the moment and seen how different they all are?
I believe that for the Commando Sea Kings that a split CH47 re-modded HC3 and CH47 F fleet will actually be rationalisation for them! Recent conversations have highlighted that they fly an ex ASW green Sea King, and also a bog standard Sea King HC4, also a GTI version with the new blades and then a GTI version without the blades, all with a simulator that apparently is from a version of the Sea King that is out of service! Work all that out and you see that 2 variants of CH47 appears to also be a significant improvement to a fleet that has obviously suffered the brunt of cost cutting measures.
Let me make one thing clear - although I respect the history and the ethos of the FAA, I really do not care 2 hoots about loss of Fishead squadrons, just as I despise the one nation one air force concept.
But from a pure delivery of capability perspective then of course it should be a replacement of one Commando Sea King for one CH47. If HM Treausry believe that they can re-role 3 Commando Sea Kings for 1 CH47 there is no real net gain in tactical lift, and it is only H M Treasury/H M Govt spin doctors that win, not the troops on the ground.
The only concession I would make is that CHF does not need a forward fleet (as Jacko terms it) of 29 CH47s. I think that the Commando Sea King squadrons have 10-12 frontline, so 24 CH47s at Yeovilton. The remaining 6 should be alloted to the UK Joint CH47 OCU.
As previously discussed the Fisheads do not lose a squadron name as 848 is retained, with Sea Kings re-located to Culdrose to ensure that the RN SAR and SKASaC conversion pipeline is maintained and as already identified this requirement will reduce in the near future when SAR H comes on line. If (as Spheroid suggests) Culdrose needs a kick up the bum, then so be it and I am sure that Navy Command will pull its weight to assist JHC.
Therefore taking a step back with non-bias Joint perspective, with the sole purpose to efficiently and rapidly increase sustainable tactical lift for current operations, as well as rectify the shortfalls in the NAO report for future Battlefield Helicopter lift, then as soon as the Merlin and Lynx T800 arrived in theatre I would initiate the transition of the Commando Sea King fleet to CH47s.
If the SKASaC and/or Lynx T800 can be equipped for some of the specialist roles, then not just some, but all of the Sea King air and ground crew can be pushed through any spare capacity in the UK CH47 training system. If there is no spare capacity then agreement is sought for US CH47 conversion training and a UK differences/CR on return. If a timely decision is made then the first Fishead crews should be flying the first of the re-modded HC3s in theatre by next summer.
In this timeframe the initial re-modded HC3s should be available for operations at Yeovilton (aren't the old Sea Harrier hangars still empty or available for modification?), and also procurement of extra CH47 (ideally F fatboys). Yes there will initially be fleets within fleets (until a MLU rationalisation programme) but has anyone looked inside all of the UK helicopter cockpits around at the moment and seen how different they all are?
I believe that for the Commando Sea Kings that a split CH47 re-modded HC3 and CH47 F fleet will actually be rationalisation for them! Recent conversations have highlighted that they fly an ex ASW green Sea King, and also a bog standard Sea King HC4, also a GTI version with the new blades and then a GTI version without the blades, all with a simulator that apparently is from a version of the Sea King that is out of service! Work all that out and you see that 2 variants of CH47 appears to also be a significant improvement to a fleet that has obviously suffered the brunt of cost cutting measures.
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 19th Jul 2009 at 11:18.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somerset
Age: 69
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this timeframe the initial re-modded HC3s should be available for operations at Yeovilton (aren't the old Sea Harrier hangars still empty
Empty hangars on the south side at VL?
Guess you have not been over there recently, move CH47(already deemed too expensive to do) to VL, where would all the private aircraft go?
Empty hangars on the south side at VL?
Guess you have not been over there recently, move CH47(already deemed too expensive to do) to VL, where would all the private aircraft go?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understood that the Grey Lynx fleet were moving over to the southside. You are correct though. Over ther southside there is a mahooosive hangar whcih is currently home to 3 grobs....a pair of hawks and about 15 variations on a cessna.
The expense is accommodation.... The Wardroom is full..... the lads mess is full....there are no Family Quarters available.... thats why it is too expensive.
already deemed too expensive to do
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nurse
A cynic would suggest it's been rejected as it's manufacturer is not based in Yeovil...
I'm not one of them obviously... but a cynic might suggest that!
A cynic would suggest it's been rejected as it's manufacturer is not based in Yeovil...
I'm not one of them obviously... but a cynic might suggest that!
I would agree re the cabin size.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite easy to make room at Yvl.
5 hangar full of Serco doing MK3 surveys get shot of them back to Crabfat land.
847 hangar full of Lx 7 doing not a lot.....On the way out
3 hangar full of crap, get it refurbed another hangar spare.
South dispersal full of not a lot (Grobs, couple of Hawks & the private flying club) Close the flying club down.....
Move 815/702/LOEU/847 to South side...lots of free space on the Tech site.
Alternatively:
Close the Private Flying club down it bring sweet FA in terms of TAS Ops.
Move Lynx Flts back to somewhere by Portland.....lets call it NAS Osprey
Disband 847.... LX7 OSD coming soon.
Move all of CHF in whatever format to South Side.
Get shot of ASG RM and convert Yvl block to new J/R SLAM Accom.
DES VL move out to AW/Abbeywood. Convert complete DES site to new accom or MQ.
5 hangar full of Serco doing MK3 surveys get shot of them back to Crabfat land.
847 hangar full of Lx 7 doing not a lot.....On the way out
3 hangar full of crap, get it refurbed another hangar spare.
South dispersal full of not a lot (Grobs, couple of Hawks & the private flying club) Close the flying club down.....
Move 815/702/LOEU/847 to South side...lots of free space on the Tech site.
Alternatively:
Close the Private Flying club down it bring sweet FA in terms of TAS Ops.
Move Lynx Flts back to somewhere by Portland.....lets call it NAS Osprey
Disband 847.... LX7 OSD coming soon.
Move all of CHF in whatever format to South Side.
Get shot of ASG RM and convert Yvl block to new J/R SLAM Accom.
DES VL move out to AW/Abbeywood. Convert complete DES site to new accom or MQ.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There must be room at Yeovilton for Chinook or Merlin or both? Apart from what you are all terming as south side which appears to be a significant waste of (ex Sea Harrier?) good hangar space then surely if the current JHC thought bubble is to move all of BRH there then there must be either the space, MQs/SLAM already in place?
Why not just stop the closure of Dishforth and retain Dishforth as not only the rotary wing FOB of the north (Catterick superbase/Spadeadam/Scottish Highlands), but also it is already a Lynx establishment (less simulator).
Failing that, with Wallop looking more and more likely as though it is not going to be needed (Lynx OSD and MFTS results in only 1 x AH trg unit) then make Wallop the Wildcat/BRH hub, only just up the road from Yeovilton so RN/Army can have a joint CTT, but independent CTRs.
With the hangarage freed up for whatever JHC does with the Commando Sea Kings, then with Wildcat aircraft and families taking over the infrastructure at Wallop means that there should be no reason to build or increase infrastructure at Yeovilton as it is a purely a one for one swap, and the families already live there?
Why not just stop the closure of Dishforth and retain Dishforth as not only the rotary wing FOB of the north (Catterick superbase/Spadeadam/Scottish Highlands), but also it is already a Lynx establishment (less simulator).
Failing that, with Wallop looking more and more likely as though it is not going to be needed (Lynx OSD and MFTS results in only 1 x AH trg unit) then make Wallop the Wildcat/BRH hub, only just up the road from Yeovilton so RN/Army can have a joint CTT, but independent CTRs.
With the hangarage freed up for whatever JHC does with the Commando Sea Kings, then with Wildcat aircraft and families taking over the infrastructure at Wallop means that there should be no reason to build or increase infrastructure at Yeovilton as it is a purely a one for one swap, and the families already live there?
Last edited by Front Seater; 20th Jul 2009 at 05:00.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the unsolicited offer of Blackhawks. Under compition legislation the UK govt cannot respond to an unsolicited offer. The offer must be in response to an invtation to tender that must be advertised openly. If the sikorski offer had been taken up then the government would be left open to being sued by any interested company who felt they could have submitted a tender.
Nurse,
Not quite true - we have a number of exemptions from the competition rules and we can choose to go single source for a host of reasons. Without such exemptions the UOR process would fall on its arse.
Not quite true - we have a number of exemptions from the competition rules and we can choose to go single source for a host of reasons. Without such exemptions the UOR process would fall on its arse.
If SK4s are swopped for CH47, one for one, then would the RN not need twice as many pilots to fly them? Also, do not forget that SK4s are not LAND assets they are JHC and CHF assets and CH47 cannot operate off several platforms that the Mk4 can. Yes the CH47 can lift heavy objects but, the Mk4 has many positive attributes including agility(relative) and flexibility of operation that CH47 does not. (I will leave it to those more qualified to validate this point) Fight "a war" not "the war" is the mantra.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Trap 3
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes the CH47 can lift heavy objects but, the Mk4 has many positive attributes including agility(relative) and flexibility of operation that CH47 does not. (I will leave it to those more qualified to validate this point)
Flexibility?
Ability to sustain flight on a single engine?
Agility?
Load capacity?
Endurance?
Double the amount of pilots?
I am not knocking the CH47 and not arguing against the procurement of more but, before you write off the Mk4:
2 pilots=2 Mk4s=similar passenger capacity to 1 CH47. The beauty of 2 Mk4s as mentioned earlier is that they can be tasked into different places. When I talk about flexibility, I am also thinking of the ability to fold both blades and the tail, which is an essential requirement for a force that is primarily there to support Commando Force.
Anyway, at least this thread has some mature and informed debate.
I am not knocking the CH47 and not arguing against the procurement of more but, before you write off the Mk4:
2 pilots=2 Mk4s=similar passenger capacity to 1 CH47. The beauty of 2 Mk4s as mentioned earlier is that they can be tasked into different places. When I talk about flexibility, I am also thinking of the ability to fold both blades and the tail, which is an essential requirement for a force that is primarily there to support Commando Force.
Anyway, at least this thread has some mature and informed debate.
Last edited by Widger; 22nd Jul 2009 at 20:12.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Trap 3
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely an advantage to carry an extra pilot, rather than an observer, when being shot at?
Not that it matters. I just can't see any mark of SK being chosen above the Chinook. My opinion may be wholly incorrect but it doesn't seem to make sense to me to buy/upgrade an underpowered, slower platform on the basis that the FAA choose to put a non-pilot in the LHS.
Not that it matters. I just can't see any mark of SK being chosen above the Chinook. My opinion may be wholly incorrect but it doesn't seem to make sense to me to buy/upgrade an underpowered, slower platform on the basis that the FAA choose to put a non-pilot in the LHS.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere
Age: 49
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Puma replacement
Hi
I want to ask somethingabout the shortage of helicopters within the British armed forces and it is something we are hearing about for sometime now this is not new.
It can not be helping that the Puma fleet is ageing and must costing a hell of amount of public money to keep them flying and constantly upgrading them.
The puma seems to get the job done and if they are such a good transport helicopter has the MoD ever thought about replacing them with Eurocopter AS532 MK I Cougars I mean they are reliable you can purchase them of the production line and would be cheaper than upgrading 30 yearold airframes that are long well past there sell by date.
These would be far cheaper than purchaseing Merlins or even chinooks
I hope i'm not a long way out but it was just a thought but probably al-ready been thought off.
They are in service with many of the worlds armed forces all over the world and works well as an all round multi purpose transport helicopter with bags of power much more than the 35 year old Puma and more importantly they easier and less complicated than the new types available today.
Would this help the Armed forces in the future?
Any input would be welcome as I'm not that familiar with the military but just thought about the ageing Puma can not be helping the shortage of helicopters in the armed forces.
I want to ask somethingabout the shortage of helicopters within the British armed forces and it is something we are hearing about for sometime now this is not new.
It can not be helping that the Puma fleet is ageing and must costing a hell of amount of public money to keep them flying and constantly upgrading them.
The puma seems to get the job done and if they are such a good transport helicopter has the MoD ever thought about replacing them with Eurocopter AS532 MK I Cougars I mean they are reliable you can purchase them of the production line and would be cheaper than upgrading 30 yearold airframes that are long well past there sell by date.
These would be far cheaper than purchaseing Merlins or even chinooks
I hope i'm not a long way out but it was just a thought but probably al-ready been thought off.
They are in service with many of the worlds armed forces all over the world and works well as an all round multi purpose transport helicopter with bags of power much more than the 35 year old Puma and more importantly they easier and less complicated than the new types available today.
Would this help the Armed forces in the future?
Any input would be welcome as I'm not that familiar with the military but just thought about the ageing Puma can not be helping the shortage of helicopters in the armed forces.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pumaboy
Puma & SK4 are ment to be being replaced by a single type circa 2015 which is going to be problematic enough in that time scale. I makes sense to do this cutting down the logistic tail and numbers of types in service (also looking at the figures numbers as well). Introducing the Cougar now would complicate the picture some what.
The Puma I keep hearingfrom RAF types has a footprint that is smaller than Merlin and the Seaking and can operate from some sites that are to small for either of thease helicopters. Noted that one in Belize. And the argument put forward is that this increases their flexibility. Which I would agree with. The cougar is slightly bigger than the Puma and I can see your argument its a good platform and one the RAF wanted instead of Merlin.
However the RAF now has merlin. The Puma upgrade will extend its life till the new helicopter is introduced.
I would sugest the media would have a field day if cougar was bought given the types recent history in the North Sea (the press will ignore its years of safe operation).
The danger in the future support helicopter is the spec is written round the Puma and the CHF find it a bit to small for their needs.
Puma & SK4 are ment to be being replaced by a single type circa 2015 which is going to be problematic enough in that time scale. I makes sense to do this cutting down the logistic tail and numbers of types in service (also looking at the figures numbers as well). Introducing the Cougar now would complicate the picture some what.
The Puma I keep hearingfrom RAF types has a footprint that is smaller than Merlin and the Seaking and can operate from some sites that are to small for either of thease helicopters. Noted that one in Belize. And the argument put forward is that this increases their flexibility. Which I would agree with. The cougar is slightly bigger than the Puma and I can see your argument its a good platform and one the RAF wanted instead of Merlin.
However the RAF now has merlin. The Puma upgrade will extend its life till the new helicopter is introduced.
I would sugest the media would have a field day if cougar was bought given the types recent history in the North Sea (the press will ignore its years of safe operation).
The danger in the future support helicopter is the spec is written round the Puma and the CHF find it a bit to small for their needs.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Bay class, stocked for war, would be expected to carry and operate two Chinooks over a surged period. As an ARG is unlikely to go anywhere without at least 1 Bay in tow, perhaps the CHF is covered for the heavy lift end of the spectrum - or bigger jump offs of Cdos.