Sikorsky outing the MoD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sikorsky outing the MoD
ITN News at 2200 today carried a story that in June this year MoD invited Igor's mob to tender in 8 days for an ASAP delivery of 56 x Blackhawks - and after the bid went in, it was declined by letter as the Puma update was the better deal.
Sikorsky say they would have delivered shiny painted platforms in 2010, whereas Puma is looking at a 2012 working date.
Now I know this was in the press last month, and I do appreciate that the great SH debate is currently more newsworthy than Pig Flu and Westminster decadence and corruption, but if the story is that the MoD just wanted a stalking horse in the form of Sik's (rush-job) tender - then that does seem a tad childish.
(PS - I'm not blind to the infrastructure required)
The MoD comment to ITN went along the 'Once upon a time' route, but then pointed out that new helo projects were expensive and time consuming - especially in making sure that the craft are fit for operational deployment in anger...
but...
isn't the Blackhawk kind of a little bit, maybe, in possession of some deployed experience?
PS - No linky to the ITN site as this isn't a listed story - but I am reasonably sure that I didn't imagine it.
Sikorsky say they would have delivered shiny painted platforms in 2010, whereas Puma is looking at a 2012 working date.
Now I know this was in the press last month, and I do appreciate that the great SH debate is currently more newsworthy than Pig Flu and Westminster decadence and corruption, but if the story is that the MoD just wanted a stalking horse in the form of Sik's (rush-job) tender - then that does seem a tad childish.
(PS - I'm not blind to the infrastructure required)
The MoD comment to ITN went along the 'Once upon a time' route, but then pointed out that new helo projects were expensive and time consuming - especially in making sure that the craft are fit for operational deployment in anger...
but...
isn't the Blackhawk kind of a little bit, maybe, in possession of some deployed experience?
PS - No linky to the ITN site as this isn't a listed story - but I am reasonably sure that I didn't imagine it.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Invatations to tender aren't promises to buy.
It would appear that sikorski are trying to force the UK govt to buy their product not for any genuine will to help but to preserve US jobs!.
I wonder when Obama will start to ramp up the political pressure for the UK armed forces to Buy everything from America.
It would appear that sikorski are trying to force the UK govt to buy their product not for any genuine will to help but to preserve US jobs!.
I wonder when Obama will start to ramp up the political pressure for the UK armed forces to Buy everything from America.
Slight bit of thread creep here, but am I being completely niaive in wondering why we don't licence build more international products, thereby saving defence manufacturing and servicing/update work but finally realising that unlike 50/60 years ago, we are no longer in a position to develop aircraft that are at the cutting edge of aviation, although we may have the technology for the avionics. That way, we can start to reduce the seemingly enormous procurement costs which the MoD see fit to waste. We could've had licenced built Blackhawk (instead of Puma), F14/18s instead of F3/Typhoon, Orions (instead of Nimrod) all which would have given us an already capable capability whilst adapting to our own specialities; in terms of operations, costs; in terms of development and jobs; in terms of manufacturing.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: GB
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone tell me if I was dreaming last night when watching the ITN 10 news.
A quote from an MOD spokesperson:
"The MOD rejected Sikorsky's offer to purchase Black Hawk as there is such a long time delay due to the aircraft having to undergo stringest tests, trials and paperwork etc before it can be fully proven as a capable asset in a potential conflict." (or very similar words)
Surely this spokesperson is the same person who is responsible for ensuring the armed forces have sufficient toilet paper to be used in all potential conflicts as well. They are so used to talking **** that they were given the task to comment on this as well.
Now I am not a Black Hawk guru but it did state on the news last night that the BH is sold to 27 countries around the world.
Surely that says something.
I do remember sat in Iraq some time ago not able to take off in a Lynx because it was too hot and watching 2 Black Hawks pull pitch vertically to 50 feet and then transitioning to forward flight. Excuse me if I am out of context but surely that falls into the category of tried and tested.
Why do we Brits make it so hard for ourselves.
A quote from an MOD spokesperson:
"The MOD rejected Sikorsky's offer to purchase Black Hawk as there is such a long time delay due to the aircraft having to undergo stringest tests, trials and paperwork etc before it can be fully proven as a capable asset in a potential conflict." (or very similar words)
Surely this spokesperson is the same person who is responsible for ensuring the armed forces have sufficient toilet paper to be used in all potential conflicts as well. They are so used to talking **** that they were given the task to comment on this as well.
Now I am not a Black Hawk guru but it did state on the news last night that the BH is sold to 27 countries around the world.
Surely that says something.I do remember sat in Iraq some time ago not able to take off in a Lynx because it was too hot and watching 2 Black Hawks pull pitch vertically to 50 feet and then transitioning to forward flight. Excuse me if I am out of context but surely that falls into the category of tried and tested.
Why do we Brits make it so hard for ourselves.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wilts
Age: 53
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst the aircraft themselves maybe cheaper and they might be delivered to a certain date, how long would it take (and cost) to clear the aircraft to UK standards so that they would be put on a UK RTS? Look at the CH Mk3 
This is something that is sometimes overlooked...
This is something that is sometimes overlooked...
It was a flippant throwaway point!! I considered mentioning armour but since CR2 is the finest main battle tank going and wees all over the Abrams, i didn't want to contradict myself. I do accept that the Nimrod is a great platform but its old and would we be better off with a more mass produced airframe but with our avionic fit?
BT
"Whilst the aircraft themselves maybe cheaper and they might be delivered to a certain date, how long would it take (and cost) to clear the aircraft to UK standards so that they would be put on a UK RTS? Look at the CH Mk3
This is something that is sometimes overlooked..."
Do our standards need to be so different?
"Whilst the aircraft themselves maybe cheaper and they might be delivered to a certain date, how long would it take (and cost) to clear the aircraft to UK standards so that they would be put on a UK RTS? Look at the CH Mk3
This is something that is sometimes overlooked..."
Do our standards need to be so different?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" Whilst the aircraft themselves maybe cheaper and they might be delivered to a certain date, how long would it take (and cost) to clear the aircraft to UK standards so that they would be put on a UK RTS? Look at the CH Mk3 "
I could be wrong but I'm sure the RAF C17s are operated under the US RTS as 99Sqn are scared sh*tless to send them to Boscombe to re-test an already proven airframe.
Surely once an aircraft has an RTS, even if its American then it is fit to fly?
Or am I being niave to think that what is good for the defence budget/community as a whole is a good thing.
Or are there too many officers who need promoting into little empires that they can form and run.......
I could be wrong but I'm sure the RAF C17s are operated under the US RTS as 99Sqn are scared sh*tless to send them to Boscombe to re-test an already proven airframe.
Surely once an aircraft has an RTS, even if its American then it is fit to fly?
Or am I being niave to think that what is good for the defence budget/community as a whole is a good thing.
Or are there too many officers who need promoting into little empires that they can form and run.......
More to the point, where would all the crews come from to bring said airframes into service? If we want to bring in 30 plus Blackhawks into service in the next 2 years, we have to gap elsewhere.
What current front line task would you like the SH fleet to stop supporting in order to bring a new helo fleet into service en masse?
What current front line task would you like the SH fleet to stop supporting in order to bring a new helo fleet into service en masse?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couple of points here..
Sikorsky can't delivery on time for the contracts they already have for Blackhawk, so where the hell they think they can deliver an additional 50-odd, god knows. And before anyone argues, I used to work for one of Sikorsky's lead contractors on the program, and there is no way we could deliver the parts.
British Standards - would these be the British standards which see our aircraft gathering dust in Hangers, while US Standard aircraft are currently racking up in service hours?
Wasn't the Seahawk considered at the time when EH-101 was being considered by the Navy? Surely there must have been a lot of carry-over data from that tender with regard to qualification?
I'm no fan of the cheese eating surrender monkeys, but I don't think Sikorsky have much to shout about in this case.
Sikorsky can't delivery on time for the contracts they already have for Blackhawk, so where the hell they think they can deliver an additional 50-odd, god knows. And before anyone argues, I used to work for one of Sikorsky's lead contractors on the program, and there is no way we could deliver the parts.
British Standards - would these be the British standards which see our aircraft gathering dust in Hangers, while US Standard aircraft are currently racking up in service hours?
Wasn't the Seahawk considered at the time when EH-101 was being considered by the Navy? Surely there must have been a lot of carry-over data from that tender with regard to qualification?
I'm no fan of the cheese eating surrender monkeys, but I don't think Sikorsky have much to shout about in this case.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the civil world we have EASA (formerly JAR) which sorted all of the standards issues out - well most of them.
If an airframe / avionics fit is certified by one EASA contracting state another state cannot reasonably refuse to certify the same airframe on its register.
Why not have the same concept within NATO?
Make it a whole lot simpler to get equipment in to service.
If an airframe / avionics fit is certified by one EASA contracting state another state cannot reasonably refuse to certify the same airframe on its register.
Why not have the same concept within NATO?
Make it a whole lot simpler to get equipment in to service.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
where would all the crews come from
How many deployable crews (ie in UK and Afg in total) are there per deployed SH airframe at present?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many of the Blackhawk "Sales" were after open compition and how many are US Military Aid "Sales" ?
As to the Blackhawk wasn't it condisered and rejected as an RAF Wessex replacement in the 80's and for a couple of other compitions as well so if it wasn't up to spec then unless the spec has been changed it won't be up to spec again.
As to the Blackhawk wasn't it condisered and rejected as an RAF Wessex replacement in the 80's and for a couple of other compitions as well so if it wasn't up to spec then unless the spec has been changed it won't be up to spec again.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to the Blackhawk wasn't it condisered and rejected as an RAF Wessex replacement in the 80's and for a couple of other compitions as well so if it wasn't up to spec then unless the spec has been changed it won't be up to spec again.
The Wessex epitomised "battlefield helicopter", as does the Blackhawk, but the compromise is in capacity and capabilties that fail to match "peacetime" optimised airframes. The Chinook will always be the workhorse but for sure a need remains for a medium sized combat proven helicopter, and IMHO the americans have that at the moment. .....yet I am an NH90 fan!
Now I know this was in the press last month, and I do appreciate that the great SH debate is currently more newsworthy than Pig Flu and Westminster decadence and corruption, but if the story is that the MoD just wanted a stalking horse in the form of Sik's (rush-job) tender - then that does seem a tad childish.
I once helped to submit a bid for the Boscombe Chinook's refurb. Price was good and they would have been in service by now, but our bid was rejected in favour of MOD's preferred supplier.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Surely if you are going down the Puma upgrade route you are going to have to reduce the fleet availability as they go through the process, where as if you buy new Blackhawks or what ever, you will be able to increase the helicopter force availability as the crew conversions are carried out without an overall reduction in the fleet capacity, true you will have a reduction in manning on the Puma as this takes place, but the amount of cabs available will stay roughly on par with what is already available and not be degraded.
It's ok saying lets upgrade what we have, but in the short term that will lead to a reduction in the available helicopter force and at the end of the day you will still be looking in the near future for a retirement for the Puma fleet...... to think it was 33 years ago I was posted onto them, as for the loss of work etc for the UK, well why cannot a mutual benefit be factored in along the lines as what has happened in the past with all things Sikorsky and Westlands.
Why not just go for a Puma replacement with one of the later versions such as the Cougar? As there will be some commonality, in both design,spares and training....
It's ok saying lets upgrade what we have, but in the short term that will lead to a reduction in the available helicopter force and at the end of the day you will still be looking in the near future for a retirement for the Puma fleet...... to think it was 33 years ago I was posted onto them, as for the loss of work etc for the UK, well why cannot a mutual benefit be factored in along the lines as what has happened in the past with all things Sikorsky and Westlands.
Why not just go for a Puma replacement with one of the later versions such as the Cougar? As there will be some commonality, in both design,spares and training....