Cutbacks, the Silver Lining
Airborne 'top trumps' and reality are subtley different.
MODEL General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper McDonnell Douglas / BAe Systems AV-8B Harrier II Plus
ORIGIN United StatesUnited States/UK
CONTRACTOR General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Incorporated - USA McDonnell Douglas / Boeing - USA / BAe Systems - UK
TYPEUnmanned Aerial Vehicle V/STOL Strike Aircraft
SERVICE START 2004 1985
CREW 0 (2+ able to booze in Vegas!) 1 (with no mates and nowhere to booze!)
LENGTH 36.09 feet (11.00 meters) 46.33 feet (14.12 meters)
SPAN 65.94 feet (20.10 meters)30.35 feet (9.25 meters)
HEIGHT 36.09 feet (11.00 meters) 11.65 feet (3.55 meters)
EMPTY WT 3,695 pounds (1,676 kilograms)13,977 pounds (6,340 kilograms)
MTOW 10,494 pounds (4,760 kilograms)31,085 pounds (14,100 kilograms)
POWERPLANT 1 x Honeywell TPE331-10GD turboprop engine generating 900shp. 1 x Rolls-Royce Pegasus Mk 105 (F402-RR-408) vectored-thrust turbofan engine delivering 23,500lbf of horizontal thrust.
SPEED 250 kts 578 kts
RANGE (ENDURANCE UNREFUELLED) 1,878 miles (20hrs+) 1,367 miles (3hrs+)
CEILING 50,000 feet+ 50,000 ft
ARMAMENT/SENSOR
Mission-specific ordnance can include any combination of the following:
14x AGM-114 missiles
4x GBU-12
4x GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM)
6+ GBU-39B SDB (trial)
4x AIM92 AAM (trial)
2x AIM9M AAM (trial)
MTS-B EO/IR/LRD
Lynx SAR/GMTI
DB110 recce pod (trial)
SIGINT/ESM payload
AIS
Maritime Multi-Mode RADAR
Comms Relay
Other classified payloads
STANDARD GR9:
2 x 30mm ADEN cannons in underfuselage pod fairings (since removed).
OPTIONAL:
2x MK-82 500lb bombs
2x MK-83 1000lb bombs
2x PWIV 500lb laser-guided bombs
2x AGM-65F Maverick Infra-red Guided air-to-surface missiles.
2x AGM-65E Maverick Laser-Guided air-to-surface missiles.
4 x AIM-9M Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missiles.
SNIPER Targeting POD
Source Websites: General-Atomics, Global Security, RAF, EGLIN AFB, air-attack, harrier.org.uk.
Pretty much a "dead-heat" and then I guess it comes down to the definition of "weapons effect" - if it is "single-shot blast effect" then GR-9 wins, if it is "effect on the enemy" then I opine that MQ-9 wins?
The B Word
(for what its worth - Nerd Alert!
)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Just south of the Keevil gap.
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And another thing ...
The statement made no mention of the Nimrod R1s. If they are kept, then they would bear the costs of the entire support infrastructure, so hardly economic. Yet there is no decision (AFAIK) on the mooted buy of the RC-135, which itself has its own safety issues.
Another "capability holiday" perhaps?
Another "capability holiday" perhaps?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is going to fly them?
The Question should be " Who is going to make them? "
Last edited by vecvechookattack; 17th Dec 2009 at 11:41.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I cannot understand is with 22 more Chinooks in theatre surely the need for CAS (ala Harriers) for them is even more vital. Your putting an expensive asset in the air carrying a large number of troops which is very vunerable to ground fire - sounds like a recipe for disaster . As for the Reaper arguements - they are useful against an enemy that has no air defence system -however we won't always fight battles like that so the idea that they are the be all and end all is farsical.
We will end up post Afghanistan with an air force which is optimised for wars against lightly armed enemies. Hardly a prudent way to plan for future defence -will we then really need a force of seventy Chinooks to support an army that by then will be largely U.K based???
We will end up post Afghanistan with an air force which is optimised for wars against lightly armed enemies. Hardly a prudent way to plan for future defence -will we then really need a force of seventy Chinooks to support an army that by then will be largely U.K based???
surely the need for CAS (ala Harriers) for them is even more vital
they are useful against an enemy that has no air defence system
Crews? - no problems, the merry go-round will see the CHF convert to the Merlin and 28/78 convert to CH47. Trade-in the Merlin QHIs early in the piece for a CH47 conversion and blend in some Odi guys.
Who'll build them? - My guess is Boeing; AW will be busy with Algerian orders, Wildcat and Merlin CSP. Depending on the cockpit/avionics selected there might be work for Fleetlands (ie ship F frames over and outfit them here).
More Harriers? - More is always merrier. But, the Chinook is not "very vulnerable" to ground fire as a substantial number of engagements has proven (and, indeed, the historical record shows RW to be far less vulnerable than people generally realise...). I'd like to see a GR4 or GR9 carry on flying after RPG and multiple HMG/SA hits. In addition we have AH - and in many ways it is a better escort than FW. If you're concerned about Red Air then a CAS escort isn't really much help and since we'll have Typhoon to do the OCA/escort job I don't see it as an issue.
Future Wars? - The Chinook has taken part in every campaign the UK has been involved in since 1982; more than certain FJ forces I could mention. Therefore, logically, we'll need them in the future, so this is a prudent purchase.
Enemy Air Defence? - As above, Typhoon to do OCA. The lack of dedicated SEAD has been an ongoing issue for years. No doubt F35 LO tech will help, and RW assets will operate NoE in a non-permissive RF environment.
CH47F? - Not as good as a Julius Chinook in several areas, better in others. A hybrid that combined the best of both would be formidable aircraft.
Who'll build them? - My guess is Boeing; AW will be busy with Algerian orders, Wildcat and Merlin CSP. Depending on the cockpit/avionics selected there might be work for Fleetlands (ie ship F frames over and outfit them here).
More Harriers? - More is always merrier. But, the Chinook is not "very vulnerable" to ground fire as a substantial number of engagements has proven (and, indeed, the historical record shows RW to be far less vulnerable than people generally realise...). I'd like to see a GR4 or GR9 carry on flying after RPG and multiple HMG/SA hits. In addition we have AH - and in many ways it is a better escort than FW. If you're concerned about Red Air then a CAS escort isn't really much help and since we'll have Typhoon to do the OCA/escort job I don't see it as an issue.
Future Wars? - The Chinook has taken part in every campaign the UK has been involved in since 1982; more than certain FJ forces I could mention. Therefore, logically, we'll need them in the future, so this is a prudent purchase.
Enemy Air Defence? - As above, Typhoon to do OCA. The lack of dedicated SEAD has been an ongoing issue for years. No doubt F35 LO tech will help, and RW assets will operate NoE in a non-permissive RF environment.
CH47F? - Not as good as a Julius Chinook in several areas, better in others. A hybrid that combined the best of both would be formidable aircraft.
Evalu8ter
Define 'campaign' in your fairly sweeping statement above please. There have been plenty of campaigns lasting over 10 years that Chinook has not been involved in but plenty of FJ, AT and AAR have been. I'm sure the dark blue would disagree with your view as well! Did Chinook support BANNER or was it just Wessex/Puma (and Sea King)?
The Chinook has taken part in every campaign the UK has been involved in since 1982; more than certain FJ forces I could mention
Wrath,
Not intended to be a slight however, since you asked:
Falklands '82, Beruit x2, Banner (NI), Gulf 1 & 2, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Op Haven (Turkey). I'm sure some old sweats will add more. Pretty sure that only the Harrier played in all of these campaigns and yet it seems to be the sacrificial FJ platform at the moment.
No, the Chinook didn't stay & do "no fly zones", but it was doing Haven, Banner and the Falklands at the same time. Chinook was in FRY from 94-02ish, FI 82-07, NI 82 - 08, Iraq 91/92 and 03-05 and AFG 02 and 05-present. Rather more dets than the GR4/F3 force from substantially less ac/sqns with a higher % of the fleet deployed. Oh and Harrier had to withdraw from AFG to "reset" -no such luck for the CH47. Like I said, just an observation.
Wasn't looking to compare with the other "cinderella" fleets in the AT world as the original post seemed to be concerned at the reduction in FJ numbers to invest in the RW fleet.
Yes, some of the FJ fleets worked hard in some of the campaigns (esp the GR4 guys in Iraq), but the original post was meant to rebutt suggestions that investing in more CH47 now was a waste of resources - given the usefullness of the platform I'd suggest that it's money well spent.
So, yes it's been involved in some stage in all of the campaigns - and some it's stayed for a prolonged time.
Not intended to be a slight however, since you asked:
Falklands '82, Beruit x2, Banner (NI), Gulf 1 & 2, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Op Haven (Turkey). I'm sure some old sweats will add more. Pretty sure that only the Harrier played in all of these campaigns and yet it seems to be the sacrificial FJ platform at the moment.
No, the Chinook didn't stay & do "no fly zones", but it was doing Haven, Banner and the Falklands at the same time. Chinook was in FRY from 94-02ish, FI 82-07, NI 82 - 08, Iraq 91/92 and 03-05 and AFG 02 and 05-present. Rather more dets than the GR4/F3 force from substantially less ac/sqns with a higher % of the fleet deployed. Oh and Harrier had to withdraw from AFG to "reset" -no such luck for the CH47. Like I said, just an observation.
Wasn't looking to compare with the other "cinderella" fleets in the AT world as the original post seemed to be concerned at the reduction in FJ numbers to invest in the RW fleet.
Yes, some of the FJ fleets worked hard in some of the campaigns (esp the GR4 guys in Iraq), but the original post was meant to rebutt suggestions that investing in more CH47 now was a waste of resources - given the usefullness of the platform I'd suggest that it's money well spent.
So, yes it's been involved in some stage in all of the campaigns - and some it's stayed for a prolonged time.
Evalu8ter
Don't disagree with the need for more RW, and certainly don't disagree that the RW force of all 3 services have, and continue to be, vastly under resourced for what is expected of them. Trouble is, until recently, they ranked lower than the Mobile Bath and Shower Units when it came to funding priority in a certain RP dept! I did, and still do, disagree with your sweeping statement - semantics it may be but there have been many, many more campaigns (as you put them) than those you have listed, all of which could have probably done with more resources at the time. Some were single service, some joint. Not all of them involved RW. Difference of opinion - it is t'internet after all
And I certainly don't want to get into some sort of pi55ing contest at which fleet has worked harder of the past 25 odd years (at least not on this thread!
)
Don't disagree with the need for more RW, and certainly don't disagree that the RW force of all 3 services have, and continue to be, vastly under resourced for what is expected of them. Trouble is, until recently, they ranked lower than the Mobile Bath and Shower Units when it came to funding priority in a certain RP dept! I did, and still do, disagree with your sweeping statement - semantics it may be but there have been many, many more campaigns (as you put them) than those you have listed, all of which could have probably done with more resources at the time. Some were single service, some joint. Not all of them involved RW. Difference of opinion - it is t'internet after all
And I certainly don't want to get into some sort of pi55ing contest at which fleet has worked harder of the past 25 odd years (at least not on this thread!
)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of MOD CS non-jobs soon to be looking for work.
Wrath,
Well put! As you have often accurately stated in the past a large portion of RW woes can be laid at the feet of Army RP with a "no tinkering with the cavalry" mindset. Most people, however, equate the RAF SH fleet with AIR money and bemoan the sacrifice of FJ sqns to prop up a land-centric asset. FWIW I don't think the current situation is that, it's just cuts in FJ dressed up as "growth" elsewhere (if you chop FMH to buy the new CH47 then the cost is probably the same) -so spin, spin, spin.
You're also right - "my fleet's better than yours" is best left to happy hour / airshows - let's hope we can share a jar next year!
Well put! As you have often accurately stated in the past a large portion of RW woes can be laid at the feet of Army RP with a "no tinkering with the cavalry" mindset. Most people, however, equate the RAF SH fleet with AIR money and bemoan the sacrifice of FJ sqns to prop up a land-centric asset. FWIW I don't think the current situation is that, it's just cuts in FJ dressed up as "growth" elsewhere (if you chop FMH to buy the new CH47 then the cost is probably the same) -so spin, spin, spin.
You're also right - "my fleet's better than yours" is best left to happy hour / airshows - let's hope we can share a jar next year!
