Future UK helicopter fleet
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wondering... how many of those 42 SKs are flight-capable, and what is the daily availability percentage of those... compared to those much-newer, less-maintenance-intensive Merlins?
I suspect that the RN will see no reduction in the numbers of "medium-lift helos" available for operations after the swap... and might well see an increase!
I suspect that the RN will see no reduction in the numbers of "medium-lift helos" available for operations after the swap... and might well see an increase!
According to the original link the RAF Chinook fleet is currently due to be retired in 2040. Now I know they were bought in more than one batch (tranche?), but some of the earliest (such as the infamous BN) were around at the time of the Falklands war in 1982. Therefore, at retirement, if it doesn't slip further to the right, some of the RAF Chinooks will be 58 years old....!!
. Still, they'll have some way to go to beat the USAF B-52 fleet, the youngest of which are nearly 50 years old already.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At 39 years old already, the Puma airframe is probably older then 80% of the people who fly it.
Chinook in field: Emergency landing next to the pub. You were taught well!
Chinook in field: Emergency landing next to the pub. You were taught well!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the Gaz was still mighty - we do stil have some so sort on thread - I remember one being iced up for a week then the ice was hamered off, flown to split and scrapped once the AEO found 257 dents and the 1/2 shell totaly delaminated - the driver was most miffed I seem to remember!!!
aircraft oops!
this is where some of them went.
aircraft oops!
this is where some of them went.
Just wondering... how many of those 42 SKs are flight-capable, and what is the daily availability percentage of those... compared to those much-newer, less-maintenance-intensive Merlins?
I suspect that the RN will see no reduction in the numbers of "medium-lift helos" available for operations after the swap... and might well see an increase!
Hmmmm. I believe SK4 availability is pretty high despite the age of the cab. The "much-newer, less-maintenance-intensive Merlins" might get that way if the MIOS is ever funded with a realistic spares line.........
I suspect that the RN will see no reduction in the numbers of "medium-lift helos" available for operations after the swap... and might well see an increase!
Hmmmm. I believe SK4 availability is pretty high despite the age of the cab. The "much-newer, less-maintenance-intensive Merlins" might get that way if the MIOS is ever funded with a realistic spares line.........
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 71
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slowly the mist clears?
These letters should make intersting reading.
Now Geoff Hoon savages Gordon Brown over Afghanistan war - Times Online
Now Geoff Hoon savages Gordon Brown over Afghanistan war - Times Online
"...The first of the Chinook HC.1s were delivered in 1980, so with an OSD of 2040, some of them may be in service for 60 years! Likewise, by 2025, most of the Pumas will be getting on for 55 years old. To make the hackneyed comparison,..."
Though the RAF's first were delivered in 1980 - they returned for remanufacturing and upgrades in the late 90's to Mk 2 standards. Plank jobs normally only get upgrades - not a remanufacturing of the airframe - Nimrod being one exception.
The changes made then replaced major structures and all the transmission systems for better and more reliable metalwork. Most of the airframe systems were totally replaced at the same time. Almost the only original thing that came back from the states was the shape - and even that had been altered.
I believe the remanufactured airframes left the factory zero-lifed but retained their historic serial numbered live's from the 80's. (quite important for 'BN')
I remember accepting as a "thank-you", from some US Army groundcrew, a full set of up-to-date US Army 'D' model maintenance manuals and mircofiche's to supplement the very poor RAF Mk 2 manuals on 18 sqn at Laarbruch.
To compare the 1980's Mk 1 to the Mk 2 is like comparing a Spitfire to a Tonka! (but I'd still rather fly in a Spitfire!)
The Puma fleet, on the other hand, is almost exactly as it left the factory so very many years ago - and I still have the system diagrams and notes to prove it!
Though the RAF's first were delivered in 1980 - they returned for remanufacturing and upgrades in the late 90's to Mk 2 standards. Plank jobs normally only get upgrades - not a remanufacturing of the airframe - Nimrod being one exception.
The changes made then replaced major structures and all the transmission systems for better and more reliable metalwork. Most of the airframe systems were totally replaced at the same time. Almost the only original thing that came back from the states was the shape - and even that had been altered.
I believe the remanufactured airframes left the factory zero-lifed but retained their historic serial numbered live's from the 80's. (quite important for 'BN')
I remember accepting as a "thank-you", from some US Army groundcrew, a full set of up-to-date US Army 'D' model maintenance manuals and mircofiche's to supplement the very poor RAF Mk 2 manuals on 18 sqn at Laarbruch.
To compare the 1980's Mk 1 to the Mk 2 is like comparing a Spitfire to a Tonka! (but I'd still rather fly in a Spitfire!)
The Puma fleet, on the other hand, is almost exactly as it left the factory so very many years ago - and I still have the system diagrams and notes to prove it!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Puma fleet, on the other hand....
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Finchampstead
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diablo Rouge....
I agree totally; the cabin has been far too small in the Puma MK1 since the RAF purchased the Pumas. It's all very well paying a fortune for the upgraded engines and transmissions but it still has the same finite cabin volume as when we first bought it! The South African Cougar/Oryx (?) is brilliant compared to what we have and what we shall get out of the upgrade. Can anyone tell me why we haven't purchased the Super Puma instead of p@ssing about with the Mk1s? I know finance is a prob but it would have fitted the bill better than what we are fudging at the moment.
PS: By the way the initial MAUW of the Puma was 6400kgs and then it went to 6700kgs sometime later.
PS: By the way the initial MAUW of the Puma was 6400kgs and then it went to 6700kgs sometime later.
Last edited by Dundiggin'; 10th Jan 2010 at 11:14.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so easy to fix
I suspect that the RN will see no reduction in the numbers of "medium-lift helos" available for operations after the swap... and might well see an increase!
Hmmmm. I believe SK4 availability is pretty high despite the age of the cab. The "much-newer, less-maintenance-intensive Merlins" might get that way if the MIOS is ever funded with a realistic spares line.
Don't hold your breath for the increase (trust me) the Seaking is still easier to keep flying even though most of the spares contracts were killed off when the buffoons in charge said that the Seaking was finished several years ago. As for the IOS funding; well if it wasn't an "attractive" proposition Wastelands wouldn't have signed up, (or should I say AW!). Rumours abounded that if the RAF and then the RN used EHUDS, they could have a cheaper spares option for developing the system.
Hmmmm. I believe SK4 availability is pretty high despite the age of the cab. The "much-newer, less-maintenance-intensive Merlins" might get that way if the MIOS is ever funded with a realistic spares line.
Don't hold your breath for the increase (trust me) the Seaking is still easier to keep flying even though most of the spares contracts were killed off when the buffoons in charge said that the Seaking was finished several years ago. As for the IOS funding; well if it wasn't an "attractive" proposition Wastelands wouldn't have signed up, (or should I say AW!). Rumours abounded that if the RAF and then the RN used EHUDS, they could have a cheaper spares option for developing the system.
My point exactly. The SK4 is so well known and largely "low-tech" that its much easier to keep online than a complex beast with lots of LRU that ain't funded, whatever the a/c diagnostics say! Ergo, highly unlikely that 28 will give better capability than 42.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: yeovil
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DunDiggin'
It seems the House of Commons was of the same opinion. See http://www.publications.parliament.u...ce/434/434.pdf, Summary, 2nd para
It seems the House of Commons was of the same opinion. See http://www.publications.parliament.u...ce/434/434.pdf, Summary, 2nd para
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: yeovil
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had some difficulties (it's a big PDF) so here is the same report in HTML
House of Commons - Helicopter capability - Defence Committee
House of Commons - Helicopter capability - Defence Committee
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Life in the old dog yet
I just found this article, apologies if it's on already. Looks like we should dust off the the old cabs in Sultan then! (chuckle)
defence.professionals | defpro.com
defence.professionals | defpro.com
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done Mr Carson - a man of great genius and foresight. Good old Sikorsky for realising the potential of the old girl too and buying in to Carson rather than continuing to block its progress. S61/SH3 - the Dakota of the rotary world indeed!
Cheers
Cheers
S-61T
If we forget about the glass cockpit and new wiring, how different would a 'Triton' be from a Mk4 with Carson blades?
- New Engine(s)
- Non-folding MRH, including BIFILAR MRH damper (not new to S-61)
- Non-folding tail
- Steel Main Lifting Frames
- New composite TRBs
- Fixed, lightweight undercarriage
- Crash worthy fuel tanks
- HUMS
Nick