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: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's probably because whoever wrote the article linked above didn't bother reading the written answer properly.
House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 06 Jan 2010 (pt 0027)
House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 06 Jan 2010 (pt 0027)
The adoption of the Future Rotary Wing Strategy, announced by the Secretary of State for Defence on 15 December 2009, Official Report, column 99WS, has resulted in a number of changes to our planning assumptions, although the only change to OSDs is for all marks of Sea King which will now retire in 2016 rather than 2018. We are procuring 22 additional Chinook by 2020, increasing the fleet size to 70 and subject to the Defence Review and individual investment approval the Merlin Mk3/3a fleet is due to switch from the Royal Air Force to the Royal Navy. Further Merlin Mk1 may potentially be modified to deliver Airborne Search and Control capabilities.
Not wishing to be a pedant, but you actually have to buy 24 Chinooks to raise the fleet size to 70 after the 2 combat losses. Probably a bit of funding slight of hand.
28 Merlins to replace 42 SK? Not a problem - the Merlin 3 will carry more troops further and faster than the old Queenie so combat effectiveness will probably be enhanced (though there may be valid questions about ruggedness). We must avoid the trap of falling into the platform numbers game - I've no doubt that CHF will justify keeping all the current Sqns and, more importantly, the SO1 positions that go with them.
28 Merlins to replace 42 SK? Not a problem - the Merlin 3 will carry more troops further and faster than the old Queenie so combat effectiveness will probably be enhanced (though there may be valid questions about ruggedness). We must avoid the trap of falling into the platform numbers game - I've no doubt that CHF will justify keeping all the current Sqns and, more importantly, the SO1 positions that go with them.
I'm assuming that the line about the Lynx Mk 8 in RN/RM service being replaced by the maritime version of Wildcat is meant to read that it is being replaced by the battleield version of Wildcat?
By evalu8tor's numbers each merlin will replace 1.5 SK, which means that in combat each loss equates to a comparable loss of 1.5 aircraft. Capability is not the only issue the numbers game is also valid in a full scale war. The inability to replace modern combat aircraft quickly could easily lead to total loss of capability.
I recently read a nice piece written by an American office who travelled in eastern Europe at the end of the second world war. He commented on how he kept comming across a destroyed german tank with half a dozen burnt out Russian tanks around it. We all know who won that encounter. Numbers win in the end, wasn't that the basis of Montgomery's victory at El Alamein.
I recently read a nice piece written by an American office who travelled in eastern Europe at the end of the second world war. He commented on how he kept comming across a destroyed german tank with half a dozen burnt out Russian tanks around it. We all know who won that encounter. Numbers win in the end, wasn't that the basis of Montgomery's victory at El Alamein.
Eric, you are quite correct - "Quantity has a quality all of its own". Unfortunately, despite being at war, procurement is still driven by capability v cost and the "peacetime" budget is the one that must be balanced. So much as it would be nice to order more Merlins to "top up" the Mk3/3A for the CHF it is unlikely to happen in the short term. Perhaps an attrition buy might be procured in 10-15 years to make good any accidents or, more likely, if AW bleat that they have no orders after Wildcat/Algerian orders are fully delivered.
I've asked this before, but nobody made any comments in reply, so I'll try again.....
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....!!
While I know fatigue is less of an issue for helicopters, are there any problems with operating 58 year old airframes?
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....!!
While I know fatigue is less of an issue for helicopters, are there any problems with operating 58 year old airframes?
Biggus,
Fatigue is an issue for RW; we might not be pulling G all the time but we don't half vibrate....
You raise a valid point; when the US Army did their D to F upgrade they initially chose to re-use the majority of D fuselages. It consequently proved only slightly dearer to use new ones. Although, AFAIK, there is no fatigue life per se on the Chinook, there are a number of RAF frames that will have had heavy landings, battle damage and other malaises (cracks/water exposure/heavy USLs/enthusiastic pilots etc). What impact these factors will have on extended longevity is open to debate.
However, you could also argue that under the Boeing Contractor Support contract, it's probably Boeing that are asking themselves exactly the same question - it's their job to provide the required ac/hours.
I do hope we're not heading into another "save today, get fleeced tomorrow" situation....
Fatigue is an issue for RW; we might not be pulling G all the time but we don't half vibrate....
You raise a valid point; when the US Army did their D to F upgrade they initially chose to re-use the majority of D fuselages. It consequently proved only slightly dearer to use new ones. Although, AFAIK, there is no fatigue life per se on the Chinook, there are a number of RAF frames that will have had heavy landings, battle damage and other malaises (cracks/water exposure/heavy USLs/enthusiastic pilots etc). What impact these factors will have on extended longevity is open to debate.
However, you could also argue that under the Boeing Contractor Support contract, it's probably Boeing that are asking themselves exactly the same question - it's their job to provide the required ac/hours.
I do hope we're not heading into another "save today, get fleeced tomorrow" situation....
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the number of cabs...
RAF website gives 24 troops for the Merlin
RN website gives 27 troops for the SK4
USMC gives 37 to 55 troops for a CH-53
So using the sole argument of lift capacity - it means that 'we' could get away with 18 or 12 Sea Stallions to do the same job.
(Let's pretend that there isn't really just a cut in numbers)
Surely lift capacity is a point (a bit like Top Trumps the higher the number the better it is), but resilience in numbers for battlefield loss and maintenance plus the ability to be in different places are equally important than just bums on seats, if not more so.
RAF website gives 24 troops for the Merlin
RN website gives 27 troops for the SK4
USMC gives 37 to 55 troops for a CH-53
So using the sole argument of lift capacity - it means that 'we' could get away with 18 or 12 Sea Stallions to do the same job.
(Let's pretend that there isn't really just a cut in numbers)
Surely lift capacity is a point (a bit like Top Trumps the higher the number the better it is), but resilience in numbers for battlefield loss and maintenance plus the ability to be in different places are equally important than just bums on seats, if not more so.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lift capacity
The comparison between pure troop capacity numbers can be misleading.
Although the RN state 27(!) in a SK4 with the Merlin Mk3 only lifting 24 the comparison is apples and oranges . A Merlin could take many more than 24 if the same (old) survivability/crashworthiness criteria for the SK4 were used.
I would guess given the age of the basic design a Ch53 may also be carrying more than modern criteria would probably allow if it were a new design.
If we are happy to continue putting troops into old aircraft types (which is where the RAF seem to going with a pure 1960s design fleet; Ch47 and Puma) you can get away with fewer cabs for the same number of troops, using modern aircraft will lead to a reduction in lift for the same number of cabs of comparable size.
DM
Although the RN state 27(!) in a SK4 with the Merlin Mk3 only lifting 24 the comparison is apples and oranges . A Merlin could take many more than 24 if the same (old) survivability/crashworthiness criteria for the SK4 were used.
I would guess given the age of the basic design a Ch53 may also be carrying more than modern criteria would probably allow if it were a new design.
If we are happy to continue putting troops into old aircraft types (which is where the RAF seem to going with a pure 1960s design fleet; Ch47 and Puma) you can get away with fewer cabs for the same number of troops, using modern aircraft will lead to a reduction in lift for the same number of cabs of comparable size.
DM