Hip's for the RAF?

[fantaman]

Evening all,

I was just having a nosey through one of the aviation mags from last month when I came across an article on the Mil Mi-17 Hip. The Afghan Army, through the US has just taken delivery of half a dozen new build aircraft in record time, something like 35 days after contract signing. Contract signing to arrival in country in 35 days, thats quite a pace.

Now I'm not going to get into all the arguments surrounding the lack of support helicopters, the Chinooks that lay in a hangar at Boscombe or the age of out vintage SH fleet.

The question is, whats stopping the RAF/MOD procuring a squadron of new build or refurbished Mi-17's for use in Afghanistan? The type has a proven record for operating in hot an high conditions, just ask the Pakistan Army or Peruvian Air Force.

I know we currently have two operating from Boscombe but I believe that these are being used to train foreign aircrew. A squadron of these would certainly ease the burden on the Puma/Chinook/Merlin guys.

Floors open...

[minigundiplomat]

Solution already underway that doesnt involve a few ex-eastern bloc 'made in Kharkarov on a friday afternoon, with a vodka headache' deathtraps. May have been considered as a stop gap solution, but its too late.

Besides, a certain airbase in southern, central asia has no more parking space for swathes of them, why add to the oil slick.

[Gnd]

Mini,

Guess you are speaking from a personal and uneducated position because these are very capable, strong and reliable machines. We could do a lot worse and out of interest they will outperform many above 120. The Puma is like a real piece of rubbish compared to these and yet - we still throw millions at it! Need to think about capability rather than personal opinion for once!

[t43562]

ATE, A South African company, have an Mi-17 upgrade package:

http://www.ate-aerospace-group.com/s...background.swf

I have seen their Mi-24 Superhind upgrade flying at the Ysterplaat airshow. I don't know anything about any of it but it looked impressive (apparently it has composite rotors, a cannon slaved to the pilot's helmet, glass cockpit etc)
:
YouTube - Mi-24 Superhind at Ysterplaat Airshow, 2008

The promotional video is informative, although obviously biased:
YouTube - ATE Mi-24 Superhind - Promovideo

Another upgrade that seems interesting in a way:
Atlas Oryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Gnd]

I would gues that the Mi 171 or 172 would be the prefered option, I believe they only make them on Monday and Tuesdays so might be OK!!

[minigundiplomat]

Guess you are speaking from a personal and uneducated position because these are very capable, strong and reliable machines. We could do a lot worse and out of interest they will outperform many above 120. The Puma is like a real piece of rubbish compared to these and yet - we still throw millions at it! Need to think about capability rather than personal opinion for once!

Im educated enough to know there are hundreds of them in theatre, most of which never move from their parking bays - pehaps you could explain why more are needed?

I take it you'll be first to volunteer for the job?

ps. Capability wise, whilst I agree on the Puma, the same could be said of the Lynx and Junglies.

[Stitchbitch]

MG, they are certainly a capable cab, and when properly maintained (ie to our standards) are not deathtraps. Chinooks can be deathtraps too if not looked after/operated properly. Mi-17s would have filled a capability gap at a speedier pace than the new Chinny order. But I guess wastelands don't get there hands on the Hips, so theres no money in it for them

[Gnd]

Already volunteered, qualified and hence speaking from a position of factual knowledge, do not let you eyes deceive you - plenty fly and do as good as, if not better, than some of the rubbish we prostitute around the bazaars - if the MoD, not necessarily the RAF as they do not hold the high ground in this area, then a multi force team - Oh am is seeing something new here???? – NOT!!

[MightyGem]

The question is, whats stopping the RAF/MOD procuring a squadron of new build or refurbished Mi-17's for use in Afghanistan?

Probably the same reason that stopped us taking advantage of some cheap Blackhawks a while back. Who's going to fly them and maintain them. Our guys are busy flying and maintaining Pumas/Chinooks/Merlins etc etc. How long and, how much, would it take to man these new Hip Squadrons?

[Gnd]

Not long!!!! about 6M per airframe (until the IPT and QQ get involved)

[minigundiplomat]

Gnd,

If you say they are good cabs, then I have no reason to doubt that. However, I again raise my earlier point, there are hundreds of nice white ones out there that never move, why are more needed and what will they do that the white ones can't?

[Gnd]

Hundreds?? Well a few maybe but that is the same as the ones we see on the gates of our secret airbases - BER - cheaper to buy new than repair. Similar to trying to re-ferb a life ex CH47 - it is cheaper to buy new, the AH will be the same in Phase3.
The other point is they were left out in the weather for too long and may be a bit fatigued – most have had their spares removed and when the US tried to get 6 more – they were not available because they are so popular (if you can afford to run them), they had to re-locate some of their trainers and are still short.

[Saintsman]

Good idea, but wait, why not change the engines to something Rolls Royce and change all the avionics too and then send them to Boscombe Down for a couple of years....

Buy something off the shelf as is?

Never happen.

[Gnd]

Not long!!!! about 6M per airframe (until the IPT and QQ get involved)

My point exactly - guess were going to keep that piece of French SH1t

[Tester78]

(until the IPT and QQ get involved)

...until we have an accident. Then all we get is outraged indignation that the procurement system isn't doing it's job. Ho hum.

[Stupidbutsaveable]

Hi MGD

The quality of the fleet and operators you refer to does vary considerably and a number of the airframes have seen better days. That, I'm afraid is the nature of the marketplace.

However, don't make the mistake of assuming all the 'white' ones are the same. They perform very well and clock up figures that would make your eyes water. The MTV and 171 are very capable aircraft that require a minimal support footprint. I'd have no problem comparing anything recent from a Mil Design Bureau production line with a Western platform for suitability in Afghanistan.

Fly safe and maybe see you there during your next stint. Might even get you airborne in one to provide you with a more informed opinion.

Regards

[Gnd]

Then all we get is outraged indignation that the procurement system isn't doing it's job. Ho hum.

What do you mean 'Then' - I think that it is true right now, don't need to have an accident to prove it? Atleast AW wouldn't get involved - like the new 47 thing; phew!!!!

[minigundiplomat]

Might even get you airborne in one

Thanks for the kind offer, but I suspect I may be busy that day. The weight of opinion suggests my original comments may have been wide of the mark, and I am happy to concede that, given the number of professionals willing to vouch for the aircraft.

However, despite the servicability of the white fleet (and yes Gnd, there are literally hundreds), what are we hoping to achieve with the few at Boscombe?

Capable they may be, but they do not provide the critical mass required, and therefore only incur the costs of introduction and operation, pretty much like the Puma.

In possession of an open mind (apart from getting in one), but cant see what we would actually do with them.

[Gnd]

whats stopping the RAF/MOD procuring a squadron of new build or refurbished Mi-17's for use in Afghanistan?

That was the question so apart from the Boscombe ones:

Get 8 x 17, 171 or 172s new, use the already trained crews, and Groundcrew, for the Sqn (delete Puma) and go to the sand where it works well. Could use some off the thousand and thousand of scrapped Mi17 as a barrier or to mop up the slick with their leather seat covers maybe? - any questions

Actually to answer you - Boscombe is a totaly different subject that I am not able to comment on meaning I do not know how they could possibly fit into this thread.

[Gnd]

Just for comparison with other platforms you might know:

Mass
Maximum take-off weight (category А safe fly away) 12000Kg
Maximum take-off weight (category B) 13000Kg
Normal take-off weight 11100Kg
On external sling 4000Kg

Seats Trooper up to 37 pc.
Passenger up to 26 pc.

Flight altitude
Service ceiling 19686 ft

MTOW flight range (with 30 min fuel reserve)
Main fuel tanks 329,7Nm
Main + 2 external fuel tanks (option) 575,7 Nm