£52.5 m a pop
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: WSM
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£52.5 m a pop
This from the BBC. Good news I guess but what a price!
The first of eight Chinooks mothballed at Boscombe Down for 10 years owing to lack of verifiable flight software is soon to be dispatched to Afghanistan.
The eight are undergoing a delayed £90m conversion programme being undertaken by supplier Boeing at the base to allow the Mk 3 helicopters to be declared airworthy and added to the fleet available for ferrying troops and supplies.
Defence secretary Bob Ainsworth will give a briefing at the base on Wednesday [13 January] to explain how the hugely expensive blunder has been rectified.
The total cost of the fleet soared 70 per cent to £422m, making the Mk 3 Chinook the armed forces' most costly ever helicopter at £52.5m each.
The blunder nearly a decade ago involved a failure to obtain code needed to verify aviation systems to enable the helicopters to be declared airworthy. It has never been made clear why Boeing did not supply the code and a recent allegation that it was deliberately omitted from the original contract to save money has been denied by the Ministry of Defence.
At one point the Chinooks were due to be cannibalised for parts, but the need for more helicopter lift in Afghanistan was so great a decision was taken to pay Boeing to make them airworthy
The first of eight Chinooks mothballed at Boscombe Down for 10 years owing to lack of verifiable flight software is soon to be dispatched to Afghanistan.
The eight are undergoing a delayed £90m conversion programme being undertaken by supplier Boeing at the base to allow the Mk 3 helicopters to be declared airworthy and added to the fleet available for ferrying troops and supplies.
Defence secretary Bob Ainsworth will give a briefing at the base on Wednesday [13 January] to explain how the hugely expensive blunder has been rectified.
The total cost of the fleet soared 70 per cent to £422m, making the Mk 3 Chinook the armed forces' most costly ever helicopter at £52.5m each.
The blunder nearly a decade ago involved a failure to obtain code needed to verify aviation systems to enable the helicopters to be declared airworthy. It has never been made clear why Boeing did not supply the code and a recent allegation that it was deliberately omitted from the original contract to save money has been denied by the Ministry of Defence.
At one point the Chinooks were due to be cannibalised for parts, but the need for more helicopter lift in Afghanistan was so great a decision was taken to pay Boeing to make them airworthy
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The eight are undergoing a delayed £90m conversion programme being undertaken by supplier Boeing at the base to allow the Mk 3 helicopters to be declared airworthy
AA
I think MoD is slightly better at this now.
Certainly, those responsible have retired (thank goodness) - the only thing you can say about them is they were consistent, ruling for some years afterwards (until 2008 to my personal knowledge, as I have the letters) that aircraft did not have to be functionally safe when offered to the Service for release.
That date, purely by coincidence, was when the Haddon-Cave penny was dropping in MoD, as his recommendations emerged.
Fingers crossed (which is a far better method of safety management than that advocated at the time!).
I think MoD is slightly better at this now.
Certainly, those responsible have retired (thank goodness) - the only thing you can say about them is they were consistent, ruling for some years afterwards (until 2008 to my personal knowledge, as I have the letters) that aircraft did not have to be functionally safe when offered to the Service for release.
That date, purely by coincidence, was when the Haddon-Cave penny was dropping in MoD, as his recommendations emerged.
Fingers crossed (which is a far better method of safety management than that advocated at the time!).
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the same cost we could field 80 MI 171 Hips!
The cost of this blunder should come out of the pension funds of the inept fools that signed the deal. This would sharpen the minds of some in procurement no end.
The cost of this blunder should come out of the pension funds of the inept fools that signed the deal. This would sharpen the minds of some in procurement no end.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Tonker
For the same cost we could field 80 MI 171 Hips!
FUBAR as the Mk3R program is, pound for pound it's still 'cheaper' lift than the 6 UOR Merlin Mk3As.
I/C
In light of this 'blunder', what has been done to stop the same thing happening with the next 22 the RAF are buying?
Qs......
Are they going to have another fleet within a fleet?
Are they going to accept the latest model off the shelf?
Are they going to buy the code this time?
Are the RAF going to operate them or are they going to offload them to the Army, much the same as the Merlin Force has been given away to the RN?
Answers on a postcard please.....
Qs......
Are they going to have another fleet within a fleet?
Are they going to accept the latest model off the shelf?
Are they going to buy the code this time?
Are the RAF going to operate them or are they going to offload them to the Army, much the same as the Merlin Force has been given away to the RN?
Answers on a postcard please.....
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sitting on the toilet of Europe.... the UK
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are the RAF going to operate them or are they going to offload them to the Army, much the same as the Merlin Force has been given away to the RN?
oh you did,
erm, err, no they are getting........wait for it....wait for it.....
Drum roll..........a new Lynx........And they are extremely happy with that.....NOT
I was involved in an unsucessful bid to modify the aircraft and get them back in service.
Apparently we were not expensive enough!
Would have had them all in service by now too.
Apparently we were not expensive enough!
Would have had them all in service by now too.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: In the Middle
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The story I was given:
Originally the Mk3 was to have a digital cockpit similar to Dutch CH-47, UK had cleared the software for the Dutch and disclosure of this software was not in the contract with Boe as UK were happy with it. Then to save money the UK specified a different cheaper cockpit, but the amendment to the contract did not include that the software now needed to be fully released to the UK and structured to our standards.
Originally the Mk3 was to have a digital cockpit similar to Dutch CH-47, UK had cleared the software for the Dutch and disclosure of this software was not in the contract with Boe as UK were happy with it. Then to save money the UK specified a different cheaper cockpit, but the amendment to the contract did not include that the software now needed to be fully released to the UK and structured to our standards.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The story you were given has elements of the truth but not at its entirety and the many issues associated with the "sideways" procurement of the Mk3. My main input to this thread is that a rather brave intiative taken by several very senior officers in the MoD during the post '97 Defence Review came a croper by a rush to get to contract for what was inevitably going to be a complex software dependent system requiring clearance and airworthiness in the most demanding of special flight profiles - not just in cloud!!. The MoD PE was transitoning to become the DPA (now DE&S) and the project management system was bereft of safeguard attitudes (in the rotary section in particualr) and adequate processes to give proper visibility to key players of the decisions being taken (at quite a low staff level) until it was too late - and don't I know it!! Boeing did not help by being too "customer" friendly, misleading themselves as to what the customer would accept, despite relevant inputs to the contrary, do not forget Philly nealry bankrupted themselves in the process.
The saga didn't end of course - as UK is still without a fully spec'd Special CH47 that the Mk3 was attempting to introduce (although its spec was never going to give the full capability required intially even if it had been declared fit for service). More to the point many would argue that those 8 could have been retrofited at reasonable expense to an adequate special standard but certain key politicians ran away from the responsibility and opted for the Mk3R programme instead as they (as is often the case with this government IMO) did not want the risk (low as it was calculated) of another clearance/airworthiness debacle associated with the CH47 following the Mk3 saga and the (still ongoing) Mull accident.
Given the subsequent wider airworthiness matters now public - do you blame them?? Still means the special guys who are at the forefront of our efforts elsewhere still haven't yet got the complete spectrum of what they need and deserve.
PS - before we believe that the Mk3Rs are the most expensive helos to enter UK service - why not check on how much has been spent since inception to present day on creating and buying the 30 or so (original order 44) of the Merlin Mk1s?? - never mind the ongoing upgrade programme
The saga didn't end of course - as UK is still without a fully spec'd Special CH47 that the Mk3 was attempting to introduce (although its spec was never going to give the full capability required intially even if it had been declared fit for service). More to the point many would argue that those 8 could have been retrofited at reasonable expense to an adequate special standard but certain key politicians ran away from the responsibility and opted for the Mk3R programme instead as they (as is often the case with this government IMO) did not want the risk (low as it was calculated) of another clearance/airworthiness debacle associated with the CH47 following the Mk3 saga and the (still ongoing) Mull accident.
Given the subsequent wider airworthiness matters now public - do you blame them?? Still means the special guys who are at the forefront of our efforts elsewhere still haven't yet got the complete spectrum of what they need and deserve.
PS - before we believe that the Mk3Rs are the most expensive helos to enter UK service - why not check on how much has been spent since inception to present day on creating and buying the 30 or so (original order 44) of the Merlin Mk1s?? - never mind the ongoing upgrade programme
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...anyone would think there's an election around the corner. It was so good of Bob Ainsworth to tell us recently how he needed heavy lift in Afghanistan and that he was buying 22 more Chinooks. I guess these weren't needed 2 years ago but at least we have them now, not much use if you're a dead soldier of course.
"those who put themselves in harm's way on our behalf remain properly supported and resourced" (but we could do with ordering some heavy lift before the May elections...)
BBC News - Cuts made to boost UK Afghan mission
"those who put themselves in harm's way on our behalf remain properly supported and resourced" (but we could do with ordering some heavy lift before the May elections...)
BBC News - Cuts made to boost UK Afghan mission
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi DM - yes indeed - my 30 figure of course relates to the post MCSP situation - and the comparison of cost was not intended to relate to the role, merely the airframe cost as potentially the most expensive UK helo ever. A simple division of the £4.6 billion spent on Merlin Mk1 for 44 airframes since the original project start says it all. Not a criticism at this point (particularly as the original pre SDR98 plan saw 105 airframes entering service which would have amortised the costs per airframe considerably) - just a comparative statement that can sit alongside the Mk3 debacle. As for the Mk3 itself, it too was not merely intended to be a battlefied "truck" so be wary of such simplistic comparisons IMO.
Cheers
Cheers
Last edited by Tallsar; 14th Jan 2010 at 19:59.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Devon
Age: 71
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I can't seem to get my head around is surely these Chinooks , after completion at Boeing , would have had to undergo extensive 1st. flights & pre-delivery flying with Boeing pilots to prescribed military standards before being handed over to the M.O.D. , how was it that they were not airworthy when they arrived here & also in various press reports it has been stated these aircraft had "never" flown , surely they would have all undergone stringent airworthy test flying ?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Grandfer - the Mk3's were built as Mk2s at Philly then transferred to Shrieveport where they had the new cockpit and associated systems etc installed. Of course some factory testing and customer testing was done there, as well as further testing at RWTS Boscombe. The "combined" test team did much to see how the system worked at a crew level and from a pure technical performance perspective.
However, what is good enough for post build acceptance as "safe" and to design is not neccessairily acceptable when an analysis of the design and its software is done against different (and sometimes more demanding standards) - which should have been understood and contracted for as part of the requirement in the first place. More to the point, any safety assessment has to be based on detailed data - which in the Mk3's software case was not forthcoming to the standards and extent required, not only as routine clearance process for such software driven cockpits but also for a UK Military Release in the demanding specialist role the ac was due to fly in. It therefore (rightly or wrongly depending on where you stand in this argument) was deemed unsafe for such a role.
Cheers
However, what is good enough for post build acceptance as "safe" and to design is not neccessairily acceptable when an analysis of the design and its software is done against different (and sometimes more demanding standards) - which should have been understood and contracted for as part of the requirement in the first place. More to the point, any safety assessment has to be based on detailed data - which in the Mk3's software case was not forthcoming to the standards and extent required, not only as routine clearance process for such software driven cockpits but also for a UK Military Release in the demanding specialist role the ac was due to fly in. It therefore (rightly or wrongly depending on where you stand in this argument) was deemed unsafe for such a role.
Cheers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: WSM
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a relative who works on helicopters and at one point he was involved with the Chinook. IIRC (we were talking over a few bevvies) the ac has to have it's glass cockpit removed, an analogue one fitted and then be upgraded to glass again. He also mentioned that the contract to carry out this work was biased against early completion with more pay being given to workers who "stayed with the program" (a sort of retention bonus with unintended consequences).
Anyone care to comment or did I just misunderstand?
Anyone care to comment or did I just misunderstand?
Endplay,
The Mk3 Chinooks were built with an anologue cockpit in Philly, flown to Shreveport for the Glass Cockpit and thence to the UK. They are now being re-fitted with the analogue cockpit and sometime in the next 5 years will receive another Glass cockpit under the auspices of Project Julius (which is similar to the one it would have got under fix to field...).
Compared to c£5bn for 9 MRA4s they STILL seem good value.....
The Mk3 Chinooks were built with an anologue cockpit in Philly, flown to Shreveport for the Glass Cockpit and thence to the UK. They are now being re-fitted with the analogue cockpit and sometime in the next 5 years will receive another Glass cockpit under the auspices of Project Julius (which is similar to the one it would have got under fix to field...).
Compared to c£5bn for 9 MRA4s they STILL seem good value.....
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, but I'm sure the MRA4 would be a lot cheaper if it were just an empty tube!! (you nobber!!) Mind you, BAeS would still find a way of selling it to the MoD!!