Chinook Mk6
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Planet Zob
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook Mk6
Has anybody heard any rumour or conjecture regarding the brand spanking new Chinook order (12), known as Mk6 in local parlance, specifically whether it is being cancelled (or drastcally scaled back). Today (Feb 11) had been mentioned as a 'significant announcement' to be made regarding the programme.
Flight International recorded the first aircraft out of the major 'top deck upgrade' programme but is unclear whether the retro fitting equates to the new aircraft or whether we shall be back to having a mix of cabs.
O-D
O-D
Old Duffer,
The Top-Deck upgrade (aka Project JULIUS) is not the new build aircraft - they are the legacy Mk2/2As being fitted with new avionics to become a Mk4/4a variant. What this thread is talking about are the UK-spec new build CH47Fs of which 24 were ordered by the last government (in another act of unaffordable largesse...),watered down to 14 by SDSR and now under threat of cancellation as everything goes back into the mixer for PR11.
I think we'll be lucky to see them. "Traditional" RAF thinking will argue them as unneccesary once Afg is over - no doubt concerned over F35C costs. However, if they are cancelled it raises real question marks over the whole of the FRWS (esp since the SAR-H suspension) and over the understanding that the Treasury will pay for combat attrition. Oi! Osborne - you owe us two Chinooks....
The Top-Deck upgrade (aka Project JULIUS) is not the new build aircraft - they are the legacy Mk2/2As being fitted with new avionics to become a Mk4/4a variant. What this thread is talking about are the UK-spec new build CH47Fs of which 24 were ordered by the last government (in another act of unaffordable largesse...),watered down to 14 by SDSR and now under threat of cancellation as everything goes back into the mixer for PR11.
I think we'll be lucky to see them. "Traditional" RAF thinking will argue them as unneccesary once Afg is over - no doubt concerned over F35C costs. However, if they are cancelled it raises real question marks over the whole of the FRWS (esp since the SAR-H suspension) and over the understanding that the Treasury will pay for combat attrition. Oi! Osborne - you owe us two Chinooks....
Thank you, Evalu8ter, for putting me straight on this topic.
My next fear is that the current Chinook fleet has been pretty hard used over the years and one wonders what the 'ageing aircraft' surveys might show up.
O-D
My next fear is that the current Chinook fleet has been pretty hard used over the years and one wonders what the 'ageing aircraft' surveys might show up.
O-D
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa
Age: 53
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ordered?
Evalu8ter,
I don't think that the 24 airframes were actually ordered. My contacts at Boeing and some from the UK indicated that no delivery contract was signed. I think you'll find that any work was limited to requirements gathering of how the UK specs called for could be blended (seamlessly of course) into the F model programme that is optimised for a US Army configuration (CAAS cockpit among other things).
Anyhow, I've heard on the jungle drums that you’re only getting 2 to replace the 09 attrition losses.
Canadian WokkaDoctor
I don't think that the 24 airframes were actually ordered. My contacts at Boeing and some from the UK indicated that no delivery contract was signed. I think you'll find that any work was limited to requirements gathering of how the UK specs called for could be blended (seamlessly of course) into the F model programme that is optimised for a US Army configuration (CAAS cockpit among other things).
Anyhow, I've heard on the jungle drums that you’re only getting 2 to replace the 09 attrition losses.
Canadian WokkaDoctor
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa
Age: 53
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VuctoredThrest,
Bang on mate! A matter for your Chinook PT leader to wrestle with. However, it's not like that hasn't happened in the RAF Chinook Force before. Three of the Mk2's were new build D's, lot 3 ac, the others were old C's. Then there were the 6 Mk2As and the 8 Mk3s. The Mk6, I think refers to F model CH47s with Top Deck and other RAF mods embodied. But I'm sure that the fleet configuration manager has is all under control!
Canadian WokkaDoctor
Bang on mate! A matter for your Chinook PT leader to wrestle with. However, it's not like that hasn't happened in the RAF Chinook Force before. Three of the Mk2's were new build D's, lot 3 ac, the others were old C's. Then there were the 6 Mk2As and the 8 Mk3s. The Mk6, I think refers to F model CH47s with Top Deck and other RAF mods embodied. But I'm sure that the fleet configuration manager has is all under control!
Canadian WokkaDoctor
Last edited by Canadian WokkaDoctor; 17th Feb 2011 at 17:16.
CWD,
You are of course correct. The "order" for 24 F Models was little more than an intention to purchase which made good headlines before the last election. We're still not actually on contract - which makes the money "uncommitted" and therefore vulnerable. However, Call-Me-Dave is in bit of a spot; he backed the 14ac purchase in parliament and has, it seemed, endorsed the move of Merlin to CHF. Like to see him spin his way out of this one!
2 attrition ac in Mk6 config would be,to all intents, useless as they would differ markedly from the Mk2/3/4 fleet....unless they were used as the prototype for a whole fleet upgrade to buy-out obsolescence issues by aligning (to a degree) with the CH47F. This, after all, was the main driver behind the Mk1 to Mk2 MLU - reconfig to something akin to the CH47D.
And you, more than most, know what a nightmare job the config manager has....
You are of course correct. The "order" for 24 F Models was little more than an intention to purchase which made good headlines before the last election. We're still not actually on contract - which makes the money "uncommitted" and therefore vulnerable. However, Call-Me-Dave is in bit of a spot; he backed the 14ac purchase in parliament and has, it seemed, endorsed the move of Merlin to CHF. Like to see him spin his way out of this one!
2 attrition ac in Mk6 config would be,to all intents, useless as they would differ markedly from the Mk2/3/4 fleet....unless they were used as the prototype for a whole fleet upgrade to buy-out obsolescence issues by aligning (to a degree) with the CH47F. This, after all, was the main driver behind the Mk1 to Mk2 MLU - reconfig to something akin to the CH47D.
And you, more than most, know what a nightmare job the config manager has....
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa
Age: 53
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Digital Cockpit - You wish
Best not get Evalu8ter started on that little gem! JULIUS is not, repeat not, a digital cockpit, it is a glass display cockpit. Huge, big, massive difference in the system architecture between a digital cockpit and a glass display version driven by analogue systems with loads of A-D converters thrown in to make it work.
Now if the RAF were to buy into CAAS, that would be a digital cockpit. Pin pulled, grenade thrown, ready to receive CAAS is crap responses
...............
CWD
Now if the RAF were to buy into CAAS, that would be a digital cockpit. Pin pulled, grenade thrown, ready to receive CAAS is crap responses
...............
CWD
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa
Age: 53
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MGD,
Agreed, but I'd widen it to the QQ boys who bang on about the 178B issues. Canadian MHLH project (CH47F with fat tanks and upgraded electrical system) and the US Army PIP programme are addressing some of the issues wrt CAAS, including moving towards 178B compliance.
Is CAAS perfect - no, is CAAS workable and does is deliver a COMMON cockpit architecture - yes.
CWD
Agreed, but I'd widen it to the QQ boys who bang on about the 178B issues. Canadian MHLH project (CH47F with fat tanks and upgraded electrical system) and the US Army PIP programme are addressing some of the issues wrt CAAS, including moving towards 178B compliance.
Is CAAS perfect - no, is CAAS workable and does is deliver a COMMON cockpit architecture - yes.
CWD
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: in the mess
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That would be an expensive way to prove the blindingly obvious. It is deeply multi-layered and whilst fine for up and away, low level at night would be a poor place to have to remain so heads in.
Tbh though, I think a CAAS/Julius argument might just be a little bit irrelevant right now...
Tbh though, I think a CAAS/Julius argument might just be a little bit irrelevant right now...