UK considers aerial refuelling for helicopters IHS Janes
I'm sure I read somewhere that there is a let out from the AirTanker contract in circs where the Voyagers can't do the job - as would be the case in refuelling helicopters. Or perhaps I'm misremembering...
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We do have an inherent capability already in service
All Merlin Mk3 and Mk3A built for and with AAR, see the earlier post of the UK trials done in 2007,
Italians just done their trial including NVG ops for their RTS
http://www.aeronautica.difesa.it/New...lo-KC130J.aspx
agreed no UK tankers yet, but why not use an Italian one.
DM
Italians just done their trial including NVG ops for their RTS
http://www.aeronautica.difesa.it/New...lo-KC130J.aspx
agreed no UK tankers yet, but why not use an Italian one.
DM
Last edited by dangermouse; 25th Jan 2016 at 11:52. Reason: finger trouble
Join Date: May 2006
Location: South of the North
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus are testing a C-295 HDU
Latest News : Aerospace Testing International
I would like to see the testing of the C-295 vertical landing capability!
Latest News : Aerospace Testing International
I would like to see the testing of the C-295 vertical landing capability!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of being a bit picky; trials to establish technical feasibility do not make a capability (crew training, equipment support, assurance etc). From our talented pool of engineers and firms within the UK it is technically feasible to do lots of things that there is not a true military need or funds to pay for.
What purpose would you use an AAR Heli for? Something a bit special perhaps?
If yes, it's pretty unlikely that one would use an Italian tanker at all due to the lack of sovereign control. I.e. if your mission relies on AAR and the ITA govt doesn't want to risk it/be involved - no mission. For ad hoc missions also see lack of training above.
If we used an Italian tanker regularly (which it would need to be in order to be safe and proficient) it would suggest that:
1) we have a capability gap and
2) the Italians had something they didn't need, since they could lend some to us for an indefinite period.
Neither of which are likely to be politically acceptable from either side.
So I would venture that some UK CH47+C130 aircraft crews might one day do this but given the massive unrefuelled range on the CH47 I struggle to see a pressing military need. Just move the QEC a little closer to the target for the duration of the mission.
What purpose would you use an AAR Heli for? Something a bit special perhaps?
If yes, it's pretty unlikely that one would use an Italian tanker at all due to the lack of sovereign control. I.e. if your mission relies on AAR and the ITA govt doesn't want to risk it/be involved - no mission. For ad hoc missions also see lack of training above.
If we used an Italian tanker regularly (which it would need to be in order to be safe and proficient) it would suggest that:
1) we have a capability gap and
2) the Italians had something they didn't need, since they could lend some to us for an indefinite period.
Neither of which are likely to be politically acceptable from either side.
So I would venture that some UK CH47+C130 aircraft crews might one day do this but given the massive unrefuelled range on the CH47 I struggle to see a pressing military need. Just move the QEC a little closer to the target for the duration of the mission.
I wouldn't say the the Chinook has a massive unrefuelled range. With 2 'Bob' tanks in, we managed 830nm from Tenerife to Dakar (about 7400kgs, with gravity refuel top up, landing with 200kg), but that took up just about all of the useful space available in the cabin. We had a few ground crew, with bags and a little kit, but that was it. Certainly not a combat load.
CGB,probably all in Red Bull drinks now; single skin tanks...H & S,dangerous...,and I guess the ones in the -10 went the same way..
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MG, I'll bow to your expertise on the CH47's range!
Realistically though, what mission requires a 200nm+ helicopter round trip? If it's that far away are we really going to send in the boys with just SH? Take Op Eagle Claw as an example where a long range helicopter mission has been required, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw you could argue that with heli AAR it could have been a success but I think that really it just leaves you open to more hostage-taking and losses.
Maybe I'm not thinking optimistically enough!
Realistically though, what mission requires a 200nm+ helicopter round trip? If it's that far away are we really going to send in the boys with just SH? Take Op Eagle Claw as an example where a long range helicopter mission has been required, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw you could argue that with heli AAR it could have been a success but I think that really it just leaves you open to more hostage-taking and losses.
Maybe I'm not thinking optimistically enough!
One benefit of AAR is that you can take off cargo heavy, fuel light and top the fuel up once airborne when you have more power, subject to MAUM. Useful hot and high or overwater with no refuel options. How about the unrefuelled range of a Mk 3/5 with 2 bobs?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook240, I didn't realise a helicopter had more power when airborne? 
I was alway taught it was about things like translational lift, reduced induced flow (ergo greater AOA), recirculation, efficiency etc. 
I agree with your point though; far more efficient once going forward.
I was alway taught it was about things like translational lift, reduced induced flow (ergo greater AOA), recirculation, efficiency etc. I agree with your point though; far more efficient once going forward.
As I told the relevant people at the time, if you can't fit wing pods, then you need a second FRU otherwise the mission is at risk of single point of failure...
Thus a worthwhile C295K would need a twin FRU installation and additional cargo bay fuel. Preferably without the need to open the cargo ramp in order to trail the hose, to reduce drag and turbulence. Plus its own AAR probe.
Reasons for helicopter AAR? Special Forces work, Combat SAR, humanitarian relief - quite a few in fact.
Thus a worthwhile C295K would need a twin FRU installation and additional cargo bay fuel. Preferably without the need to open the cargo ramp in order to trail the hose, to reduce drag and turbulence. Plus its own AAR probe.
Reasons for helicopter AAR? Special Forces work, Combat SAR, humanitarian relief - quite a few in fact.
Yes RW AAR/IFR has a place. For the locations you can't get to un-refuelled from a QEC, or you can't land a C130 FARP or CH-47 "Fat Cow" due to terrain/threat. In an odd case of forward thinking, both the T45 and T26 have CH-47 capable flight decks so you could put one "up threat" further than a QEC.
How about a HDU from the ramp of another CH-47 for "buddy-buddy"? Granted, the downwash might well cause some hose stability issues but has anyone ever tired it? The USMC have made a big play of using the V-22 to IFR F-18s et al. Perhaps yet another niche role (along with COD, MITL, ASACS) that eventually add up to a fundable requirement for a small batch of them.
CGB,
As C240 will attest to, I'm certainly no "trimmer" but lifting "light" and IFR gives you far more flexibility over where you start from - including the potential to lift with adequate power margin to get to SESS quickly. Handy if the start point is a urban HLS and there's no room for a cushion creep or running take off, or an aircraft carrier. I think you can also reduce overall fuel burn by transitioning and climbing to cruise altitude light then topping up. Better ask a crewman to answer that one...;-)
C240,
I recall doing an IFR leg from Odi to Leeds in a Mk3 with 1xBob; on overshoot we were still holding Div fuel for Stavanger.......
How about a HDU from the ramp of another CH-47 for "buddy-buddy"? Granted, the downwash might well cause some hose stability issues but has anyone ever tired it? The USMC have made a big play of using the V-22 to IFR F-18s et al. Perhaps yet another niche role (along with COD, MITL, ASACS) that eventually add up to a fundable requirement for a small batch of them.
CGB,
As C240 will attest to, I'm certainly no "trimmer" but lifting "light" and IFR gives you far more flexibility over where you start from - including the potential to lift with adequate power margin to get to SESS quickly. Handy if the start point is a urban HLS and there's no room for a cushion creep or running take off, or an aircraft carrier. I think you can also reduce overall fuel burn by transitioning and climbing to cruise altitude light then topping up. Better ask a crewman to answer that one...;-)
C240,
I recall doing an IFR leg from Odi to Leeds in a Mk3 with 1xBob; on overshoot we were still holding Div fuel for Stavanger.......
Realistically though, what mission requires a 200nm+ helicopter round trip
Last edited by West Coast; 26th Jan 2016 at 17:19.
Realistically though, what mission requires a 200nm+ helicopter round trip...
Which illustrates why helicopter AAR is necessary - as is the ability for the tanker to be able to operate in the receiver role itself.