16 more Chinooks for the RAF
The Huey can be flown in such a manner as to vibrate Wine Glasses of the Cocktail Tables in the VIP Pavillion at the Duxford Heli-Tech gathering......proudly guilty of that!
While flying Huey 509 when it first arrived in the UK, we got around to several such events and airshows.
Due to the CAA Regs we could not do Flight Demos thus the only flying done at those things was the arrival and exitl
With inclement weather approaching we decided to leave early and head back towards Blackpool.
The Tower Staff suggested we be prepared for the possibility of vectors for traffic upon departure.
Sure enough we were asked to remain closed circuit for traffic separation and we had to make two circuits before being allowed to leave the Circuit.
Later on....I was told of just how loud the old girl was barking as we made a steep descending turn and accelerating to Vne requiring a lot of up Collective (high angle of attack for the main rotor blades)
In the US there used to be a Program called "Fly Neighborly" that explained how to fly quietly.
A bit of reverse engineering and one can figure out exactly how to get the old girls to talking.
https://www.nap.edu/read/23609/chapter/15#71
(Scrolling will get you to all of the document.....tried to get the link to start at the cover page but had no luck with that)
While flying Huey 509 when it first arrived in the UK, we got around to several such events and airshows.
Due to the CAA Regs we could not do Flight Demos thus the only flying done at those things was the arrival and exitl
With inclement weather approaching we decided to leave early and head back towards Blackpool.
The Tower Staff suggested we be prepared for the possibility of vectors for traffic upon departure.
Sure enough we were asked to remain closed circuit for traffic separation and we had to make two circuits before being allowed to leave the Circuit.
Later on....I was told of just how loud the old girl was barking as we made a steep descending turn and accelerating to Vne requiring a lot of up Collective (high angle of attack for the main rotor blades)
In the US there used to be a Program called "Fly Neighborly" that explained how to fly quietly.
A bit of reverse engineering and one can figure out exactly how to get the old girls to talking.
https://www.nap.edu/read/23609/chapter/15#71
(Scrolling will get you to all of the document.....tried to get the link to start at the cover page but had no luck with that)
Am I to presume that ZA718 is BN? She must have had quite a few adventures since 1982, especially in sandy places. What upgrades will she have had since then?
At the risk of opening a can of worms, last I heard was we had quite a few Chinooks in storage but couldnt get them certified post Mull of Kintyre.
But then again I've been out of the loop on this one for a while and am happy to be corrected. Anyone care to enlighten me on the outcome of that one? Hopefully without getting back into the enquiry debacle.
Cooch
At the risk of opening a can of worms, last I heard was we had quite a few Chinooks in storage but couldnt get them certified post Mull of Kintyre.
But then again I've been out of the loop on this one for a while and am happy to be corrected. Anyone care to enlighten me on the outcome of that one? Hopefully without getting back into the enquiry debacle.
Cooch
Thanks SAS - that's a really interesting read.
Interesting comments about impulse noise not generally being audible to crew in the machine,,. certainly the case in the Huey, although I was pretty sure I could hear increased blade slap in high G turns.
Is it the same in the Chinook?
Interesting comments about impulse noise not generally being audible to crew in the machine,,. certainly the case in the Huey, although I was pretty sure I could hear increased blade slap in high G turns.
Is it the same in the Chinook?
The Huey is in a class of its own re Blade Noise.....and is one of the Icons of the Vietnam War.
In this video....about 5:20 or so....is our first arrival at Wesham with 509 after it arrived in the UK from the United States.
I was very happy for Phil as he had a long difficult road in getting the approvals to export the Aircraft from the USA.
In this video....about 5:20 or so....is our first arrival at Wesham with 509 after it arrived in the UK from the United States.
I was very happy for Phil as he had a long difficult road in getting the approvals to export the Aircraft from the USA.
Yes - that sound at 3.35 or so is exactly what I heard inside... very quiet ringing sound of the turbine.
And 5.24 - yep - that's what they sounded like from a distance.
The rest is pure comforting childhood memories for me.
And probably terrifying for a generation of young men who were fighting in Vietnam.
And 5.24 - yep - that's what they sounded like from a distance.
The rest is pure comforting childhood memories for me.
And probably terrifying for a generation of young men who were fighting in Vietnam.
And probably terrifying for a generation of young men who were fighting in Vietnam.
I would suspect it involves the cyber security of all equipment including crypto data latency; sources of all components, Tempest requirements etc etc. Plus of course the security of the systems of all contractors and subcontractors. You only have to remember the reported theft of the data concerning the F-35 design etc.
From memory, so a health warning....
Post-Falklands, permission was granted to make advance buys for Sea King HAS Mk5 (which morphed into Mk6), what became Lynx HAS Mk3/8, Merlin HM1, Nimrod MR2 and R1; and Sea Harrier (quickly deleted). Chinook was excluded. In design terms, Sea King HAS came first, then Merlin, then Lynx - all completed by early 1986. In 1990, AEW Mk2 and HC Mk4 were endorsed. The RN delayed the AEW Mk2 embodiment, as the AEW fleet was 8 a/c short and couldn't bear overlapping mod programmes. So it was AEW Mk7 that got it and the new comms passed bench testing in October 1998, and aircraft trials in January 2000. Nimrod was a parallel design, as there was little commonality at LRU level due to number of secure stations.
In about 1983, the Home Office increased the spec to something otherwordly. (TS, and cannot be stated, but the chief designer nearly fell over). As it was mandated upon MoD, it had no choice but to comply, but of course received no extra funding. The kit already produced went through an upgrade loop before being delivered. What was delivered was mostly lost by the RAF supply system some years later, as it had been allocated temporary Section/Ref numbers (10ZZ), which AMSO/AML stopped tracking in the early 90s. I know around 50 complete Sea King and Lynx shipped sets went missing. That includes multi-mode radios (£130k each), homers and aircraft mod sets, not just secure overlays. A million per set, at mid-80s prices? Not far off. AML was forced by the Centre to replace them in about 1997. They tried to get out of it by claiming GEC had stolen some of it. At least the RN laughed, despite their kit being AWOL. At this time, the RAF added C-130, but in one of the most hilarious howlers of all time, AML decided to buy the Sea King HAS Mk6 build standard; an aircraft which did odd things like hover in the dip and process ping and buoy audio. PE tried to correct them to no avail. The RN had given up in 1986, having failed to convince AMSO that a C-130 couldn't land (safely) on an Invincible Class carrier.
The first aircraft fitted, in about 1984, was Sea King AEW Mk2, which hadn't been in the Staff Requirement as it didn't exist (which provides a latest date); but by a Naval Service Mod which didn't work. (The kit worked perfectly if installed correctly, but they tried to make it Secure Lite fit, which was unworkable). At much the same time, Nimrod was deleted - after over £40M had been spent putting kit on the shelf. But the financial aspect resulted in the APs - and support in general - not being updated so, for example, 53 Class AA security mods relating the the HO's new spec were entirely missing from the crypto host; until this was uncovered during the pre-requisite work for the ASaC Mk7 programme in 1994. Throughout this period, LRUs at vastly different build standards and functionality could migrate between fleets, because all funding to control this had been withdrawn.
In summary, I'd say the ASaC Mk7 achieved the HO spec in 1997, but unavoidably regressed when the Mk4A helmet became a comms system LRU the following year, residing within the TEMPEST boundary. The others? The problem I describe meant they were very variable, and for many years compliance was probably claimed, not realising the wrong build standard was being used. (By 1993, there was no-one in the Services or PE charged with oversight of such things; the latter having fallen victim to the policy to rundown airworthiness management; the former to various political cuts such as Options for Change and the Hallifax Savings. Resolution was very much down to luck - if you had someone in the project team who remembered such things).
It was only in about 1999, give or take, that Chinook asked to come on board. Being RAF, they tried to nick the RN's kit procured for Sea King Mk4 and AEW Mk2, but the RN weren't too worried as the secure overlay design must complement the existing clear system. Hence, a Lynx fit is no use in a Sea King, which is no use in a Chinook, which.... although the individual LRUs are externally similar. That cunning plan would have delayed Chinook somewhat. But there was no telling the one man band that was Chinook Mk3 fiasco. I understand the penny dropped around his 22nd birthday, when he was already an old maid.
Not an unfamiliar story, and it might help explain a few things.
tucmseh,
It certainly goes a long way to explaining why we have such a large defence budget but seem to struggle to deliver equivalent VFM capability with it!
It certainly goes a long way to explaining why we have such a large defence budget but seem to struggle to deliver equivalent VFM capability with it!
Thanks SAS - that's a really interesting read.
Interesting comments about impulse noise not generally being audible to crew in the machine,,. certainly the case in the Huey, although I was pretty sure I could hear increased blade slap in high G turns.
Is it the same in the Chinook?
Interesting comments about impulse noise not generally being audible to crew in the machine,,. certainly the case in the Huey, although I was pretty sure I could hear increased blade slap in high G turns.
Is it the same in the Chinook?
From my logbook, ZA718 BN was a HC2 in 2002. The 2 and 2As became HC4s.
As I said, I had TS clearance and was (officially) not permitted to see them. When I wrote the ASaC Mk7 and Mk4 comms systems specs in 1994, I simply referenced the CESG specs. I had a high degree of confidence in the Design Authority, as I had assisted to a small degree the Lynx and Merlin design work in 1985/6.
Everyone knows there are odd anomalies. For example, ESM audio warning data had the same restrictions in that I couldn't list it in the system specs, but if you wanted to know what they were, you just checked the lower integration rig test schedule, which was merely 'Restricted'. Sometimes the way round it was to say 'select on test' the final component values that conditioned the signal, which kept CESG happy, while ensuring the design was correct. Hey, that's the way it was, but I accept you may have had different experiences when preparing your specs and trying to get the CESG tick in the box.
Everyone knows there are odd anomalies. For example, ESM audio warning data had the same restrictions in that I couldn't list it in the system specs, but if you wanted to know what they were, you just checked the lower integration rig test schedule, which was merely 'Restricted'. Sometimes the way round it was to say 'select on test' the final component values that conditioned the signal, which kept CESG happy, while ensuring the design was correct. Hey, that's the way it was, but I accept you may have had different experiences when preparing your specs and trying to get the CESG tick in the box.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
An additional order for 14 or not?
https://www.bloombergquint.com/busin...-e-buying-more
Bloomberg) -- Boeing Co. is close to selling 24 Chinook helicopters to the United Arab Emirates and the U.K., according to Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, a move that may assuage U.S. lawmakers who have rejected his service’s plans to curtail its purchases of the aircraft. “I believe we will be the position here very shortly to take the next step for notification to Congress” of a proposed sale of 10 additional Chinooks to the U.A.E, with the U.K. likely to buy an additional 14, McCarthy said in an interview. “I’m personally involved with those efforts.”.........
The U.K. is “going through the process with us on the pricing,” McCarthy said, and he met with his British counterpart a few weeks ago. “They’ll be back here in the November time frame” to keep working on details, he said, and agreement may be reached on a formal “letter of acceptance” next spring, one of the last steps to a contract........
https://www.bloombergquint.com/busin...-e-buying-more
Bloomberg) -- Boeing Co. is close to selling 24 Chinook helicopters to the United Arab Emirates and the U.K., according to Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, a move that may assuage U.S. lawmakers who have rejected his service’s plans to curtail its purchases of the aircraft. “I believe we will be the position here very shortly to take the next step for notification to Congress” of a proposed sale of 10 additional Chinooks to the U.A.E, with the U.K. likely to buy an additional 14, McCarthy said in an interview. “I’m personally involved with those efforts.”.........
The U.K. is “going through the process with us on the pricing,” McCarthy said, and he met with his British counterpart a few weeks ago. “They’ll be back here in the November time frame” to keep working on details, he said, and agreement may be reached on a formal “letter of acceptance” next spring, one of the last steps to a contract........
The first ones we bought in the early '80s are still flying with over 10,000 hours on the airframes. Possibly time for some replacements, not extras.... That statement certainly reads like the same original buy if they're talking about a contract that quickly - it's only a year since the original announcement and we all know how quick MOD procurement is!
The original frames have been reconditioned, possibly twice so far, effectively zeroing the hours at each time and all the rotable components replaced as and when required...so why would you ‘retire’ an airframe?
Have a question that has interested me for quite awhile and is related to the issue raised by SAS. Well,it may be related-our friends from the UK can contribute.
Some time ago Sikorsky/UTC purchased a piece of Westland,and part of the overall agreement was that Westland would own the sales rights for the S-70 to the Persian Gulf Countries. There was an extended marketing flight demonstration in the area put on by Westland,with some small participation by a few SA personnel. Westland prepared a Westland version of the S-70,with RR engines, a Smiths ( as I recall) AFCS/autopilot, and a suite of UK avionics etc. When they presented this version of the S-70 to the Saudi Government ,it was priced higher than the Saudi’s expected, and the Saudi Government then applied for the standard US Army version,which at the time was $10-11M ( US ). ( The Westland aircraft price wassome $5-7M higher as I recall ). And that is what they bought.
I always thought that all of these changes were Westland’s idea, thus it was their fault that the rather large sale was lost. But after reading what has been written here re the CH-47 UK versions, it has made me wonder if similar “ additional UK requirements “ via the MOD and not Westland were the source of the difficulty??
NB: I did have a chance to fly the RR engines in the S-70 that we sold/rtransferred to Westland,with RR test pilot Ken Robertson. The the engine/airframe interface they had done was absolutely perfect, (both thoroughly and rigorously tested). At least they were able to get those engines in the UK AH-64.
Some time ago Sikorsky/UTC purchased a piece of Westland,and part of the overall agreement was that Westland would own the sales rights for the S-70 to the Persian Gulf Countries. There was an extended marketing flight demonstration in the area put on by Westland,with some small participation by a few SA personnel. Westland prepared a Westland version of the S-70,with RR engines, a Smiths ( as I recall) AFCS/autopilot, and a suite of UK avionics etc. When they presented this version of the S-70 to the Saudi Government ,it was priced higher than the Saudi’s expected, and the Saudi Government then applied for the standard US Army version,which at the time was $10-11M ( US ). ( The Westland aircraft price wassome $5-7M higher as I recall ). And that is what they bought.
I always thought that all of these changes were Westland’s idea, thus it was their fault that the rather large sale was lost. But after reading what has been written here re the CH-47 UK versions, it has made me wonder if similar “ additional UK requirements “ via the MOD and not Westland were the source of the difficulty??
NB: I did have a chance to fly the RR engines in the S-70 that we sold/rtransferred to Westland,with RR test pilot Ken Robertson. The the engine/airframe interface they had done was absolutely perfect, (both thoroughly and rigorously tested). At least they were able to get those engines in the UK AH-64.
Last edited by JohnDixson; 28th Oct 2019 at 01:24. Reason: Incorrect auto-correct and additionalthoughts
John
When the US Army is involved, one can never compare the US with the UK. On Chinook, and for all I know other aircraft too, it is essentially the Design Authority - a major reason why, historically, Boeing could correctly plead ignorance when asked Chinook design questions. Little of this cost would be included in a Boeing quote. The nasty surprise might come later when you find you're tied to a design you no longer need.
Sikorsky is, or was, a slightly different situation. Much was made in the UK of the 'Sikorsky mark-up' due to the licensing agreement for Sea King. Few realised that it was MoD - not Westland - who insisted on the agreement, paid the annual fee and happily swallowed the price premium. It was only in 1999 that it was bought out, for a pittance. (A restructuring of MoD inadvertently dropped the decision level to someone who knew what he was talking about. Kudos).
The headline purchase price is reckoned to be <30% of the through-life cost; the latter is what the purchaser is more interested in. These variables between US and UK policies make assessing this very difficult, and it is far more likely that Saudi was persuaded by something else at a political level.
When the US Army is involved, one can never compare the US with the UK. On Chinook, and for all I know other aircraft too, it is essentially the Design Authority - a major reason why, historically, Boeing could correctly plead ignorance when asked Chinook design questions. Little of this cost would be included in a Boeing quote. The nasty surprise might come later when you find you're tied to a design you no longer need.
Sikorsky is, or was, a slightly different situation. Much was made in the UK of the 'Sikorsky mark-up' due to the licensing agreement for Sea King. Few realised that it was MoD - not Westland - who insisted on the agreement, paid the annual fee and happily swallowed the price premium. It was only in 1999 that it was bought out, for a pittance. (A restructuring of MoD inadvertently dropped the decision level to someone who knew what he was talking about. Kudos).
The headline purchase price is reckoned to be <30% of the through-life cost; the latter is what the purchaser is more interested in. These variables between US and UK policies make assessing this very difficult, and it is far more likely that Saudi was persuaded by something else at a political level.
Thanks for your insight, Tecumseh. I was talking about the aircraft part of the quote,not the whole package divided by the number of airframes.
The Westland S-61 agreement happened before I signed in,but for some reason it came up in discussion when we had the S-67 at Middle Wallop during the 1972 tour. The man who handled marketing for the UK told us that SA CEO Lee Johnson had made that arrangement, which entailed a licensing payment back to SA for $10k ( US ) per airframe. There must have been more to it, right?
Curious about Boeing pleading ignorance with re to answering Chinook questions-are the Chinook purchases thru US Gov’t FMS ( Foreign Military Sales )?
The Westland S-61 agreement happened before I signed in,but for some reason it came up in discussion when we had the S-67 at Middle Wallop during the 1972 tour. The man who handled marketing for the UK told us that SA CEO Lee Johnson had made that arrangement, which entailed a licensing payment back to SA for $10k ( US ) per airframe. There must have been more to it, right?
Curious about Boeing pleading ignorance with re to answering Chinook questions-are the Chinook purchases thru US Gov’t FMS ( Foreign Military Sales )?