16 more Chinooks for the RAF
For example, our Home Office dictates some quite important specifications and requirements, which a typical US standard would not (and do not) meet. (And if they claimed to, GCHQ and most of our designers would want to know how, as it's very difficult!).
Care to expound upon that statement?
Exactly what would prevent the US builders from meeting those specifications and requirements?
What are the specifications and requirements that are so "difficult" to meet by non-UK builders?
SASless
I kept it brief because any more is beyond TS.
Not knowing what they are in the first place. The US have equivalents, but they are (sensibly) less stringent than the Home Office's, and that is borne out by past Chinook requirements issued internally by MoD.
See above. I had TS clearance and was not permitted to know. It happens I do know, give or take, because the silly rules do not extend to stopping me viewing the test results as I had to sign production permits; but there is no point me quoting the specs 'cos the actual figures are removed and made available separately.
I hope you appreciate I'm not being awkward. To me, the Chinook, as built, is perfectly adequate. It is a hole the HO dug for us. My main point, which is perhaps unclear, is that while many moan and groan about MoD's procurers allegedly changing requirements and faffing around with specs, in fact they have little or nothing to do with it. They have to work within legal obligations and political mandates. What the Service may actually want or need (seldom the same thing, and seldom stated) comes a poor third.
Care to expound upon that statement?
Exactly what would prevent the US builders from meeting those specifications and requirements?
What are the specifications and requirements that are so "difficult" to meet by non-UK builders?
I hope you appreciate I'm not being awkward. To me, the Chinook, as built, is perfectly adequate. It is a hole the HO dug for us. My main point, which is perhaps unclear, is that while many moan and groan about MoD's procurers allegedly changing requirements and faffing around with specs, in fact they have little or nothing to do with it. They have to work within legal obligations and political mandates. What the Service may actually want or need (seldom the same thing, and seldom stated) comes a poor third.
Thank you for the response....certainly do not want to give away the farm in an open forum......as we would not wish to be accused of acting like Hillary!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somerset
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What has the Home Office got to do with Certification specifications? The default UK Cert spec is Def Stan 00-970 sponsored by the MAA, nothing to do with the Home Office. The US Army’s AMRDEC is mutually recognised by the MAA as suppling quality equivalent Certification artefacts, the UK Delivery Team then has to show equivalence of these artefacts to the Def Stan to gain UK Certification. RA 5810 Annex A refers and details the process.
Seeing that BV-347, always wondered if a stealthy Wokka exists.?
I know - contradiction in terms - but clearly there's a stealthy UH-60 - so why not try it with the big brother...?
On occasions when a singleton or pair of Chinooks can be spotted flying over Sydney, am always struck by how quiet they are compared to the UH-1Hs we had in NZ.
You could hear the blade slap for miles.
I know - contradiction in terms - but clearly there's a stealthy UH-60 - so why not try it with the big brother...?
On occasions when a singleton or pair of Chinooks can be spotted flying over Sydney, am always struck by how quiet they are compared to the UH-1Hs we had in NZ.
You could hear the blade slap for miles.
Six huge Rotor Blades, two big engine nacelles a big ol' fat cross section and the two Transmission Pylons would take some disguising.
Then the Thermal footprint of the engines, transmissions, and various coolers would also pose a small problem as well.
Then the Thermal footprint of the engines, transmissions, and various coolers would also pose a small problem as well.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note, Evalu8ter (correctly) didn't mention Boeing!
KK. Not everyone uses the same aircraft 'certification' system. The UK MoD has a 'limitations-based' one. Read across is seldom straight forward. For example, our Home Office dictates some quite important specifications and requirements, which a typical US standard would not (and do not) meet. (And if they claimed to, GCHQ and most of our designers would want to know how, as it's very difficult!). The anonymous and very lowly pleb in MoD who signs the concessions and production permits has a thankless job.
KK. Not everyone uses the same aircraft 'certification' system. The UK MoD has a 'limitations-based' one. Read across is seldom straight forward. For example, our Home Office dictates some quite important specifications and requirements, which a typical US standard would not (and do not) meet. (And if they claimed to, GCHQ and most of our designers would want to know how, as it's very difficult!). The anonymous and very lowly pleb in MoD who signs the concessions and production permits has a thankless job.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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.
I always understood that the Uk Home ministry handled internal security & the foreign ministry external security
.... so sounds like an internal rule???
.... so sounds like an internal rule???
ORAC,
And GCHQ is a subordinate section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
And GCHQ is a subordinate section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Because, theoretically, we are not allowed to spy on our citizens, ahem.
Of course GCHQ can monitor on American citizens communications and the NSA can monitor British communications - and they exchange data. So that’s all sorted then.....
Of course GCHQ can monitor on American citizens communications and the NSA can monitor British communications - and they exchange data. So that’s all sorted then.....
We'll spy on yours if you spy on ours?
No, no, that absolutely does not happen. This has been stated by both HMG and the US Government on many occasions. So it must be true.
Yeah Right.....ask Carter Page about our FBI and the DOJ FISA Court Process!
Seeing that BV-347, always wondered if a stealthy Wokka exists.?
I know - contradiction in terms - but clearly there's a stealthy UH-60 - so why not try it with the big brother...?
On occasions when a singleton or pair of Chinooks can be spotted flying over Sydney, am always struck by how quiet they are compared to the UH-1Hs we had in NZ.
You could hear the blade slap for miles.
I know - contradiction in terms - but clearly there's a stealthy UH-60 - so why not try it with the big brother...?
On occasions when a singleton or pair of Chinooks can be spotted flying over Sydney, am always struck by how quiet they are compared to the UH-1Hs we had in NZ.
You could hear the blade slap for miles.
*IBC: Individual Blade Control
All are welcome.
Regards
Batco
I wonder if it has something to do with atmospheric pressure and temperature?
There were days in Christchurch when I were growing up as a nipper when you could hear an Iroquois coming into Wigram from absolutely bloody miles away.... and then others not so much.
Many years later when taking a ride in a kiwi UH-1H (in one of the side seats up against the transmission box facing outwards) with both doors slid back I was gobsmacked at how quiet it was.
Bit of main blade noise, but mostly gas turbine and slipstream.
Maybe the same is true of a Wokka...
There were days in Christchurch when I were growing up as a nipper when you could hear an Iroquois coming into Wigram from absolutely bloody miles away.... and then others not so much.
Many years later when taking a ride in a kiwi UH-1H (in one of the side seats up against the transmission box facing outwards) with both doors slid back I was gobsmacked at how quiet it was.
Bit of main blade noise, but mostly gas turbine and slipstream.
Maybe the same is true of a Wokka...