RAF looking at the possibilities of replacing the complete Chinook fleet.
Thread Starter
RAF looking at the possibilities of replacing the complete Chinook fleet.
With new.
https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/uk-eyes-wide-ranging-chinook-replacement/142042.article’s
In the meantime... psst wanna buy one?
https://gsaauctions.gov/gsaauctions/...91QSCI17131601
..
https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/uk-eyes-wide-ranging-chinook-replacement/142042.article’s
In the meantime... psst wanna buy one?
https://gsaauctions.gov/gsaauctions/...91QSCI17131601
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 20th Jan 2021 at 20:37.
Been on the cards for a while. The MH-47Gs, errr, I mean ‘H-47ERs’ will act as pump primers to certify cockpit and avionics architecture and address any lingering airworthiness issues. Then I would imagine the remaining Lot 1 aircraft (including -718j would be replaced by new build (ideally Block II) F models with some UK ASE and comms, and the later attrition buys, Mk5s and Mk6s are new enough to get (another....) cockpit and systems upgrade.
The RAF museum had a replica fuselage walk through exhibit which they intended to replace with BN
when it retired. That was before they started to turn the museum into a cafe with a few aircraft......
Have not been back recently.
mmitch.
when it retired. That was before they started to turn the museum into a cafe with a few aircraft......
Have not been back recently.
mmitch.
Where on earth do you see a café with a few aircraft?? This is Hendon or Cosford you're talking about, right?
A complete Chinook would be a great exhibit to replace a couple of others there however.
A complete Chinook would be a great exhibit to replace a couple of others there however.
Thread Starter
Hendon. They even fitted shortened Sunderland wing floats supports so it allowed more cafe space... they would have shifted the whole aircraft if they weren't worried it would collapse.
Have a look at the before and after shots in post one.
https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-...afety-makeover
The latest is the Hampden rebuild is going there, but they have decided not to rebuild the wings, so it will be displayed wingless and split in two so you can see inside.
https://www.key.aero/article/hampden-fuselage-hendon
https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/cosford...ought-back-to/
Have a look at the before and after shots in post one.
https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-...afety-makeover
The latest is the Hampden rebuild is going there, but they have decided not to rebuild the wings, so it will be displayed wingless and split in two so you can see inside.
https://www.key.aero/article/hampden-fuselage-hendon
https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/cosford...ought-back-to/
Last edited by NutLoose; 21st Jan 2021 at 11:53.
Originally Posted by NutLoose
Hendon. They even fitted shortened Sunderland wing floats supports so it allowed more cafe space... they would have shifted the whole aircraft if they weren't worried it would collapse.
Have a look at the before and after shots in post one.
https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-...afety-makeover
The latest is the Hampden rebuild is going there, but they have decided not to rebuild the wings, so it will be displayed wingless and split in two so you can see inside.
Have a look at the before and after shots in post one.
https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-...afety-makeover
The latest is the Hampden rebuild is going there, but they have decided not to rebuild the wings, so it will be displayed wingless and split in two so you can see inside.
Also the Hampden - as far as i can see, it's never been displayed, and the only problem with not being able to fix the wings is having the space to cover them?
The restoration of P1344’s wings presents a more complex engineering challenge and is a longer-term MBCC project, as space is now urgently required to complete the re-fabric/ reassembly of our Vickers Wellington TX, MF628, plus ongoing conservation work on Westland Lysander III R9125, our LVG C.VI and Dornier Do 17Z.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Old Hampshire
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AndoniP
That whole hangar has been rebuilt and it's now the front of house for the whole museum. It houses quite a few more exhibits than what it used to. I'd say it was due to there being more to see that the floor space is at a premium now, hence something has to give. Does it matter that the floats were shortened in 2018, and the struts are in storage and can be refitted if the cafe or aircraft ever moved? Also it makes for a nice setting to be able to sit under the Sunderland to have lunch. And for H&S reasons you wouldn't want people splitting their heads open and suing left right and centre.
Also the Hampden - as far as i can see, it's never been displayed, and the only problem with not being able to fix the wings is having the space to cover them?
.
Also the Hampden - as far as i can see, it's never been displayed, and the only problem with not being able to fix the wings is having the space to cover them?
.
As for the Hampden wings, they are in several very crumpled and corroded lumps on the racking of the museum's conservation centre at Cosford and it would take the staff there several years to restore them. As for the space to cover them there will be more than enough once they finish recovering the Wellington which is currently sharing the floor with the Hampden's fuselage.
i'm not defending anything - just trying to provide a bit of balance to the above.
Hendon is a nicer, more modern place now. Like it or not, they have to cater for the future generations - if that means having more cafe space for families and kids play areas, then so be it - where is the next generation of future RAF personnel going to get its' inspiration from? I do sincerely hope you're a parent of young children, so that you can understand why there are places for them to burn off a little energy and to sit down and feed them.
There are 3 more huge buildings that house aircraft (if you include Hangar 2) from all eras, so complaining about the Sunderland really is a moot point, especially when the initial complaint was about aircraft making way for cafes when the whole site is packed with aircraft.
Hendon is a nicer, more modern place now. Like it or not, they have to cater for the future generations - if that means having more cafe space for families and kids play areas, then so be it - where is the next generation of future RAF personnel going to get its' inspiration from? I do sincerely hope you're a parent of young children, so that you can understand why there are places for them to burn off a little energy and to sit down and feed them.
There are 3 more huge buildings that house aircraft (if you include Hangar 2) from all eras, so complaining about the Sunderland really is a moot point, especially when the initial complaint was about aircraft making way for cafes when the whole site is packed with aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Great yarmouth, Norfolk UK
Age: 71
Posts: 583
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Wasn't there some sort of grand plan to build a 'tower of planes', akin to an ice cream cone, to hold all or some of the Battle of Britain aircraft.
Is that still on the cards or gone out of the window?
Is that still on the cards or gone out of the window?
Originally Posted by bobward
Wasn't there some sort of grand plan to build a 'tower of planes', akin to an ice cream cone, to hold all or some of the Battle of Britain aircraft.
Is that still on the cards or gone out of the window?
Is that still on the cards or gone out of the window?
Anyway, back to on topic...
It’s no surprise that an ageing fleet is going to cause serviceability problems. A short-term solution could be to remove a number of the oldest, least economically viable airframes form the Fleet. This would have the advantage of increasing the pool of spares and releasing engineers to work on the remaining aircraft. A, say, 10% reduction in numbers would probably have very little impact on the number of aircraft available at front line....indeed there would likely be a short-term (1-3 year) improvement in serviceability, which might see the Fleet through to the arrival of the new aircraft.
It’s no surprise that an ageing fleet is going to cause serviceability problems. A short-term solution could be to remove a number of the oldest, least economically viable airframes form the Fleet. This would have the advantage of increasing the pool of spares and releasing engineers to work on the remaining aircraft. A, say, 10% reduction in numbers would probably have very little impact on the number of aircraft available at front line....indeed there would likely be a short-term (1-3 year) improvement in serviceability, which might see the Fleet through to the arrival of the new aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: uk
Age: 49
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there need for a fleet of c.60 aircraft plus medium lift Merlin and potential Puma replacement and how old are the 16 extended range aircraft? Genuine question and not Crab bashing.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: uk
Age: 49
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is an active LH sales pitch to offer 189 or similar as a replacement. Can CHF provide the medium lift capacity needed across MoD? Unsure so maybe a limited buy of an LH product is needed to secure some jobs and offer a medium size platform, and Blackhawk is dated now, wouldn't represent a good buy, so not the option and FVL is too far in the future...possibly.
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by WingsofRoffa
Why would we need to replace the Puma?
If you were at the RAES conference this week you would have heard the usual specious argument that ‘sending a half empty Chinook is not efficient’ trotted out. On one level, it’s of course correct. But on the WLC basis it’s utter nonsense - sending a Chinook half full once in a while is massively more efficient than paying the support overhead for another aircraft type. The issue is why we need Merlin and Puma. In the SH role, Merlin is an expensive, large and asthmatic aircraft, with a fraction of a Chinook’s capability and little advantage (if any) over a Puma in high DA circumstances. The Puma is smaller and cheaper - and size can matter in an urban environment. CHF, the RN, and AW will screech ‘marinisation’ but it’s really only a shrill note of protectionism. The key to LitM is the planning, not the platform. Give CHF a Chinook Sqn and get over it - retaining the SQEP and giving them a significant capability boost. Replace Puma with FLRAA, make it usable off QEC, and suddenly the UK is in the SToM business and able to execute 250kt plus vertical envelopment missions. I was disappointed, but not surprised, by the industrial and military protectionism displayed this week.......
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by kintyred
Anyway, back to on topic...
It’s no surprise that an ageing fleet is going to cause serviceability problems. A short-term solution could be to remove a number of the oldest, least economically viable airframes form the Fleet. This would have the advantage of increasing the pool of spares and releasing engineers to work on the remaining aircraft. A, say, 10% reduction in numbers would probably have very little impact on the number of aircraft available at front line....indeed there would likely be a short-term (1-3 year) improvement in serviceability, which might see the Fleet through to the arrival of the new aircraft.
It’s no surprise that an ageing fleet is going to cause serviceability problems. A short-term solution could be to remove a number of the oldest, least economically viable airframes form the Fleet. This would have the advantage of increasing the pool of spares and releasing engineers to work on the remaining aircraft. A, say, 10% reduction in numbers would probably have very little impact on the number of aircraft available at front line....indeed there would likely be a short-term (1-3 year) improvement in serviceability, which might see the Fleet through to the arrival of the new aircraft.
https://www.dvidshub.net/news/369362...-museum-flight
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Beer
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kintyred
Anyway, back to on topic...
It’s no surprise that an ageing fleet is going to cause serviceability problems. A short-term solution could be to remove a number of the oldest, least economically viable airframes form the Fleet. This would have the advantage of increasing the pool of spares and releasing engineers to work on the remaining aircraft. A, say, 10% reduction in numbers would probably have very little impact on the number of aircraft available at front line....indeed there would likely be a short-term (1-3 year) improvement in serviceability, which might see the Fleet through to the arrival of the new aircraft.
It’s no surprise that an ageing fleet is going to cause serviceability problems. A short-term solution could be to remove a number of the oldest, least economically viable airframes form the Fleet. This would have the advantage of increasing the pool of spares and releasing engineers to work on the remaining aircraft. A, say, 10% reduction in numbers would probably have very little impact on the number of aircraft available at front line....indeed there would likely be a short-term (1-3 year) improvement in serviceability, which might see the Fleet through to the arrival of the new aircraft.
I know it's an old one but maybe the RAF should apply the 'MRCA' policy - 'Must Refurbish Chinook Again'.
(Was originally 'Canberra' in place of 'Chinook')
(Was originally 'Canberra' in place of 'Chinook')
