Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

RAF looking at the possibilities of replacing the complete Chinook fleet.

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

RAF looking at the possibilities of replacing the complete Chinook fleet.

Old 20th Jan 2021, 20:26
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,799 Likes on 1,192 Posts
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



..

Last edited by NutLoose; 20th Jan 2021 at 20:37.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2021, 20:54
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 1,042
Received 13 Likes on 5 Posts
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.
Evalu8ter is online now  
Old 20th Jan 2021, 20:58
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,799 Likes on 1,192 Posts
718 wants to go to a museum if it comes off.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2021, 10:05
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: North Kent, UK.
Posts: 370
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
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.
mmitch is online now  
Old 21st Jan 2021, 11:38
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 30
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
AndoniP is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2021, 11:41
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,799 Likes on 1,192 Posts
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/

Last edited by NutLoose; 21st Jan 2021 at 11:53.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2021, 13:05
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 30
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
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?

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.
So I'm not entirely sure whether this is all much ado about nothing.
AndoniP is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2021, 22:18
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Old Hampshire
Age: 68
Posts: 631
Received 3 Likes on 2 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?
.
Are you by any chance the RAFM CEO? Because you are trying to defend the turning of the RAF's premier museum into North West London's largest creche. The rebuilt BoB Hangar may have more exhibits but that includes far fewer aircraft and some of those you can't see because the 'kiddies play areas' hide them. For the sake of losing two tables (and 20 seating places) in a floor area that can seat (I estimate) 200+, the Sunderland floats can be reinstated and a display peninsular placed underneath to protect the museum from injury claims by the terminally accident prone. I do hope that the struts (and wire braces) are clearly labelled by several means and stored safely at Stafford because when that closes (inevitably) they are liable to be misplaced/sold/stolen. The safest place for them is attached to the wing of a Sunderland, preferably the one they came off.
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.
VX275 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2021, 08:44
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 30
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
AndoniP is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2021, 13:40
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Great yarmouth, Norfolk UK
Age: 72
Posts: 638
Received 14 Likes on 12 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?
bobward is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2021, 15:14
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,792
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
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?
Plastic replicas in a Tower of Babel. That went out the window with the apparent abrupt demise of the previous regime, to then be replaced by Madame , with such edificies as a calvacade of hats...........
Haraka is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2021, 17:28
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pastures new
Posts: 354
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
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.
kintyred is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2021, 17:52
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: uk
Age: 50
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.
Misformonkey is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2021, 17:57
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why would we need to replace the Puma?
WingsofRoffa is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2021, 18:57
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: uk
Age: 50
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.
Misformonkey is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2021, 19:08
  #16 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,799 Likes on 1,192 Posts
Originally Posted by WingsofRoffa
Why would we need to replace the Puma?
Because they won’t last, they’re nowt like a Wessex as one was told back in the mid 70’s..
NutLoose is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2021, 19:15
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 1,042
Received 13 Likes on 5 Posts
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.......
Evalu8ter is online now  
Old 22nd Jan 2021, 19:20
  #18 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,799 Likes on 1,192 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.
I suppose new build would be the way ahead, though I bet there are a few Vietnam war aircraft still floating about that have been through zero hours rebuilds. I mean the US retired one in 2017 that was built in 1962 and the 5th Chinook into service, so it is feasible.


https://www.dvidshub.net/news/369362...-museum-flight
NutLoose is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2021, 09:22
  #19 (permalink)  
 
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.
Not sure I completely agree. One thing we are and have always been short of is ‘quality’ medium lift ie Chinook. Reducing platform numbers does not really help this problem. Just ends up being less with less and the same high demand. Rather than concentrate on numbers, define the requirement; then judge what you can do with what is left and make this the policy....
spindrier7 is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2021, 10:23
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 75
Posts: 10,813
Received 95 Likes on 68 Posts
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')
chevvron is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.