Razor, you got me on that one! Anyone know why we keep doing this?

The US Military upgraded their CH/MH-47F's with the CAAS (Common Avionics Architecture System) which would i believe open up their capability to be compatible with all future avionics fits no matter what was fitted in the flight deck. (I stand corrected if wrong).
Surely Boeing construct their new airframes with this CAAS installed so all future buyers including that outside the USA could fit anything they wanted into the flightdeck without any problems with it not fitting or installing properly.

So why have the British had such a problem with the avionics fit of the Chinook HC3, or did Boeing only produce this CAAS to fit US Avionics only creating a problem to buyers outside of the USA?

It is now going to take a a year or two for the HC3 to be downgraded into an HC2 fit just so we can get it into theatre...
If we had not farted around with the avionics in the first place they would have been flying years ago as PCD stated with pretty much all avionics.

Resource Accounting
 

Hang on a minute,

Wasn't one of the major justifications of introducing RAB that it is supposed to allow us to save in the long term by buying new instead of throwing good money after bad extending worn-out and obsolescent equipment?

Wouldn't it have been sensible to sort out all this kit before we started running two wars back to back ? I cannot recall the Luftwaffe starting the
Blitzkrieg and running out of steam half way through due to lack of Stukas!

What this all stems down to is the procurement of 'enough' - not a little more or indeed ample - just 'enough' . Couple that with a procurement procedure which is ponderous in the extreme and it's hardly suprising that we look to be up a creek without a paddle.

The reason that other countries are retiring their Puma's is that there is better and newer kit available. It's not luxury - Portugal for example is in the economic doldrums at the moment . They are savy enough however to see the wisdom of buying fresh rather than indulging in enless undate programs
to squeeze that extra pound of flesh out of a machine.

The RAF should have ordered far more Bell 412's and let these carry some
of the combat burden. These are tried and tested and would have allowed for off the shelf purchase rather than having to go down the route of scrounging
off our European neighbours for any surplus helicopters they have.

C27
 

Sorry for going off at a bit of a tangent but wouldn't the aquisition of a dozen or so C27's help with the helicopter shortfall? On some ops in the field it's either a C130 or a CH47 that has to carry out the operation. The Americans have recognised the need for a small-medium transport aircraft.
I wouldn't replace helicopters with them but augment airlift in general. The reality check is the cost of another type I guess.

The U.S has indeed recongnised a shortfall and wishes to use a smaller less vunerable type like the C-27 . Amazingly this would fullfil a gap left in the U.S inventory by the C-7 Caribou - we employed the Andover which did the same role and would be very useful now!

Would an Islander fit the bill for re-supplying troops to augment the Chinook or would it be too slow and small for the job?
It has impressive STOL performance and carry a bit of freight, a re-supply of ammo or food & medical supplies would surely work and even Casevac.
The new Beech 200ER's are nearing service and they could release the Islanders for another role.
Maybe a bit slow and obviously limited to what it can carry of course.
Can't see the UK buying a transport aircraft the size of the C-27 at any time myself but it would be nice to get a surprise once in a while!

As for Bell 412's. The USMC are having 100 UH-1Y built brand new as far as i am aware. surely these are much cheaper options for a stop-gap measure?

Interestingly some of the C-27s are to be in the hands of the US Army, something that's unlikely in the UK.

C-23 Sherpas in theatre at the moment:
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...04_C23,00.html

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...ttle_Heats.htm

The RAF did not order any Bell 412, and do not own any. The 60/84 Sqn machines are civilian aircraft. I agree with your sentiment though, and it looks like the Canadians are using theirs as Armed Escort/EW platform for the rotary truckies. Having a 412 pick up soldier casualties (whilst laying down significant suppresive fire) and be able to offer subsequent immediate first aid has to be better then them clinging onto the outside of an Apache.

Out of the box thinking: That will never catch on.

Plastic cab driver,
I am scratching my head. You said the new engines had anticipators, but I have been told that this capability will be downgraded to match the rest of the fleet.

Any truth in this statement?

No, not true.

Writing as an ex-military and now and offshore pilot I have knocked up about 12000 hrs on 330Cs/Js 332Ls/L1s. Lots of offshore Pumas have in excess of 15000hrs on the airframe, an unbelievable figure considering the comments about there structural strength when they were introduced at Odiham in 1970. The Makila is a fine engine, especially the version fitted to the L1. Pulling a Super Puma along at 8600kgs they will burn about 450kgs/hr. It will be less with a Puma Mk2 because the cruise torque will be lower, 14.5 pitch as opposed to 15.5/16. They are however, quite choosy about the sort of air that goes into the intake, compressor erosion can be quite rapid. Leads to lots of thumps and bangs especially if the bleed offsets are a bit dodgy.
Operating the Puma J at 7400kgs is about as much as a Puma can take as the rotor system starts to run out of ideas and it protests furiously if you start to crank it around. It would bulk out at that weight any way so there is little point in beefing up the gearbox to increase it.
A 500kg saving by rewiring it I would have thought was a bit optimistic. Admitted most of it resembles a Renault truck but with the Makila you collect lots of boxes for the ECUs, Anticipators, Overspeed protection, etc. I do not know whether you have HUMS but for our engineers it’s a godsend.
A drawback with the 330C is the fuel capacity. I would have thought that they would have the fifth tank fitted when the Decca was removed but the Puma Js always had the sponson tanks fitted, an extra 200kgs a side. They don’t weigh much and don’t affect the handling. On the 332 they can add an extra 4 knots.
I never thought that when I strapped on XW204 all those years ago that I would be looking through the same windscreen thirty-six years later. Only this one is just eighteen months old. It is also Chinese registered and I have a Chinese crew and I'm paid in US$. If I had forcast that in 1971 they would have called out the blokes in the white coats. I was surprised at the comment that Bristow were flogging their Super Pumas. With the price of oil as it is the industry is snapping up every spare airframe and every spare pilot too, like me.

Nige, not at all. All the fleet will be Mk 2, so no matching required. The Makilas are being installed because they have anticipators, to then remove them (even if that were possible) would be nonsensical. Are you mixing it up with the removal of the more powerful Turmo 4C4 engines from the ex-SA 330J Pumas to make them all 3C4 powered HC Mk1?

I continue to be a little baffled by the comments after airframe life.

The high time North Sea S61's have over 40,000 hours.

Good quality maintenance will keep an airframe going almost for ever, spares availability is the issue.

So the purchase of second hand Super Pumas what ever their life should not be a problem.
As to availabilty, we are at war, so the government could always press gang a few!!!!!!!!!!

Fareastdriver, just noticed this in your post:

Its not a 500kg saving, it is a 500kg increase in effective payload, comprising roughly 100kgs saved due to rewiring and 400kg from upping the MAUM from 7000kg to 7400kg routinely. The Mk1 can go to 7400kg, but only in a couple of limited instances, which does not include routine trooping. The plan for theMk 2s also includes the 5th tank, but not sponsons unfortunately.

Wrt airframe hours, even the Mk1 fleet leaders are only just over halfway through their airframe lives, it has taken 35 years to get that far, the next 10 are unlikely to take it to the limit.

Sponsons?
 

P-C-D -

I thought I'd seen an RAF Puma with the larger sponsons at the Waddington airshow last year; potentially ex-South African? Or was I seeing things post-hospitality tent?

Thanks

S41

When G-BEIC was sold in 2000 it had 43056 hours on the clock.

The current UK S61 fleet has 9 over 30,000, and 9 over 20,000 out of 19 aircraft.
These figures are a couple of years old so a least 2 more will be over the 40,000 mark by now.

I think that the age of the airframes is immaterial it is the capability that counts.

The high time Bristow Super Puma G-TIGE had 34,000 a couple of years ago.
Most of the 332L on the north sea are pushing the 30,000 mark.

The 332L's Bristow just sold to the German border guard had between 22/24,000.

If the MOD wanted a quick fix fleet they should talk to the North Sea operators they would be delighted to get a reasonable price for their older aircraft!!!!!!

I shudder to think of the work required to turn a North Sea 332L into a military machine. It would take at least two years of committees to decide what to do. How many are you going to get? a dozen at the most. The S92s and 225s going in are being paid for by big oil companies, the smaller ones haven't got that sort of money. The British North Sea sector is not a major player in the offshore oil industry anymore and there is plenty of work for 332s overseas, especially in the Far East.

If they were lucky enough to get a dozen that would be about a 25% increace in the Puma fleet.

I agree that by the time the MOD and everybody else had decided what to do with them it would probably be quicker just to order new and wait.

Look at the fiasco over the SA Pumas.

To go to all the trouble of reconfiguring the aircraft to match the existing fleet was a waste of time and in this case less importantly money.

I am not sure that the comment that the North Sea is not a major player anymore is that accurate. There are currently about 70 helicopters operating oil and gas support.

Sorry mate, I was talking about the industry as a whole. Exploration, investment and production. Brown's oil revenue taxes have taken care of the first two.

The latest as of this month:-

http://www.publications.parliament.u...70912w0006.htm

Scroll down to near the bottom.
"Progressively retiring the Gazelle"
To replaced progressively with?? Exactly my points.
Why is it with this Government they are hell bent on retiring aircraft either progressively or lately, en-masse and not having anything to replace them with?

Razor,

What do we need a gazelle sized helo for anyway, esp as OP Banner is dead. The apache has its own sensors, we are buying many new ISTAR assets, defender, king air, ASTOR, predator all of which have longer legs and decent sensors. Do we need a small unarmed recce helo with no self-defence capability?

NO - we need LIFT capabilty, and LOTS of it, not a generals' taxi.

Quite so, but we could also do with a natty Police style helo that can sit on overwatch for our boys on the ground when they are busting Iraqi's front doors in (glad I said 'front':E).

Mis-use of Sea King 4 & others for this role is denuding the force commander of Lift.

Or a Predator?

Fair one, but I'd rather have an Apache with night sensors a cannon and Helfire if it were me on the ground. Maybe a few extra apache and crews to ease the burden? Pred on overwatch?

Valid point but the Lynx has also been scaled down dramatically. With orders to replace them as we have seen by a number not tallying up with what we get rid off.
Surely there is a need for a Lynx size cab on the battlefield still yet they are not replacing the Lynx with a great number are they?
The Mk3 Chinooks, when they come into service will be a big enhacement in capability but wait till it happens, the older Chinooks will end up being mothballed and so we will be back to square one again with the same amount of airframes, albeit a few slightly newer...not necessarily working.
With Predator, we only have a limited number (as usual) procuring a small amount. They can't all be in the same area as our troops are operating at the same time. What's the procurement, 4?
We buy Apache, and get rid of the Lynx TOW capability. Yet the Apaches can't as above be in the same area at the same time to provide overwatch to our troops. Because we always field too little...The Lynx which could have been ferrying small squads around could also provide fire support (like it did in Iraq with the Gazelle) with the TOW.
The US Army does not rely on just the Apache or Predator to provide a watch. They arm their UH-60s, OH-58D's etc with Hellfires and TOW and guns as do other NATO countries, so there must be a need for it?

Pred B gives you the Hellfire option. It also gives you a much greater performance in terms of time on station, op altitude (and consequent noise reduction and reduction in threat to the platform) and is much cheaper to run than the Apache. How about a Pred B on station with manned CAS available on an "as needed" basis?

I think what I'm saying is that what we need is ISTAR (not necessarily a helo job), a big helicopter for moving lots of stuff around, a smaller, cheaper helicopter for moving less stuff around and a helicopter that can blow the t!ts off of anything it needs to. Chinook, [Super] Puma/UH-60/NH-90(?)/Mi-8/17 ( :uhoh: ) and Apache (athough I think AH-1W would have been better in the current climate) seems to be a possible set of solutions.

What's wrong with the Merlin HC3? And please don't say "What's right with it" :}

The same issue i stated above with the Lynx having it's TOW capability taken away (I'm sure some lads out in those sandy places wish they had a TOW now and then on the Lynx when the Apaches have been elsewhere). Is the same issue (albeit slightly different) with the Warrior IFV not being fitted with a TOW Box either.
Look how useful the TOW was/is in Iraq fitted to the Bradleys and of course it would be in Afghanistan against bunkers and other nuisance targets.
The Kuwaiti's fitted one to the Warrior so why didn't we?
The same goes to firing ports, every country utilises these on their IFV, yet we don't and the new Mastiffs we acquired, the ports were covered over so anyone inside can't see !!!! apart from a CCTV image which is blurry because of the movement of the vehicle.

We start to procure equipment half way through a conflict then it's slow in getting there...and .... we have Chinooks sitting at Boscombe with cobwebs just because of an avionics issue....and to get them into theatre we are downgrading their capability to do so.
:mad:

Did you pluck this out of mid-air or have you some hard facts to back this up?

The re-engineered Mk3 Chinooks are still set to be issued to the sqn they were originally destined for with the Chinooks that will be displaced being re-introduced to 18/27 pool so that the operational workload can be spread across a larger fleet. There are no plans to mothball any Chinooks, at least there wasn't last time Harry Staish at Odious had a chat with us.

I believe (although someone with a more engineering based background may be able to confirm or deny this) that the limiting factor on the Chinook fleet isn't the age of the actual airframes but the availability of parts, which as the Chinook lines are still open shouldn't technically be an issue.

IMHO a Pred B is a bit wizzy and quick to be providing static ISTAR coverage of a Single Op in a set location in a built up area isn't it? Hence the need for a helo type asset.

I suppose that that helo type asset cold be FireScout UAV or suchlike, but what happens when it all goes to ratsh!t on the ground and troops need immediate evac? A manned asset could potentially drop in and pull out any troops needing immediate medivac.

And what's wrong with Merlin? Nothing per se, but I would hate to use it for conducting overwatch using an IR turret over Basrah when it can be put to better use ferrying troops, equipment etc.

"And what's wrong with Merlin? Nothing per se, but I would hate to use it for conducting overwatch using an IR turret over Basrah when it can be put to better use ferrying troops, equipment etc."

Agreed, Leave the Bus duties to bus drivers and put aviators with balls of steel over the threat!

Faithess,

biting now: why does it take more balls to fly heavily armed/armoured AH in support of our lads on the ground than a lightly armed and (in most cases) unarmoured SH?

We all have our role, and they all take balls.

Razor61
Nothing wrong with the machine, crews or system per se, but we just don't need it. Big helo, small helo and nails helo are the requirement, so why get 2 big helos?
Mr-AEO
Nope. Target soak time, consistency of coverage (refuel anyone?) and operating costs are all in its favour. Also, I doubt it will be covering just one op - several consecutive ops in a (or several) large urban area(s) can be covered very well by it.
All those things are covered by other assets already - for example, CASEVAC is covered by whichever type inserted the troops in the first place or by short-readiness helos at other nearby locations. Do you think the troops want to lose their ISTAR cover for any period of time, even for CASEVAC? Answer is no, not unless absolutely necessary: it's what's watching their backs.

Ok. This probably answers why the RW MAS never got off the ground as replacement to Gazelle then. ((Excuse the pun).

Marly Lite quite true, however I remain unconvinced that the AAC see it that way...However I am sure they don't have all the balls of steel in theater as theres bound to be some on 'inabilities' in the logs chain...:E

Merlin HC3
 

OK, I'm going to bite now: "Nothing wrong with the Merlin,... but we just don't need it".

I thought we needed all the lift we could get. In case it has escaped your attention, we are long past the stage of deciding whether to buy EH101 or mor Chinooks - that was back in the mid-90s. Yes, more Chinook would have given more lift per £, but that's not everything and the decision has been made so let's get on with it and make the best of what we have rather than carping about what might have been. Arguably, in an AOR like southern Iraq, the Merlin is actually better placed than Chinook with almost 4 hours of internal fuel and a cabin conditioning system for the summer (not that it makes a heap of difference!). It's also faster, smoother and (again arguably) better protected.

What should we buy next? Well, that depends on the requirement. There is overlap in the capabilities of CH47 and Merlin, but if the requirement is to secure continued employment levels in Yeovil if FLynx doesn't make the cut in sufficient numbers then we may get more Merlin. Not as good as getting more Chinook, but by no means a disaster.

I would have thought one point in reply to Mr AEO would be that your typical UK police helos don't have a SAM/AAA threat. Well, not yet I suppose...

Sure,

Obviously any manned RW surveillance helo would need appropriate DAS. The same applies for loitering UAV's.

My main point is: stop using LIFT helo's for ISTAR.

Get rid of Gazelle (chocolate fireguard) and use the money for something else.

Occasional Aviator

Agreed that either Chinook or Merlin could fill the role, and also agreed that we need all the lift we can get, but we do not need two logs chains supporting one role - that reduces the funds available for front line aircraft. One (effective) logs chain means more aircraft available than two (effective) logs chains. This may be our transition period from CH-47 to Merlin, but I doubt it (and I don't really care which we keep - I fly something else entirely :E ). Either way, keeping both types reduces our total lift capability.