AW101 helicopter flies Prime Minister David Cameron during NATO Summit in Wales
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AW101 helicopter flies Prime Minister David Cameron during NATO Summit in Wales
I heard there was an awkward moment when Pres. Obama complimented Prime Minister Cameron on the helicopter, and the Prime Minister was happy to point out that the President could have been flying in one by now as well......if Obama had forced the Navy to do their job, and not take the easy way out by cancelling the VH-71 after just a month in office.
AW101 helicopter flies Prime Minister David Cameron during NATO Summit in Wales
The Finmeccanica-AgustaWestland AW101 helicopter will transport the Prime Minister David Cameron and the UK delegation during the two day NATO Summit, which will be attended by more than 60 world-leaders.
Finmeccanica CEO and General Manager Mauro Moretti met Prime Minister David Cameron and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the opening reception hosted by HRH Prince of Wales at Celtic Manor in Newport.
Jointly-developed in Italy and the UK, the world-class AW101 helicopter combines the most advanced technologies, mission systems and manufacturing expertise with proven aircraft design. With the largest cabin in its class and with stand-up head room, excellent safety features and incorporating the latest in vibration reduction technology the AW101 is ideally suited to both the VVIP Head of State transport and to Commercial roles including long range Search and Rescue and Disaster Relief.
Last year the AW101 was chosen by Norway for demanding Search and Rescue missions, following an extremely stringent tendering process. The helicopter has a successful, long-standing track-record in military operations as the result of its agility, range, and endurance coupled with a comprehensive advanced avionics and mission system suite enable the aircraft to fulfil multiple tasks in one mission.
AW101 helicopter flies Prime Minister David Cameron during NATO Summit in Wales
The Finmeccanica-AgustaWestland AW101 helicopter will transport the Prime Minister David Cameron and the UK delegation during the two day NATO Summit, which will be attended by more than 60 world-leaders.
Finmeccanica CEO and General Manager Mauro Moretti met Prime Minister David Cameron and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the opening reception hosted by HRH Prince of Wales at Celtic Manor in Newport.
Jointly-developed in Italy and the UK, the world-class AW101 helicopter combines the most advanced technologies, mission systems and manufacturing expertise with proven aircraft design. With the largest cabin in its class and with stand-up head room, excellent safety features and incorporating the latest in vibration reduction technology the AW101 is ideally suited to both the VVIP Head of State transport and to Commercial roles including long range Search and Rescue and Disaster Relief.
Last year the AW101 was chosen by Norway for demanding Search and Rescue missions, following an extremely stringent tendering process. The helicopter has a successful, long-standing track-record in military operations as the result of its agility, range, and endurance coupled with a comprehensive advanced avionics and mission system suite enable the aircraft to fulfil multiple tasks in one mission.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'd heard that Pres. Obama told Prime Minister Cameron he was glad to hear the RAF was so happy to exchange its performance-limited AW101s for additional U.S.-built Chinooks.
But then my story is probably as unreliable as yours.
I/C
But then my story is probably as unreliable as yours.
I/C
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IC: my source apparently is a little more reliable than yours though, because mine understand that the AW101s were not replaced, but simply combined under a unified command; the Royal Navy because they are a superior naval helicopter. Is there a Naval Chinook yet??? Ever??? wonder why a 50yr old design (Chinook) hasn't ever transitioned to a naval domain.....
Easy to call ANY helicopter "performance limited" when compared to a heavy lift helicopter.
As far as buying US-made Chinooks, at least the Brits live up to their commitments, unlike the U.S. who let pure political pressure drive acquisition decisions.
Easy to call ANY helicopter "performance limited" when compared to a heavy lift helicopter.
As far as buying US-made Chinooks, at least the Brits live up to their commitments, unlike the U.S. who let pure political pressure drive acquisition decisions.
Is there a Naval Chinook yet??? Ever??? wonder why a 50yr old design (Chinook) hasn't ever transitioned to a naval domain.....
I have bounced off the deck of the both the Stennis and the Eisenhower by CH47. It's not difficult - ask CHF if they want the Merlin or the CH47........
IC: my source apparently is a little more reliable than yours though, because mine understand that the AW101s were not replaced, but simply combined under a unified command; the Royal Navy because they are a superior naval helicopter.
Do you work for AW?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope. You work for Boeing?
Just a helicopter guy just like you who's tired of 101 bashing from the US. If you talk to guys that have flown or worked with 101s in Iraq and Afghanistan, they were stellar. Did some really good "spec"work with V-22s and MH-47s.
Being very familiar with maritime aviation, I noticed you, as most Army pilots can claim, have "landed on ships". There is a massive difference between simply landing on ships, and operating from a ship as a base of operations for extended periods of time. Non-maritime helicopters are built to different standard and maintained differently just for starters. The fact that the CH-47 doesn't fit on the lifts is just the tip of the iceberg. Ask the US Army and Navy. They did a bunch of quals recently and neither the Navy nor the USMC is too worried about losing their jobs to the Army.
Yes, 101s were under a unified command since 2000, but my point was it made more sense to have them all under Royal Navy control. 101s were not removed from the RAF because they were not doing what they were bought to do. The RAF requirements grew to a heavy lift helicopter which, as I stated earlier, by no measure is the AW101 a heavy lift helicopter. So lets be fair and compare apples to apples shall we....... unless you want to compare the CH-47 to the new CH-53K?
Incidentally, I still didn't see the Royal Navy going after the CH-47 in any way. With all that "deck time" you say it has, wonder why Boeing never marinized it?
Just a helicopter guy just like you who's tired of 101 bashing from the US. If you talk to guys that have flown or worked with 101s in Iraq and Afghanistan, they were stellar. Did some really good "spec"work with V-22s and MH-47s.
Being very familiar with maritime aviation, I noticed you, as most Army pilots can claim, have "landed on ships". There is a massive difference between simply landing on ships, and operating from a ship as a base of operations for extended periods of time. Non-maritime helicopters are built to different standard and maintained differently just for starters. The fact that the CH-47 doesn't fit on the lifts is just the tip of the iceberg. Ask the US Army and Navy. They did a bunch of quals recently and neither the Navy nor the USMC is too worried about losing their jobs to the Army.
Yes, 101s were under a unified command since 2000, but my point was it made more sense to have them all under Royal Navy control. 101s were not removed from the RAF because they were not doing what they were bought to do. The RAF requirements grew to a heavy lift helicopter which, as I stated earlier, by no measure is the AW101 a heavy lift helicopter. So lets be fair and compare apples to apples shall we....... unless you want to compare the CH-47 to the new CH-53K?
Incidentally, I still didn't see the Royal Navy going after the CH-47 in any way. With all that "deck time" you say it has, wonder why Boeing never marinized it?
Yes, 101s were under a unified command since 2000, but my point was it made more sense to have them all under Royal Navy control. 101s were not removed from the RAF because they were not doing what they were bought to do. The RAF requirements grew to a heavy lift helicopter which, as I stated earlier, by no measure is the AW101 a heavy lift helicopter. So lets be fair and compare apples to apples shall we....... unless you want to compare the CH-47 to the new CH-53K?
The Puma is not a heavy lift helicopter, but it was kept by the RAF (and trust me there was a fight on that one) at the expense of the Merlin..... apples with apples, as you say.
Incidentally, I still didn't see the Royal Navy going after the CH-47 in any way.
If you talk to guys that have flown or worked with 101s in Iraq and Afghanistan, they were stellar.
Your points on maritime ops are agreed, due most likely to the amount of salt air (mixed with JP-5 exhaust) I have breathed in on the high seas.
My wife wonders where the brain damage came from ... I think I know.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Stinger,
What 101 bashing? You made a light-hearted pitch for the 101, and I made an equally light-hearted pitch for the 'Hook. There was nothing sinister intended. If I'd wanted to bash the 101 (or, more specifically, the Kestrel) I would have regurgitated the program's well-known cost and schedule over-runs, which - together with the political impossibility of Obama taking delivery of a Gucci helicopter at the trough of the US recession - led to program being terminated. But since my post was intended as banter, I didn't.
My "performance limited" remark was drawn directly from the comments on the Mil forum regarding the transition of the Mk3s from the RAF to the CHF; nothing more.
As we say over here, have a nice day!
I/C
What 101 bashing? You made a light-hearted pitch for the 101, and I made an equally light-hearted pitch for the 'Hook. There was nothing sinister intended. If I'd wanted to bash the 101 (or, more specifically, the Kestrel) I would have regurgitated the program's well-known cost and schedule over-runs, which - together with the political impossibility of Obama taking delivery of a Gucci helicopter at the trough of the US recession - led to program being terminated. But since my post was intended as banter, I didn't.
My "performance limited" remark was drawn directly from the comments on the Mil forum regarding the transition of the Mk3s from the RAF to the CHF; nothing more.
As we say over here, have a nice day!
I/C
C'mon Guys ..give AW some credit for promoting the AW101 in front of all those dignitaries...and what happened to the US President's VH-3A....unserviceable?,embarrassing?,or just couldn't be bothered to airfreight it over ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minigun:
I am saying the 101s are an excellent maritime helicopter, so moving them all under the RN makes sense, and the RAF keeping Super Pumas .......their loss on that exchange.
Afghanistan in the summer. I struggle to think of ANY helicopter besides a heavy lift, half full, that was able to operate to specs in that environment. Ask any pilots that flew in that environment about how their helicopter performed. As a matter of fact no helicopters were specifically designed to operate at max gross anything in Afghanistan, at those DA's. The only aircraft that could manage were heavy lifters like 53s and 47s who could afford to trade off fuel or payload.
My original point was that no matter how much the RN may have wanted a maritime 47, its was never designed to operate for periods of time off a ship and the changes or modifications would be substantial and prohibitive. All of which would significantly impact 47 performance, reliability and cost. Its why the CH-53 family exists, and its why the RN wins in the 101 exchange with the RAF.
I am saying the 101s are an excellent maritime helicopter, so moving them all under the RN makes sense, and the RAF keeping Super Pumas .......their loss on that exchange.
Afghanistan in the summer. I struggle to think of ANY helicopter besides a heavy lift, half full, that was able to operate to specs in that environment. Ask any pilots that flew in that environment about how their helicopter performed. As a matter of fact no helicopters were specifically designed to operate at max gross anything in Afghanistan, at those DA's. The only aircraft that could manage were heavy lifters like 53s and 47s who could afford to trade off fuel or payload.
My original point was that no matter how much the RN may have wanted a maritime 47, its was never designed to operate for periods of time off a ship and the changes or modifications would be substantial and prohibitive. All of which would significantly impact 47 performance, reliability and cost. Its why the CH-53 family exists, and its why the RN wins in the 101 exchange with the RAF.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IC:
I like the banter. As was mine.
I can assure you the Obama admin cancelled it for political reasons and the Navy was happy to comply so they could avoid or defer any bill at all for non-combat, VIP support aircraft. At the end of the day is what Marine One is.
Remember who was sitting right next to Sen. McCain when he put Obama on the spot over the VH-71 program; his good friend Sen. Lieberman from the State of Sikorsky...... sorry, I mean Connecticut.
Coincidence, right
I like the banter. As was mine.
I can assure you the Obama admin cancelled it for political reasons and the Navy was happy to comply so they could avoid or defer any bill at all for non-combat, VIP support aircraft. At the end of the day is what Marine One is.
Remember who was sitting right next to Sen. McCain when he put Obama on the spot over the VH-71 program; his good friend Sen. Lieberman from the State of Sikorsky...... sorry, I mean Connecticut.
Coincidence, right
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Stinger,
Ah yes. Remember back in the early-2000s when both sides of the Congress agreed that lobbyists (incl. those for corporations and unions) had become too powerful, and that reform was needed? Then we woke up one day in January 2010 to discover that, thanks to the Supreme Court, 'corporations were now people,' with the right to pump unlimited amounts of funding into campaign finance, despite 80% of the population -- from across the political spectrum -- disagreeing. And so the pork train rattles on.
Anyway, back on topic (-ish). Was interested to read recently that Nigeria will be the next AW101 operator, taking a couple of the ex-Indian machines.
I/C
Ah yes. Remember back in the early-2000s when both sides of the Congress agreed that lobbyists (incl. those for corporations and unions) had become too powerful, and that reform was needed? Then we woke up one day in January 2010 to discover that, thanks to the Supreme Court, 'corporations were now people,' with the right to pump unlimited amounts of funding into campaign finance, despite 80% of the population -- from across the political spectrum -- disagreeing. And so the pork train rattles on.
Anyway, back on topic (-ish). Was interested to read recently that Nigeria will be the next AW101 operator, taking a couple of the ex-Indian machines.
I/C
How terribly British!
All British helicopters are first and foremost naval weapon systems. As such, they never seem to be imagined operating much above wave height or without a cool sea breeze. Pathetic really.
Being useless in the Summer didn't stop the UK deploying both the Lynx 7 and Merlin to Afg; why? For the former it was a cynical AAC push to protect Wildcat Funding, for the latter an attempt to spin out of bad headlines re helicopter numbers in Theatre.
The Merlin is an "or" helicopter; it will carry 20 troops, or fly for 4 hours or lift a 3000kg USL. The CH47 can do all three, at the same time. So what for a maritime helicopter you say? Well, having operated CH47s off one of our, ahem, pocket-carriers for an extended period (and a grad of the RN Amphib Ops Cse) it's actually massively important. It's all about deck cycles and spot numbers - if a CH47 takes up an extra half spot to a Me but carries gusting 4 times the payload it's a massive force multiplier. Yes you can launch wave 1, lift, unfold then launch wave 2 but remember your wave 1 is carrying less payload and more gas (in an 'or' helicopter.....) to make this possible.
As for 'losing' by keeping Puma vice Merlin...I'd have a very close look at the high DA perf figures before saying that; that's before you add a few hundred kilos if folding kit back into it without a gearbox upgrade. Despite what people will say, CHF have flown the SK in several high DA theatres over the past few years (Bosnia in Summer, Iraq and Afg) and will doubtless do so again when called. To put it simply, CHF will embark for exercises and photo shoots - if a real Op comes up one of the first things that will happen will be 5 CH47s arriving to boost the CAG with real heavy lift.
The Merlin is an "or" helicopter; it will carry 20 troops, or fly for 4 hours or lift a 3000kg USL. The CH47 can do all three, at the same time. So what for a maritime helicopter you say? Well, having operated CH47s off one of our, ahem, pocket-carriers for an extended period (and a grad of the RN Amphib Ops Cse) it's actually massively important. It's all about deck cycles and spot numbers - if a CH47 takes up an extra half spot to a Me but carries gusting 4 times the payload it's a massive force multiplier. Yes you can launch wave 1, lift, unfold then launch wave 2 but remember your wave 1 is carrying less payload and more gas (in an 'or' helicopter.....) to make this possible.
As for 'losing' by keeping Puma vice Merlin...I'd have a very close look at the high DA perf figures before saying that; that's before you add a few hundred kilos if folding kit back into it without a gearbox upgrade. Despite what people will say, CHF have flown the SK in several high DA theatres over the past few years (Bosnia in Summer, Iraq and Afg) and will doubtless do so again when called. To put it simply, CHF will embark for exercises and photo shoots - if a real Op comes up one of the first things that will happen will be 5 CH47s arriving to boost the CAG with real heavy lift.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IC:
I hadn't heard. Good for AW. India continues to be impossible for anyone to work with. Mired in politics and double standards, they seem to only be able to do business with themselves.
Was interested to read recently that Nigeria will be the next AW101 operator, taking a couple of the ex-Indian machines.
AW awaiting more commercial interest before committing to costs of certification .
First Nigerian AW101delivery imminent if not already gone.
Do those answers fit on a postcard?!
First Nigerian AW101delivery imminent if not already gone.
Do those answers fit on a postcard?!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere
Age: 49
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merlin will never Work in civil SAR or O&G for the reason it is too darn expensive to operate.
Westland tried 20 years ago pitching to all offshore operators even back then there was not the numbers to make affordable to operate in the NS .
Westland tried 20 years ago pitching to all offshore operators even back then there was not the numbers to make affordable to operate in the NS .