Quinetiq and 8 Chinooks
Discussion
Just watching a program on BBC2 about the "secret engineers" at Qinetiq. It shows them refitting a whole bunch of seemingly brand new Chinooks.
Had a quick google but nothing obvious comes out. Just wondering what they had to do and why. Seems a bit odd to have to seemingly strip out all the electrics of a brand new aircraft.
Had a quick google but nothing obvious comes out. Just wondering what they had to do and why. Seems a bit odd to have to seemingly strip out all the electrics of a brand new aircraft.
ked with planning like thiscomadies said:
Right click, save as on that link .. eh'..I think the reality of this is that the UK government is fairly poor at brand new development.
The whole "Glass Cockpit" thing to me sounds like it was a development programme from the start. For whatever reason, it hasn't progressed at the rate it was originally intended. Probably due to the idea that HMG thought it wouldn't have to pay the NRE, and Boeing assumed HMG would.
The project belatedly started, under financed, but Boeing would have seen that as a green light. Probably they would have assumed they would work until the money ran out, and then bid for more money. The whole "no access to source" issue, arising from the HMG belief that they were buying COTS, meant that we were (UK was) too paranoid to invest. We came to realise we were paying the NRE, and that we wouldn't get to see the insides of what we were paying for.
Deadlock.
It's a real shame. I doubt we will, but I think we should have the capacity to at least develop our own avionics packages for airframes that we buy from manufacturers like Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop, et. al. I'm not saying that we should do it every time, just on selected platforms. That way we at least have some degree of expertise.
Much as I have every respect for the training and the expertise of the guys at Boscombe Down, I'm fairly sure they're using the Boeing wiring schedules. The point there, is that they have the practical expertise, like mechanics who fix a car. What we've not got is the brains that design the instrumentation.
In your car if the speedo doesn't work, it's not going to make a difference. In an aircraft, integrating a radar altimeter, with a traditional pressure altimeter is no small task. If they disagree or become incoherent it's life or death.
It's madness that we don't find and sponsor ways to trust, be trusted, help and be helped.
What makes me sad is that by employment people like me lose out. It's a difficult and interesting job, but it seems its too difficult for the government to allow our nation (and it's subjects) to collaborate in the work.
You could say that the MkII helicopter is good enough. The trouble is that the problem isn't going away. The glass cockpit is better for the flyers, and it will come in time. We can try to continue with "old technology" but we will ultimately be outpaced. We're never going to be happy with what we're given, and may in future not be able to get the old technology we want.
At some point you have to face the idea that technology is splitting the instrumentation from the airframe. We need design expertise in this area, and so we need to sponsor it.
You just can't download BSD / Linux for Chinooks.
In the old days, you could patch an extra instrument into the panel. With a glass cockpit you pretty much can't. You can ask the pilot to fly with an additional laptop in his lap, but it's a pain in the arse to drive windows and fly a helicopter.
Bong! <Windows Default Beep>
We just failed to look far enough forward. As I know from working at the MoD, there are people who can look forward. I was actually one. You might as well talk to yourself. No-one is listening. It's just full of people who want to buy new stuff "off the shelf", because we shaft ourselves too often if we develop something ourselves.
So, the problem is that the "potential enemy" can do that too.
What's actually worse is that the "potential enemy" doesn't do that. Here, I'm loosely thinking of China. The potential enemy has advanced so fast they're developing better stuff faster than our traditional partners America, France, Germany.....
P.S. it's "QinetiQ!"
P.P.S. In a world of nightmare, I think I broadly agree with "Reversion". However, it should have been seven helicopters for reversion, with one to remain a prototype. FWIW, it should have been that way from the start.
The whole "Glass Cockpit" thing to me sounds like it was a development programme from the start. For whatever reason, it hasn't progressed at the rate it was originally intended. Probably due to the idea that HMG thought it wouldn't have to pay the NRE, and Boeing assumed HMG would.
The project belatedly started, under financed, but Boeing would have seen that as a green light. Probably they would have assumed they would work until the money ran out, and then bid for more money. The whole "no access to source" issue, arising from the HMG belief that they were buying COTS, meant that we were (UK was) too paranoid to invest. We came to realise we were paying the NRE, and that we wouldn't get to see the insides of what we were paying for.
Deadlock.
It's a real shame. I doubt we will, but I think we should have the capacity to at least develop our own avionics packages for airframes that we buy from manufacturers like Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop, et. al. I'm not saying that we should do it every time, just on selected platforms. That way we at least have some degree of expertise.
Much as I have every respect for the training and the expertise of the guys at Boscombe Down, I'm fairly sure they're using the Boeing wiring schedules. The point there, is that they have the practical expertise, like mechanics who fix a car. What we've not got is the brains that design the instrumentation.
In your car if the speedo doesn't work, it's not going to make a difference. In an aircraft, integrating a radar altimeter, with a traditional pressure altimeter is no small task. If they disagree or become incoherent it's life or death.
It's madness that we don't find and sponsor ways to trust, be trusted, help and be helped.
What makes me sad is that by employment people like me lose out. It's a difficult and interesting job, but it seems its too difficult for the government to allow our nation (and it's subjects) to collaborate in the work.
You could say that the MkII helicopter is good enough. The trouble is that the problem isn't going away. The glass cockpit is better for the flyers, and it will come in time. We can try to continue with "old technology" but we will ultimately be outpaced. We're never going to be happy with what we're given, and may in future not be able to get the old technology we want.
At some point you have to face the idea that technology is splitting the instrumentation from the airframe. We need design expertise in this area, and so we need to sponsor it.
You just can't download BSD / Linux for Chinooks.
In the old days, you could patch an extra instrument into the panel. With a glass cockpit you pretty much can't. You can ask the pilot to fly with an additional laptop in his lap, but it's a pain in the arse to drive windows and fly a helicopter.
Bong! <Windows Default Beep>
We just failed to look far enough forward. As I know from working at the MoD, there are people who can look forward. I was actually one. You might as well talk to yourself. No-one is listening. It's just full of people who want to buy new stuff "off the shelf", because we shaft ourselves too often if we develop something ourselves.
So, the problem is that the "potential enemy" can do that too.
What's actually worse is that the "potential enemy" doesn't do that. Here, I'm loosely thinking of China. The potential enemy has advanced so fast they're developing better stuff faster than our traditional partners America, France, Germany.....
P.S. it's "QinetiQ!"
P.P.S. In a world of nightmare, I think I broadly agree with "Reversion". However, it should have been seven helicopters for reversion, with one to remain a prototype. FWIW, it should have been that way from the start.
Edited by dilbert on Monday 12th July 02:44
I know all about QinetiQ as I know many people who have worked there (including my wife). The whole "privatisation" of what had once been the Royal Aircraft Establishment and the other military reserach establishments was nothing short of a disgrace.
Apart from the principle of trying to commercialise secret military reserach, the way in which Labour carried out this changeover makes the Tories loomk like a bunch of financial geniuses.
QinetiQ (even the name is a farce) is in a parlous finainacial position at the moment and my hunch is that it will no longer exist (in its present form) within 5 to 10 years.
Apart from the principle of trying to commercialise secret military reserach, the way in which Labour carried out this changeover makes the Tories loomk like a bunch of financial geniuses.
QinetiQ (even the name is a farce) is in a parlous finainacial position at the moment and my hunch is that it will no longer exist (in its present form) within 5 to 10 years.
Thanks for all the links and words in previous responses, but I still can't work through what's happened (because I don't understand some of the acronyms used?!).
In the "How to Build..." programme the narrator says:
"...the government was criticised for not supplying enough [Chinooks]. They actually owned eight new aircraft that had been mothballed because of problems in the way they were purchased. These Chinooks could not be cleared to fly.
The only way to get them into service, and fast, was to replace their entire flight system."
Could someone explain in layman's terms?
In the "How to Build..." programme the narrator says:
"...the government was criticised for not supplying enough [Chinooks]. They actually owned eight new aircraft that had been mothballed because of problems in the way they were purchased. These Chinooks could not be cleared to fly.
The only way to get them into service, and fast, was to replace their entire flight system."
Could someone explain in layman's terms?
jonnylarge said:
Thanks for all the links and words in previous responses, but I still can't work through what's happened (because I don't understand some of the acronyms used?!).
In the "How to Build..." programme the narrator says:
"...the government was criticised for not supplying enough [Chinooks]. They actually owned eight new aircraft that had been mothballed because of problems in the way they were purchased. These Chinooks could not be cleared to fly.
The only way to get them into service, and fast, was to replace their entire flight system."
Could someone explain in layman's terms?
I think this might give a good overview;In the "How to Build..." programme the narrator says:
"...the government was criticised for not supplying enough [Chinooks]. They actually owned eight new aircraft that had been mothballed because of problems in the way they were purchased. These Chinooks could not be cleared to fly.
The only way to get them into service, and fast, was to replace their entire flight system."
Could someone explain in layman's terms?
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id...
These new build Chinnoks were upgraded with sophisticated computerised flight management and control systems compared to the earlier vesrions already in RAF service. Unfortunately, the systems could not be made to work to the specifications required and it was decided that it would cost too much to pereservere with the project. The aircraft were placed in storage pending a decision on their future. Eventually, the government decided to "downgrade" them closer to the original spec Chinooks.
The Chinnok as a basic design goes back to the early 1960s. The US first used them in Vietnam around 1966. The RAF started using their original Chinooks around 1981.
The Chinnok as a basic design goes back to the early 1960s. The US first used them in Vietnam around 1966. The RAF started using their original Chinooks around 1981.
jonnylarge said:
Thanks for all the links and words in previous responses, but I still can't work through what's happened (because I don't understand some of the acronyms used?!).
In the "How to Build..." programme the narrator says:
"...the government was criticised for not supplying enough [Chinooks]. They actually owned eight new aircraft that had been mothballed because of problems in the way they were purchased. These Chinooks could not be cleared to fly.
The only way to get them into service, and fast, was to replace their entire flight system."
Could someone explain in layman's terms?
In just about any vehicle unlike a car (which has the road to guide it) you need navigational equipment. Things like a compass, GPS, radio navigation aids, communications. Most industrial and technical vehicles like and planes ships also have a wealth of information on systems, like engine health and performance.In the "How to Build..." programme the narrator says:
"...the government was criticised for not supplying enough [Chinooks]. They actually owned eight new aircraft that had been mothballed because of problems in the way they were purchased. These Chinooks could not be cleared to fly.
The only way to get them into service, and fast, was to replace their entire flight system."
Could someone explain in layman's terms?
In an aircraft you also need an attitude indicator, which tells you where the vehicle is pointing, if you're in cloud and can't see, also a height meter and an indication of rate of climb/descent.
In military vehicles it's more or less mandatory to have a range of systems for controlling weapons and situational awareness. This would include things like a tactical radar, electronic warfare suite, and decoys.
Traditionally these instruments and equipment were fitted to a vehicle in the form of an instrument in the cockpit. It would always have the visual indicators to the pilot, and where complexity allows the "brain" of the instrument. In complex systems, the "brain" is located elsewhere with just the display in the cockpit. Transducers, sensors and actuators for such a system would obviously be located with the system they monitor or control.
In theory the brain can be anywhere, but the display has to be in front of the pilot, and things like flaps must be on the wings. Weapons on pylons under the wings.
This is the old way. There is then a whole host of wiring connecting all the different parts together. Thousands and thousands of separate wires.
In more modern vehicles, there is just one wire (in theory) for the whole thing. It connects everything together. The brain might be a part of a sensor, or a display. It might be in a cupboard somewhere. The "thinking" for the fuel system, might occur in the undercarriage controller - unlikely but possible.
Also in these modern cockpits, the old instrument approach is different. You just have a big array of flat panel touch screens. All the information is drawn on the screens by a computer. In many cases old instruments like the attitude indicator look like they always did. Others, like gauges for engine speeds, are no longer fixed dials, but bar graphs. You can swipe through them with your finger, like iPhone touch.
Typically this approach is called "glass cockpit" because instead of instruments, you just have glass panels. When the computer shuts off, the screens go blank. The thing is, however, that the "glass cockpit" also reflects that the aircraft systems all work in a completely different way.
Now. Here's the problem. When the government bought that system for our helicopters, the physical hardware was complete, but the software wasn't.
Quite reasonably, we wanted to do a variety of our own things. I don't know the exact details, but it would have been things like a head mounted display. That is where flight information is projected into the visor of the pilot's helmet. At home you might buy such a helmet for your home computer flight simulator. You would expect that the device is USB, and you can plug it into the computer. The government thought the same about these helicopters, but they were wrong.
There's no one thing that we might want to do differently with our helicopters. For example, we may wish to fit our own weapons systems to them. We might want to use a specialist reconnaissance system for gathering intelligence. We might want to use specialist defensive aids, radars and detectors. Sometimes we might only have a passing requirement for these capabilities. Perhaps we bodge something together, and bolt it on. Perhaps we buy one really special camera, but you can bolt it to any of 20 helicopters.
The problem is that we don't have access to the software. Our stated complaint is that we cannot verify airworthiness. That is the primary problem, because the system was (and perhaps still is) buggy. Like your home computer, if the darn thing is really new, it crashes from time to time. You just can't have that in an aeroplane. But the problems run much deeper.
If we cant have access to the software, then we can only use special equipment in the helicopters by agreement with the original manufacturer. If they don't want to help us, perhaps for commercial reasons, they can charge a fortune for their services. If we think of something innovative, then the manufacturer can get all the details, and monopolise our idea.
In the old days, it was easy. If you wanted to do something special, you'd just remove an old instrument that you didn't need from the cockpit, and replace it with something you did want.
Nowadays, the only thing in the cockpit, is the glass screen. If you cant get inside the computer, you cant get your instrument on the glass panel.
This is why we need to develop and sponsor this expertise. We must have the ability do develop our own custom capabilities. It allows us to meet our operational requirements, in the field, or in battle.
The government have backtracked on the helicopters, because we need to use them badly. They have ripped out the modern systems, and replaced them with the much bulkier and clunkier old technology. The problem is we should have kept one as a modern prototype. We need it as a platform to develop the expertise we need, to integrate and modify our helicopters in an ad-hoc way. This will always have to be in partnership with the manufacturers, but somehow we have to forge those links.
The modern technology is essential to fighting and flying, because it simplifies tasks. The easier it is for a pilot to fly, the more survivable he is. The technology is not going to go away. All that has happened is that we have backed away from trying to learn it, and work with it.
The investment is lost. I agree that the helicopters had to be made ready for service, but I think they went too far. One should have remained. Perhaps they know this, and have other mitigating strategies. Personally I doubt it. The government always get it wrong.
Sometimes I wonder if they try to make as many mistakes as they possibly can.
Edited by dilbert on Wednesday 14th July 01:56
But if the MOD/ Military don't over spec they end up with the equivalent of a ford escort popular when the rest of the world has a range of equipment. Look how long the kit stays in service and how long it takes to get into service the spec is written the order placed and the item delivered by which time there is a better version or no requirement for the kit.
Eric Mc said:
For "Rest of the World" read about six countries.
I do think that ordering every conceivable potentially available "bell and whistle" is not necessary for many weapons systems.
Do you think we didn't need the "bouncing bomb" in WWII?I do think that ordering every conceivable potentially available "bell and whistle" is not necessary for many weapons systems.
Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 14th July 10:16
My point, is that you just can't predict what you might need to do in future.
It's great to save money, but on the basis of that outlook, we may as well buy the helicopters for the immediate future, and reckon on them being written off within three years. If they're not it's a bonus. I think that vision is unduly tight fisted, and actually more expensive, and more limited in the longer term.
In any case, it's not like we specified "all the bells and whistles". In fact, we didn't specify all the bells and whistles.
We forgot to specify access to software in the contract.
As a consequence, the helicopter is in a build state which is 25 years behind the curve. Flyable, but hardly the best equipment for the best of people.
If it was the NHS, it would like going to hospital for an x-ray, and them having to cut you open with a scalpel, because they havn't mastered x-rays yet. Because it takes time for people to heal from being cut open, bed space is required for healing. So many people are recovering from being cut open to inspect the break, that there's now no room for an x-ray machine.
Meanwhile just about anyone can buy and iPhone in Tescos for a fiver.
Edited by dilbert on Wednesday 14th July 12:05
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff