New Chinooks... Why a 4 year wait?

New Chinooks... Why a 4 year wait?

Author
Discussion

perdu

4,884 posts

200 months

Tuesday 15th December 2009
quotequote all
weaselly politicians

don't they make yer guts heave hey?

just spent a while reading through that posting link

well worth a read

thanks for the link

God I just cant understand these gits

a proper "dials on a dashboard" cockpit gave me a good enough ride in US Army Chinooks during "Reforger" in 1977, why the hell look to overcomplicate stuff 20 years later

I liked that comment in Q123 about "the big boys done it and ran away"


wildcat45

8,075 posts

190 months

Wednesday 16th December 2009
quotequote all
This decision is wrong on so many levels I am afraid.

Our troops need air lift capacity right there, right now.

So how do you solve that problem? You have to go down a route where you accept less than best is better than nothing.

How about buying up commercial helos and kitting them out for service out there.

Plenty of S61s around.

I know they are not ideal but a cheap stop gap is better than nothing.

We have more than 40 RN Merlin helos in service. Superb sub hunters and surface search units. Short term, take 20, take out the ASW Avionics and do other mods to put them in service as troop transports. Not ideal but again a quick solution.

What happened to the old Sea King ASW fleet? I know some MK6 airframes were converted to Junglie spec. I flew in one a few years ago. Can we not convert more?

The problem with Chinooks is simple. The right helo for the job now - no doubt but not necessarily the right one for the job in the future.

They don't work well on ships. You can't fold the rotors and they're not the best fit on our present generation ships.

Bearing in mind a lot of our armed forces are geared to maritime power projection, we really need to pay extra for folding rotor heads and marinisation of these aircraft or better still, get something else.

We are fighting Uncle Sam's war and paying him to use his helos there.

A bit of smart thinking could have seen more Merlins being ordered. I know they aren't as big as load lugger as the Chinny but they offer flexibility and deployability. Also you would boost UK jobs.

I could go on......

Edited by wildcat45 on Wednesday 16th December 11:47


Edited by wildcat45 on Wednesday 16th December 11:48

thatone1967

Original Poster:

4,193 posts

192 months

Wednesday 16th December 2009
quotequote all
wildcat45 said:
This decision is wrong on so many level's I am afraid.

Our troops near air lift capacity right there, right now.

So how do you solve that problem? You have to go down a route where you accept less than best is better than nothing.

How about buying up commercial helos and kitting them out for service out there.

Plenty of S61s around.

I know they are not ideal but a cheap stop gap is better than nothing.

We have more than 40 RN Merlin helos in service. Superb sub hunters and surface search units. Shot term, take 20, take out the ASW Avionics and do other mods to put them in service as troop transports. Not ideal but again a quick solution.

What happened to the old Sea King ASW fleet? I know some MK6 airframes were converted to Junglie spec. i flew in one a few years ago. Can we not convert more?

The problem with Chinooks is simple. The right helo for the job no - no doubt but not necessarily the right one for the job in the future.

They don't work well on ships. You can't fold the rotors and they're not the best fit on our present generation ships.

Bearing in mind a lot of our armed forces are geared to maritime power projection, we really need to pay extra for folding rotor heads and marinisation of these aircraft or better still, get something else.

We are fighting Uncle Sam's war and paying him to use his helos there.

A bit of smart thinking could have seen more Merlins being ordered. I know they aren't as big as load lugger as the Chinny but they offer flexibility and deployability. Also you would boost UK jobs.

I could go on......
I agree... I thought that the issue was we needed to move troops to combat the IED threat... surely you do not need wokkas for that?

Nick_F

10,154 posts

247 months

Wednesday 16th December 2009
quotequote all
Anyone interested in a wager as to whether or not these 22 aircraft ever actually appear?

My money would be on cancellation as soon as a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan develops and the operational need evaporates.

wildcat45

8,075 posts

190 months

Wednesday 16th December 2009
quotequote all
Yep, I'll not be betting on seeing all in service. By my reckoning it would put Chinook numbers at around 70 by the end of the next decade.

We really need all of them?

Edited by wildcat45 on Wednesday 16th December 23:33

Nick_F

10,154 posts

247 months

Wednesday 16th December 2009
quotequote all
70 Chinooks will be enough to carry a whole armoured division by then...

Cmurder

1,725 posts

181 months

Wednesday 16th December 2009
quotequote all
they waited till now as the they spent all there money on Dii and the astute subs! which are still late.no doubt these chinooks will be late aswell!

B Oeuf

39,731 posts

285 months

Thursday 17th December 2009
quotequote all
Nick_F said:
Anyone interested in a wager as to whether or not these 22 aircraft ever actually appear?

My money would be on cancellation as soon as a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan develops and the operational need evaporates.
Of course they won't appear, it's political gesturing, an empty promise to muster some dwindling support from the patriotic, we must support our boys brigade. They/We don't have the money and they'll be too late.

thatone1967

Original Poster:

4,193 posts

192 months

Thursday 17th December 2009
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
He wont need to be there, he has good old britain there for him....

aeropilot

34,644 posts

228 months

Thursday 17th December 2009
quotequote all
wildcat45 said:
Yep, I'll not be betting on seeing all in service. By my reckoning it would put Chinook numbers at around 70 by the end of the next decade.

We really need all of them?
Yes, as by then the early airframes in use will have had another 3 or 4 years being beaten to hell on ops, and will be close to 30 year old as well.

Also, the aging Sea King fleet OSD is being brought forward, with all the current RAF Merlins going to be marinised and transferred to the RN as replacements for these, so it's a fleet rationalisation programme as well as the extra Wokka's will mean the RAF med/heavy lift will be a single airframe fleet not a two airframe fleet.

It's almost sensible.......which is shocking!!!

scubadude

2,618 posts

198 months

Thursday 17th December 2009
quotequote all
I'd wager the yanks have 100's of Chinooks parked up back in the states, surely it'd be quicker to rent them and spend our money bringing the Nimrod's into service

(I read the other day that due to cost over runs and delays plus the reduction in numbers the "new" refurbished Nimrods wil £ per $ be equivelent to the cost of a new NASA Space Shuttle EACH! Bargain....)

You can't help but think it would be cheaper just to carpet bomb Afganistan flat then rebuild it from scratch than the current approad, our boys will be there 40+ years at this rate.

thatone1967

Original Poster:

4,193 posts

192 months

Thursday 17th December 2009
quotequote all
Nick_F said:
70 Chinooks will be enough to carry a whole armoured division by then...
dont you mean "the" whole armoured division...

mad

aeropilot

34,644 posts

228 months

Thursday 17th December 2009
quotequote all
scubadude said:
I'd wager the yanks have 100's of Chinooks parked up back in the states
They don't.

comadies

17 posts

179 months

Thursday 17th December 2009
quotequote all
but they do have hueys ready for upgrade to huey 2 http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.com/en/aircraft/...

S7Paul

2,103 posts

235 months

Thursday 17th December 2009
quotequote all
I heard yesterday that the first of the new Chinooks destined for the RAF were actually earmarked for another customer, and have a more up to date avionics fit. The first thing we'll do when they arrive is rip all this new stuff out and replace it with the same obsolete kit that the rest of our Chinook fleet uses.

I was also told that the Chinooks that have been grounded for years due to the software issue have been cannibalised to keep the others flying, so even if the problem that caused them to be grounded was overcome, some/most of them couldn't fly anyway.

I think my source was fairly reliable, and I'd be interested to know if anyone can corroborate his story.

comadies

17 posts

179 months

Thursday 17th December 2009
quotequote all
S7Paul said:
I was also told that the Chinooks that have been grounded for years due to the software issue have been cannibalised to keep the others flying, so even if the problem that caused them to be grounded was overcome, some/most of them couldn't fly anyway.

I think my source was fairly reliable, and I'd be interested to know if anyone can corroborate his story.
" 8 MH-47E equivalents were ordered in 1995 in an attempt to regularise the practice of removing airframes from a pool and making ad hoc modifications for special missions. The Chinook HC.3 was available in 1998 but despite reasonable performance tests has been delayed in entry to service, through deterioration in Boeing storage, difficulties with a new self defence system and a cockpit upgrade. Contractual issues with the suppliers had left these Chinooks unusable and a programme to revert their modifications closer to the state of the HC.2/2A fleet was instigated in Dec 2007 with QinetiQ and GE Aviation Systems. The first flight of a reverted Mk.3 Chinook was completed on 6 Jun 2009 at Boscombe Down "

think there are now 2 at boscombe with the other 6 due in 2010

Edited by comadies on Thursday 17th December 22:50

ninja-lewis

4,242 posts

191 months

Thursday 17th December 2009
quotequote all
S7Paul said:
I heard yesterday that the first of the new Chinooks destined for the RAF were actually earmarked for another customer, and have a more up to date avionics fit. The first thing we'll do when they arrive is rip all this new stuff out and replace it with the same obsolete kit that the rest of our Chinook fleet uses.

I was also told that the Chinooks that have been grounded for years due to the software issue have been cannibalised to keep the others flying, so even if the problem that caused them to be grounded was overcome, some/most of them couldn't fly anyway.

I think my source was fairly reliable, and I'd be interested to know if anyone can corroborate his story.
If they're new airframes hot off the Boeing (or Augusta) production line then they'll be CH-47Fs. The current RAF fleet (bar the 8 cocked up ones) were based on the older CH-47D. It's not just a case of fitting UK equipment and bringing them to theatre entry standard and leaving the newer parts intact (avionics, engines, glass cockpits etc); you want to standardise the fleet for logistical - one set of spares rather than 2 etc - and training reasons - you don't want pilots switching between different models regularly and reaching for instruments that aren't there or depending on non-existant engine power - to allow you to mix the use of the new airframes with the existing fleet.

The 8 specials probably have been cannabalised but they're supposed to be being converted to the same standard as the rest of fleet. At least one has flown in the new configuration I believe and the rest are due next year.

Nick_F

10,154 posts

247 months

Friday 18th December 2009
quotequote all
As an aside, I reckon the - overdue - defence review will see the end of the rotary-wing RAF.