Chinooks At Airshows

[Seight_Returns]

Went to the Bournemouth Airshow last w/e - first airshow I've been to for years, I used to go to them regularly whilst at school in the late '80s - thoroughly enjoyed it, particularly XH558.

The military participation was very limited compared to airshows of old, but I was expecting this and I understand why. In light of this, I was very surprised to see a Chinook displaying.

Bit of a devil's advocate question, but given the reported dire shortage of Chinook airframes and overstretch on aircrew and logistics in the operational theatres - how come the RAF still has one to spare to do party tricks at airshows ?

[FourWheelDrift]

What would they use to train flying & maintenance personnel on if they were all overseas?

[plasticpig]

They have 8 of them sitting in hangars doing sod all for the maintenance people to play with.

[FourWheelDrift]

plasticpig said:

They have 8 of them sitting in hangars doing sod all for the maintenance people to play with.

Those are the 8 delivered in 2001 but grounded since delivery because they didn't meet Britain’s airworthiness standards aren't they? The Public Accounts Committee described the affair as one of the “worst examples of equipment acquisition”.

So if they could fly they would be used?

[loltolhurst]

theres one doing some displays here in dartmouth this week - they are amazing to see i actually prefer watching them than the red arrows.

[plasticpig]

FourWheelDrift said:

plasticpig said:

They have 8 of them sitting in hangars doing sod all for the maintenance people to play with.

Those are the 8 delivered in 2001 but grounded since delivery because they didn't meet Britain’s airworthiness standards aren't they? The Public Accounts Committee described the affair as one of the “worst examples of equipment acquisition”.

So if they could fly they would be used?

They had software problems which meant they couldnt be used under a certain height. A quick google reveals they are now being downgraded to an earlier version of Chinook and will be operational by the end of 2009.

[perdu]

plasticpig said:

FourWheelDrift said:

plasticpig said:

They have 8 of them sitting in hangars doing sod all for the maintenance people to play with.

Those are the 8 delivered in 2001 but grounded since delivery because they didn't meet Britain’s airworthiness standards aren't they? The Public Accounts Committee described the affair as one of the “worst examples of equipment acquisition”.

So if they could fly they would be used?

They had software problems which meant they couldnt be used under a certain height. A quick google reveals they are now being downgraded to an earlier version of Chinook and will be operational by the end of 2009.

It seems to be generally accepted that these eight Chinooks were ordered in a collossal MOD cockup and were given an equipment "fit" that was incompatible with "our" useage

It has taken from then 'til now for enough flak to generate so that the procurement wallahs are finally getting their come-uppance

If these tossers were to organise a pi$$up in a brewery, you can bet your life they'll pick one that went out of service in the 1980s or 90s, Ansells or some such...

I think we'd do better getting Asda to buy stuff for the forces, it'ld probably fit first time too.

[Blib]

I too was in Bournemouth for the Air Fair.

Here's my best photo of the Chinook.



If anyone would like a copy of this, then PM me through my profile.

[Munter]

The grounded ones have been affected due to standard UK gov purchasing practice. It's not just the MOD but just about every decision made where there is an option.

If you buy a piece of kit that has options on software. You do NOT buy the software from the people who make the kit. Thus the kit doesn't work and you spend ages having software updates. Basically ANY project must be spread around different companies / options to ensure competativeness(made up word alert).

I've seen this in:
NHS
MOJ
MOD

and err... "other" places.

Sleep safe.

[perdu]

been attempting to sleep safe for years while watching our cash being given to anyone else who asks for it...

aint no justice

surely purchasing is a skill

we ought to get some housewives doing it for us, my missus would do it for far less wages than some braindead dipstick in Whitehall and far more effectively

I bet yours would too

(oh dear more watching from the guvvmint now, bet thats upset some beggar)

[Athlon]

A Chin flew over us here in Sth Manchester this morning! didn't expect that

Edited by Athlon on Sunday 30th August 18:48

[mybrainhurts]

Blib said:

I too was in Bournemouth for the Air Fair.

Here's my best photo of the Chinook.



If anyone would like a copy of this, then PM me through my profile.

See...I always said Chinooks were the work of the devil

It's scrubbed itself from your photograph...

RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY...IT'S NOT TO LATE

[Fittster]

Munter said:

The grounded ones have been affected due to standard UK gov purchasing practice. It's not just the MOD but just about every decision made where there is an option.

If you buy a piece of kit that has options on software. You do NOT buy the software from the people who make the kit. Thus the kit doesn't work and you spend ages having software updates. Basically ANY project must be spread around different companies / options to ensure competativeness(made up word alert).

I've seen this in:
NHS
MOJ
MOD

and err... "other" places.

Sleep safe.

That's terrible advice. All you get is lots of suppliers blaming each other.

[Mr_B]

Seems the RAF have two less now. One had an engine fire and was forced to land and then destroyed by an coalition jet this week. Today another suffered a heavy landing and was destroyed.
Am I reading too much into the war, that if the coalition couldn't defend a downed Chinook until it could be recovered, we're not doing that well ? I hope not.

[Blib]

How would one be recovered?

[Oily Nails]

Blib said:

How would one be recovered?

Super Chinook? 8 engines, 6 pilots and a Big pair of balls?

[Mr Dave]

Blib said:

How would one be recovered?

Edited by Mr Dave on Sunday 30th August 23:19

[ninja-lewis]

Blib said:

How would one be recovered?

Using another Chinook


Or Mr Dave's Mi-26.

However, there are a number of considerations that have to be taken into account. Firstly, is it economical to recover and repair? Any recovery attempt will tie up a large number of ground troops for security as well as vital support functions. This will have an impact on other operations (e.g. the troops onboard today's aircraft would have had to abandon their operation to secure the crash site instead). The recovery operations could take days since you will require engineers to prep the aircraft for recovery. During this time, the operation will represent an attractive, static target for the Taliban. You also have to consider that Afghanistan is 'hot and high' which limits aicraft performance - what is achievable in UK conditions may not be possible in Afghanistan.

[fadeaway]

Fittster said:

Munter said:

The grounded ones have been affected due to standard UK gov purchasing practice. It's not just the MOD but just about every decision made where there is an option.

If you buy a piece of kit that has options on software. You do NOT buy the software from the people who make the kit. Thus the kit doesn't work and you spend ages having software updates. Basically ANY project must be spread around different companies / options to ensure competativeness(made up word alert).

I've seen this in:
NHS
MOJ
MOD

and err... "other" places.

Sleep safe.

That's terrible advice. All you get is lots of suppliers blaming each other.

I think that was the point Munter was making

These Chinooks are a special case though, as the software was supplied by the manufacture (ie Boeing). And it meets the spec that the MoD gave them. And Boeing said at the time it was a duff spec and wouldn't work. And it doesn't. Well done MoD.

I'm sure I've read that they would actually be fine to enter service in the US military. The problem is flight testing them - the MoD can't prove them against their own safety requirements.