'New' RAF Chinooks

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 10,647

Can anyone confirm, are these new RAF Chinooks, that are apparentley being paid for by a recently declared base closure, the ones that have laid unflyable at Boscombe for a number of years, or actually new airframes?

Me and my SATCO are just interested, I have'nt much knowledge on modern aircraft, and he has none, but he thought the cockpit that was being shown was conventional analogue rather than glass. Any info will be greatfully received.

Original post

Member for

14 years 9 months

Posts: 1,142

The ones that have just started flying are not brand new airframes no, they were purchased several years ago but have never flown thanks to a procurement balls up. They've just managaed to get them ready for service now by rebuilding the cockpits.

They weren't paid for by a base closure though, that will have been the 10 airframes ordered a couple of weeks back that aren't due in service until 2012.

Member for

19 years 1 month

Posts: 653

Can anyone confirm, are these new RAF Chinooks, that are apparentley being paid for by a recently declared base closure, the ones that have laid unflyable at Boscombe for a number of years, or actually new airframes?

Yes.

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 887

Yes.

No.

Grim is right. New Chinooks that are flying now are actually chinooks purchased by the Major Government back when 911 was still just the US emergency number. THE new chinooks anounced with the base closure are 22 new beasts yet to be built, a glint in the eye of the defence minister one might say.

The closure of Cottesmore was actually announced a long timeago and would have occured with the intro of JSF but its been brought forward.

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 2,357

No indeed.

The new aircraft are not the eight HC3s at Boscombe, they are new aircraft, yet to be built.

Grim is only partly right, however.

The HC.Mk 3s have flown at Boscombe Down, but have never entered operational service.

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 10,647

Thanks for the answers guys, a bit as we thought and was aware of Cottesmore closure being previously announced, sounds like the usual gloss has been applied to the news stories!
Re the cockpits, have these been 'back engineered' to get them into service now?
Any other differences from the older generation RAF Chinooks, apart from the large sponsons and avionics?

On a more general note, why not new Merlins, the Chinook seems a bit old (though obviously hugely capable) now?

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 2,357

The HC3s have been 'reverted' to HC2 standard (pre-Julius) in terms of cockpit displays and avionics. Two aircraft have been completed. Work is underway on the remainder.

They retain their pointy noses (though without the associated kit) and the big tanks.

They retain the big engines (being fitted fleetwide to the HC2s alongside the Julius avionics).

Why more Chinooks and not Merlins?

Joe Public has heard of Chinook, and Ross Kemp has raved about them. In this morally bankrupt Government's opinion, then ticking the 'Daily Mail/Sun' approval box is more important than military requirements.

We do probably need a few more Chinooks, but another ten (say) would have replaced attrition and bulked up the existing three-squadron force, and would still have left money for perhaps another 18-20 Merlins.

Those could have replaced the Pumas (which are too small and too underpowered to be useful, and whose upgrade does not represent value for money). The money saved on the upgrade could have bought another 12-15 Merlins.

Then all you need to do is replace Sea King 4 with new-build Merlins with folding blades and tails (like the MMI SF aircraft) and you have a balanced helicopter fleet with:

3 squadrons with c.60 Chinooks
4 squadrons with c.60 Merlins
3 Commando squadrons with c.40 marinised Merlins

plus Apache, plus Wildcat, plus Merlin HM2/ASaCs.

That's four basic helicopter types, instead of seven at present (Chinook, Merlin, Puma, Sea King, Lynx, Apache, Gazelle). And you get rid of the Puma and Sea King, both of which are past their prime.

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 2,248

The HC3s have been 'reverted' to HC2 standard (pre-Julius) in terms of cockpit displays and avionics. Two aircraft have been completed. Work is underway on the remainder.

They retain their pointy noses (though without the associated kit) and the big tanks.

They retain the big engines (being fitted fleetwide to the HC2s alongside the Julius avionics).

Why more Chinooks and not Merlins?

Joe Public has heard of Chinook, and Ross Kemp has raved about them. In this morally bankrupt Government's opinion, then ticking the 'Daily Mail/Sun' approval box is more important than military requirements.

We do probably need a few more Chinooks, but another ten (say) would have replaced attrition and bulked up the existing three-squadron force, and would still have left money for perhaps another 18-20 Merlins.

Those could have replaced the Pumas (which are too small and too underpowered to be useful, and whose upgrade does not represent value for money). The money saved on the upgrade could have bought another 12-15 Merlins.

Then all you need to do is replace Sea King 4 with new-build Merlins with folding blades and tails (like the MMI SF aircraft) and you have a balanced helicopter fleet with:

3 squadrons with c.60 Chinooks
4 squadrons with c.60 Merlins
3 Commando squadrons with c.40 marinised Merlins

plus Apache, plus Wildcat, plus Merlin HM2/ASaCs.

That's four basic helicopter types, instead of seven at present (Chinook, Merlin, Puma, Sea King, Lynx, Apache, Gazelle). And you get rid of the Puma and Sea King, both of which are past their prime.

Far too sensible and cost effective for the UK Establishment that. Tsk tsk.

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 887

In some ways the new arangements do make sense. With the RN concentrating on Merlin and WildCat, the Army on Apache and Wildcat and the RAF on Chinook. It should stop all the arguements about who does what.

The RN quite clearly has the marinised stuff, Merlin always being foremost a craft designed for RN ships, the Army has the Tactical airframes and the RAF sticks to bulk transport. Many people forget that the Chinook in the RAF is actually the descendent of the Tactical Transports in the Dakota/Valetta/Argosy/Andover lineage and operates in much the same way, hence why they should be in the RAF.

It never made complete sense why the RAF operated smaller stuff like Puma. If the Army gets the promised extra Wildcats (some sources say 12-18) + the AH9As which are being kept then they have a nice Utility force they will do much of the Pumas small team work at a reduced cost.

Member for

15 years 4 months

Posts: 1,003

In some ways the new arangements do make sense. With the RN concentrating on Merlin and WildCat, the Army on Apache and Wildcat and the RAF on Chinook. It should stop all the arguements about who does what.

The RN quite clearly has the marinised stuff, Merlin always being foremost a craft designed for RN ships, the Army has the Tactical airframes and the RAF sticks to bulk transport. Many people forget that the Chinook in the RAF is actually the descendent of the Tactical Transports in the Dakota/Valetta/Argosy/Andover lineage and operates in much the same way, hence why they should be in the RAF.

It never made complete sense why the RAF operated smaller stuff like Puma. If the Army gets the promised extra Wildcats (some sources say 12-18) + the AH9As which are being kept then they have a nice Utility force they will do much of the Pumas small team work at a reduced cost.

Plus One

IMMOO each air arm should have or two helo types max

Likewise fastjets, one type per air arm (A10s for AAC then! Although that would be pushing the definition of the word fast admittedly)

Turboprops I'm prepared for the crabs to have two types until the hercs fall apart and then ACC should get Spartans whilst crabs get A400M

But Al you are marginalising the RAF you short-sighted evil-minded buffoon I hear you cry. Nope I want streamlined supply chains and training chains and for the RAF to do RAF things not duplicate at great cost FAA and AAC capabilities. So B1Rs and EW Tiffies in recompense.

Member for

14 years 9 months

Posts: 1,142

No indeed.

The new aircraft are not the eight HC3s at Boscombe, they are new aircraft, yet to be built.

Grim is only partly right, however.

The HC.Mk 3s have flown at Boscombe Down, but have never entered operational service.

Sorry, skipped over a bit of it. I should have said they've never flown operationally.

The HC3s have been 'reverted' to HC2 standard (pre-Julius) in terms of cockpit displays and avionics. Two aircraft have been completed. Work is underway on the remainder.

They retain their pointy noses (though without the associated kit) and the big tanks.

They retain the big engines (being fitted fleetwide to the HC2s alongside the Julius avionics).

Why more Chinooks and not Merlins?

Joe Public has heard of Chinook, and Ross Kemp has raved about them. In this morally bankrupt Government's opinion, then ticking the 'Daily Mail/Sun' approval box is more important than military requirements.

We do probably need a few more Chinooks, but another ten (say) would have replaced attrition and bulked up the existing three-squadron force, and would still have left money for perhaps another 18-20 Merlins.

Those could have replaced the Pumas (which are too small and too underpowered to be useful, and whose upgrade does not represent value for money). The money saved on the upgrade could have bought another 12-15 Merlins.

Then all you need to do is replace Sea King 4 with new-build Merlins with folding blades and tails (like the MMI SF aircraft) and you have a balanced helicopter fleet with:

3 squadrons with c.60 Chinooks
4 squadrons with c.60 Merlins
3 Commando squadrons with c.40 marinised Merlins

plus Apache, plus Wildcat, plus Merlin HM2/ASaCs.

That's four basic helicopter types, instead of seven at present (Chinook, Merlin, Puma, Sea King, Lynx, Apache, Gazelle). And you get rid of the Puma and Sea King, both of which are past their prime.

In some ways the new arangements do make sense. With the RN concentrating on Merlin and WildCat, the Army on Apache and Wildcat and the RAF on Chinook. It should stop all the arguements about who does what.

The RN quite clearly has the marinised stuff, Merlin always being foremost a craft designed for RN ships, the Army has the Tactical airframes and the RAF sticks to bulk transport. Many people forget that the Chinook in the RAF is actually the descendent of the Tactical Transports in the Dakota/Valetta/Argosy/Andover lineage and operates in much the same way, hence why they should be in the RAF.

It never made complete sense why the RAF operated smaller stuff like Puma. If the Army gets the promised extra Wildcats (some sources say 12-18) + the AH9As which are being kept then they have a nice Utility force they will do much of the Pumas small team work at a reduced cost.

There is far too much sense being spoken here.

Member for

19 years 1 month

Posts: 653

No.

Grim is right. New Chinooks that are flying now are actually chinooks purchased by the Major Government back when 911 was still just the US emergency number. THE new chinooks anounced with the base closure are 22 new beasts yet to be built, a glint in the eye of the defence minister one might say.

I should have edited my quote to make it clearer - I was answering that the newly unveiled Chinooks (assuming this is what triggered the thread) at Odiham were the one that had sat in the hangers at Boscombe.

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 887

There is far too much sense being spoken here.

TY. It happens from time to time.

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 887

Plus One

IMMOO each air arm should have or two helo types max

Likewise fastjets, one type per air arm (A10s for AAC then! Although that would be pushing the definition of the word fast admittedly)

Turboprops I'm prepared for the crabs to have two types until the hercs fall apart and then ACC should get Spartans whilst crabs get A400M

But Al you are marginalising the RAF you short-sighted evil-minded buffoon I hear you cry. Nope I want streamlined supply chains and training chains and for the RAF to do RAF things not duplicate at great cost FAA and AAC capabilities. So B1Rs and EW Tiffies in recompense.

Your are not far off sanity here, though I would say if its pressurised then its RAF fodder as pressurisation requires particular engineering skills etc. As for B1R you are spot on. The RAFs biggest problem is thats its real, unique original role (as defined by Lord melch...Trenchard himself) Strategic Bombing was taken away from it in the late 70s. That was the role an independent airforce was designed for. I remember a post Falklands article in Janes that looked at the possibilities of the RAF operating the B1, I seem to remember a force of 27 (3 sqns of 9) being proposed.

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 338

Given that the Chinook production line is full meaning we won't get the new airframes until 2015, unless Westlands set up a licenced production line, How soon would we be able to get additional Merlins as the production line is still up and running (I think)?

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 1,533

Don't Agusta have a licence to built in Italy already?

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

Don't Agusta have a licence to built in Italy already?

Yes. And that's Agusta Westland.

Member for

14 years 7 months

Posts: 40

AgustaWestland has already won the production license for the new batch of CH-47F for the Italian Army (called ICH-47F)
I think production should start soon, possibly in the next 24 months.
Would it be economically and politically acceptable that the new Chinooks for the RAF will be produced in Italy? Could it bring advantages in terms of cost and delivery time?

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 1,533

AgustaWestland has already won the production license for the new batch of CH-47F for the Italian Army (called ICH-47F)
I think production should start soon, possibly in the next 24 months.
Would it be economically and politically acceptable that the new Chinooks for the RAF will be produced in Italy? Could it bring advantages in terms of cost and delivery time?

Why wouldn't it be? They've been our allies for more than 60 years now.

Member for

14 years 7 months

Posts: 40

Why wouldn't it be? They've been our allies for more than 60 years now.

I don´t think it´s a matter of allies, but rather one of political convenience.
Would the public as well as the Parliament accept that such a big expenditure on foreign designed aircraft be produced in a third Country by an Italian Company?
Afterall AgustaWestland is 100% owned by Finmeccanica, which is partly State owned in Italy.
If the production line at Boeing is full, AgustaWestland could provide a quicker source but it would actually look like a weird way to obtain a new batch of Helicopters.
Did the UK obtain production license back when they first got the Chinooks?

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 1,533

We buy equipment from all over the place why is it any more unacceptable to buy from Italy than it is from Isreal?