The UK doesn’t have, and never has had, an overarching coherent rotary aircraft strategy.
When decisions are informed by industrial expediency, short term budgetary pressure, knee jerk reactions forced by existing inadequacies and a complete lack of inter service coordination the result is precisely what we have now and to add insult to injury, acquisition incompetence on a biblical scale completes the sorry picture of too many types, with too few capabilities that cost way too much money.
Chinook, a number of variants are in service that will still be somewhat different, despite the hundreds of millions about to be/already spent on engine and avionics harmonisation, result in a fleet within a fleet although vastly improved on what it is now, a good thing. The headline grabbing order for an additional 22 seems to be on the back burner pending the SDSR and in the amphibious role, have to be operated completely from an open deck because we don’t have folding rotors. Neither does any other operator for that matter but the point remains.
Merlin, again a number of variants, even within the utility role (Mk3/3a) and the HM2 upgrade is not covering the entire fleet. None of the utility variants, which might be a replacement for the RM Sea King Commando, have folding rotors, folding tails or other equipment to make them suitable for maritime operation. Any conversion will be costly when with some foresight we could have obtained the same version that the Italian navy has. In the frigate role, primarily anti submarine, it could be argued they are too big, resulting is extremely costly modifications to the frigate fleet in order that they can be operated. In some ways, this size is also a benefit so swings and roundabouts on that one but there is no doubt they are large for the ‘frigate’ role.
Future Lynx, Arguably too small for the anti submarine role and for the Army, a retrograde step. Less than optimal sensor arrangements, a lack of door gun positions and no weapons planned mean that they will be a step back in many regards, despite costing three arms and seven legs. They will also be obtained in such small numbers that there remains uncertainty whether they will completely replace the AAC’s Mk9a’s.
Puma, a very expensive upgrade process will deliver improvements but these will be marginal and not brilliant value for money. Another aircraft that cannot be operated from ships in an enduring manner.
Sea King, still plugging away in the SAR, Airborne Early Warning and Commando role. One of the unsung success stories of the rotary fleet but despite a recent cost effective upgrade are in dire need of replacement.
Gazelle, just seems to be languishing in the doldrums, counting down the days to being pushed quietly out of service.
Apache, the AH1 Attack Helicopter is undoubtedly the jewel in the crown of the rotary fleet but despite a troubled introduction is providing invaluable service
Others, bringing up the rear are a number of other types, the Squirrel and Griffin in the training and SAR role, Dauphin for FOST transport, A109E on VIP duties and some SF types perhaps best not even discussed!
We stand slack jawed in wonderment why we only have a handful of militarily useful and deployable types despite all three service operating a helicopter fleet numbering several hundred. Those that are able to deploy are being run ragged and have cost an even bigger fortune to get ready for deployment which raises an interesting point about the definition of ‘in service’
There are plans afoot to consolidate the types and engines but they do not go far enough in some respects but in others will result in capability gaps and a dangerous reliance on very large tactical transport, eggs and baskets springs to mind.
Quite frankly, it is a load of dog toffee, totally devoid of any strategic thought or commitment of resource.
If we accept that helicopters form a central part of any future force composition, whichever direction we follow, then helicopters must be viewed as a strategic capability, too important to be left to the vagaries of inter service politics and held hostage by political/industrial concerns.
In order to achieve any degree of economy the number of airframe types, avionics systems, sensors, DAS and engines needs to be significantly reduced. It really isn’t rocket science and is well known by everyone but the less diverse systems one has the cheaper the through life costs are. Fewer types and components have implications all through the support chain, less training courses, tools, test equipment, people who train the trainers, pensions, wages, accommodation, simulators, simulator maintenance contracts and well, you get the picture. You might be well and truly fed up with me banging on my ‘ruthless commonality’ drum but if we are to achieve maximum effect from our dwindling budgets we cannot afford anything else. As a guiding principle therefore, any strategy should be underlined by a commitment to standardisation across the board.
Industrial concerns are valid concerns but the need to sustain Westland’s has resulted in Future Lynx and Merlin, arguably part of the problem. We should always consider the sustainment of sovereign engineering capabilities but these must be secondary concerns.
Given that spending on helicopters takes place in various places, not just defence, a holistic view across the whole of the public sector is also a valid approach. It is quite scandalous that most air ambulance services (Scottish ones are funded by NHS Scotland) are sustained by charitable donations, for a supposedly 21st century nation this is simply not acceptable. Airborne rescue, whether that is at sea, on a mountainside or motorway is the role of the state, not a private sector organisation. When one looks at these civilian government or semi government operators the diversity situation is not any better there either.
The Air Ambulance Association lists 30 helicopters, plus 2 for Scotland. In a total fleet of 32 aircraft there are 6 types (MD902, A109, Dauphin, B105, EC135 and BK117) with 5 engines. Police Service Air Support Units, of which there are about 30, operate 6 types (MD902, EC135, AS355, EC145, Bk117 and A109) and 5 engines. The coastguard (MCA) operate 10 helicopters with 2 types (S61 and AW139) and 2 engines although most of these are actually owned and operated by private sector organisations on behalf of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA).
Across the non military public sector, the public purse, via donation or taxation, is paying in one form or another, for 9 types of helicopter and almost as many engine types across a total fleet of less than 75.
We need to get a bloody grip.
So here is the Think Defence medicine…
It’s never likely to happen and is a bit ‘ want that one’ exercise but I thought it might be fun to look at it from a clean sheet of paper perspective
Organisation, the worlds of military and civilian helicopter operations are of course different, but there are common areas and any organisation should seek out this common ground in order to maximise economies of scale. Maintenance, safety, training, certification and other ‘management’ activities should at least be investigated to see where there are synergies that can be exploited in addition to fuels and other consumable purchasing. Air ambulance, police, coastguard and rescue services should be combined into a national helicopter service with close ties to a counterpart military organisation combing the best practices from the Army Air Corps, Fleet Air Arm and RAF.
Depth Maintenance, create two locations for depth maintenance of airframes, engines and avionics that will serve all government owned helicopters. Economies of scale would suggest a single large location but resilience needs would dictate location diversity, one North and one South.
Training Organisation, create a single training organisation for both basic civilian and military flying, again, this is a core government function and should not be outsourced to a PFI, as current plans indicate.
Research, establish a common research programme across a limited number of subject areas, automated landing, hazard avoidance, blade aerodynamics and advanced materials for example. Instead of stretching our resources thinly to minimal effect, specialising in a focussed range of research topics will provide greater benefit.
Equipment, wherever possible select and standardise on common system building blocks like sensors, DAS, engines and even minor components like seats.
Types, select a light, intermediate, medium and heavy airframe and deploy across the military and civilian services, with appropriate modifications. Ensure all four types can operate equally from land or ships, this is crucial. The Attack Helicopter should remain as is, not sure I would like to see the Met flying Apaches!
By combining all publically owned helicopters into a single purchasing agreement we can achieve economies of scale and relentlessly drive down operating costs.
This naturally leads on to what types, what equipment.
A bold strategy is one that ignores our legacy equipment and sets out a framework that will achieve maximum efficiency over the long term, planning ahead instead of lurching from one crisis led decision to another.
As I said above, unachievable in the current fiscally constrained time but food for thought.
Light
For single engine basic training and light utility roles, the Eurocopter Squirrel. It is already in service with the Defence Helicopter Flying School and uses a single Ariel 1D1 engine.
Intermediate
Replacing the RAF’s A109E’s and Griffins, the Royal Navy’s Dauphins, AAC FLynx/Gazelle and forming the backbone of the police/rescue/air ambulance fleet will be the Augusta Westland A169. The AW 169 is a new design but based on the very successful AW139, although slightly smaller. Designed for robustness, safety, operations in hot/high conditions and with the latest avionics the 169 is designed to be fitted with weather radar, FLIR, rescue hoist, cargo hook, searchlight and a medical interior. It will also have a digital, night vision goggle compatible cockpit and be powered by two FADEC-controlled Pratt & Whitney Canada PW210 engines.
In addition to the police/SAR/air ambulance role it would be used for military twin engine training and VIP transport.
In modest numbers and equipped with a suitable DAS and other systems it would fulfil roles such as section/team transport, light cargo, liaison, escort and other varied utility roles. With a light weapon fit such as machine guns, rockets and the Lightweight Multirole Missile (LMM) from Thales it could make a natural partner for the Apache Attack Helicopter.
It is imperative that all AW169′s in military service are equipped with folding rotors to allow them to be operated from ships, no exceptions i.e. a single design.
The shrouded tail rotor or MD NOTAR designs provide enhanced safety in the civilian role and these technologies should be investigated for possible inclusion on the AW169.
There might be a reasonable argument for a slightly larger type, the AW139 for example or even no intermediate weight class for military operations. The RN and AAC would certainly benefit from a single type (see below)
Medium
Replacing the Puma, Sea King Commando and Merlin would be the NHI NH90, also available from Agusta Westland should we insist.
Given recent events in Australia and Germany this is perhaps a controversial proposal but I think the problems are those that are to be found with any new system and will in due course be resolved, the Finns seem to be quietly getting on with introducing theirs.
The logic behind the design of the NH90 is solid, a single design that can provide both land based medium tactical lift and ‘frigate services’ has obvious advantages. The NH90 NFH is optimised for anti submarine, surface attack and many other naval secondary roles. The simpler TTH provides tactical transport for up to 20 personnel. There seems to be a move towards larger helicopters with Merlin and Chinook but whilst this has obvious advantages of reducing the airframe and pilot count I am concerned about concentration of risk, operating helicopters is a dangerous business and by expanding the medium weight force we can provide greater resilience against loss. One of the key benefits of the NH90 is (like the Merlin) that it uses the RTM322 engine.
Unlike the FLynx, the NH90 will be able to carry a fully tooled up infantry section whilst armed with self defence door guns, both doors that is. The rear ramp allows them to enter or leave quickly and also allows very light vehicles like quad bikes to be carried internally.
The vast majority of civilian SAR is inshore or near shore, operations at extreme range are quite rare but he UK, however, has a very large area of responsibility for search and rescue and a small number of NH90′s might be used for the long range SAR mission. The Combat SAR and medical evacuation mission is one that has been neglected, in Afghanistan we rely on Chinooks and US ‘Pedro’ Blackhawks. Chinooks in the Medical Emergency Response Team (MERT) role are actually very well suited, fast and with enough space for a medical team with all their equipment and a small force protection team. With this role being less and less about pure evacuation and more about pushing treatment as far forward as possible but the NH90 a roomy cabin and only marginally slower than the Chinook.
Transfer all Merlin ASW systems to the NH90′s.
The RN then operate a single helicopter fleet for ASW and commando roles and the AAC have a single helicopter, with an engine that is compatible with Apache.
Attack
Not much to say here, retain the AH1 Apache Attack Helicopter and upgrade uniformly across the fleet as required. We might purchase more and back them up with a more robust support infrastructure as well.
Heavy
This is where it gets even more interesting because the conventional wisdom is that the Chinook is the default choice but as there are no practical rotor fold options available it remains a ‘fish out of water’ when operating in the amphibious assault role. This has led the UK down the Merlin path but the Chinook and Merlin are too close in terms of capacities to make much sense. We cannot afford two types of aircraft that carry out very similar roles but the Chinook is a tough act to follow, fast, robust and with excellent lift performance, even in hot and high conditions. It also benefits from a mature logistics and training capability, not an easy thing to discard.
There is a European Heavy Lift programme that is in the ‘talking about’ stage, an in service date of 2020 is suggested and they will sit above the NH90 in French and German service, replacing the German CH53G’s as well. The design requirements have yet to be finalised but a payload of 13-15 tonnes seems to be the current thinking. Commonality with as much of the NH90 as possible will deliver cost savings. In these financially constrained times there seems little appetite for a brand new development and indications point to a joint effort with a US company, Sikorsky or Boeing. Whether the design choice is a conventional or tandem configuration is yet to be seen and will depend on who the US partner is, the European Defence Agency will report on the way forward in 2011. Eurocopter have already proposed a Chinook style aircraft in partnership with Boeing but where this leaves the Germans CH53 replacement is uncertain.
Whilst the US has been cycling through an alphabet of heavy lift programmes that have variously included quad tilt rotors and other unconventional designs the USMC and Sikorsky have been quietly advancing the CH53K. Designed to replace the existing CH53′s it will feature a cabin 9.1m long, 2.7m wide, 2m high and able to lift a maximum payload of nearly 15 tonnes. It’s large cabin allows many vehicles to be carried internally and will have a drastically reduced maintenance overhead (the old CH53′s are very maintenance intensive)
A special forces optimised version might also be considered.
So, lets get on the CH53K bandwagon, either as a direct purchase or via the European programme and obtain between 40 and 50 for combined land and amphibious operations.
Summary
A clean piece of paper is never easy or likely to happen but sometimes, for equipment that is so strategically important, this kind of approach is worth considering. It is a bold strategy that would of course be very expensive in the short term but over the lifetime of the equipment we might accrue significant savings to the public purse, not just the defence budget.
By pursuing a 5 type 4 engine strategy we both increase capabilities and reduce operating costs.
One thing that is often overlooked when discussing military equipment is the support chain, our helicopter availability rates paint a sorry picture despite the daily miracles of the various ground crew and maintainers.
Perhaps getting more out of what we already have is the best strategy
“The shrouded tail rotor or MD NOTAR designs provide enhanced safety in the civilian role and these technologies should be investigated for possible inclusion on the AW169.”
NOTAR has been judged to be way too vulnerable to small calibre arms damage for army services. It is only acceptable for training, air force liaison or navy (nor marine) purposes.
More CHOPPAAAAAA’s…………(What it is after 4am)
Anyhow some things I would like to stay start off with charitable private sector air ambulances for a start I think they should probably remain as they deliver a very efficient service something I doubt the state can. Although saying that I do stay in Scotland where we have the Scottish Air Ambulance which is backed up by the RN SAR flight at Prestwick and I see them quite often as I live in the Clyde valley so I’m probably wrong. Anyhow I think they should perhaps be given or gifted new helicopters when it is needed rather than having to struggle with old machines while saving for a replacement.
On the subject of depth maintenance locations the southern one I would think beyond a shadow of a doubt would have to be RNAS Yeovilton or perhaps the nearby RNAS Merryfield which is not so busy. The reasons are so obvious that most people will know why so shall we leave it at that? However as for where the Northern depth maintenance facility should go then I think the field is pretty much open especially as it depends how North do you mean for example is Scotland included?
The proposed Light helicopter the AW-169 would be a good choice because we could perhaps squeeze more work for AW UK if a sufficiently large coherent order was placed from the UK Government. As for the Medium choice of the NHI-90 well yes it is a bit controversial but hey ho may as well it’s a good helicopter on paper but it would be tricky satisfying the politicians and other folk. Again a decent sized order would be nice something in the triple digit range at the very least ideally a 2** kinda number maybe extremely optimistic but that’s the kind of number that is needed. One of the stories I have heard about the NH-90 was the problem of the weak floor panels that the Germans complained about but the Swedes went and bought some marine plywood and said “Simples”. As for the Heavy side of things I can but scratch my head as the European thing seems familiar and the CH-53K is trundling onwards but still has a way to go yet but yes it’s a better bet than some new European thing.
The whole helicopter strategy thing does kind of skirt the what happens to the billions already spent on Merlin, Flynx, Puma and Lynx upgrades and possible hard commitments to more Chinooks from Boeing. I can of course see the long term advantages but what you are proposing is a bit beyond bold and politically It would be astounding for it to even be proposed never mind carried out. What would you do with the not so old Merlin airframes try and sell them to someone? And what about the upgraded Lynx and Puma that are too late to stop?
As a last wee bit I obviously agree with Sven about NOTAR but I acknowledge it would be valuable for Air Ambulances but for a common fleet it would be a disadvantage. Even if the fleet were kept out of and away from combat why train with NOTAR when you won’t use it on the rest of the rotary fleet.
“You might be well and truly fed up with me banging on my ‘ruthless commonality’ drum…”
Heck no, keep it coming!
On Chinook, the big twin *can* fold its rotors, it’s just not automatic. There’s no reason it could be made automatic, but that’s a bit overkill for land-based ops. The advantages of Chinook are mostly in its superior hot & high capabilities compared to single rotors, and as we all found out in the A’Stan, that matters a lot.
Their deck footprint is large, but not by much compared to the H-53. And with CVF in the commando helicopter assault role, room enough!
Sven and Euan already pointed out the NOTAR downside, so look at AVX instead (just looove that flying jeep!) -
http://www.avxaircraft.com/company.html
Good candidate for the intermediate choice?
On the NH-90 gripes – the German bought the “light” version (light floor, light winch) and that’s biting them in their backside. The Dutch Navy crews (and SF marines) are really excited, and are anxiously awaiting the NH-90s (delayed) introduction.
Comparing national and civilian SAR/medevac support is a bit apples & pears. The civvies do it capabilities/price based while national looks to standardisation. Both have their pros and cons.
Cheers.
in depth repair has to be yeovilton, err no it doesn’t a front runner but not a certainity. There are many arguements for and against, for example there is an excellent hanger facility at arborfield, a training centre that is due to close located just outside reading, if all civvy aircraft were maintained it would remove the security issue surrounding being on a military camp.
I’m saying this is the answer, just pointing out “yovs” isn’t the natural answer and just to throw another in what about lynham when the fat alberts leave?
NH90, a good aircraft but doors open forwards so difficult for door gunners although i believe it can be changed it mucks up the design, personnally i would wait and have a “head to head” with the AW149 no rear ramp but alot more in common with the 169 and the 159 (wildcat, flynx). Puma, for the love of god cancel the upgrade now!! £300 million it’s like putting a dahboard and engine in a capri end of the day it’s still a capri!
heavy lift is interesting due to the proposed in service dates, mil have a new and improved mil-26, digital cockpit, newer efficent engines and the ability to lift 24 tonnes, however we have discussed rotordynes on a different thread and this could possibily be the way ahead.
So there we have it, AW169 yep, AW159 Hmm in far smaller numbers, navy only i would say, AW149 for this common chassis (plus as an afterthought just rejig the 159 contract), then chinooks and possibily some ch-53k’s while we sort out the the c130 rotordyne conversion!!!
To finish learn from lessons the fairey rotordyne was early 50′s and was cancelled due to govt penny pinching 60 years on an american company is using the same technology and we could end up buying it back, let’s be bold and get out in front again
Pail g – “a good aircraft but doors open forwards so difficult for door gunners…”
Actually NH-90 doorgunners are moved aft for better unrestricted fire-arcs. And ofcourse with ramp open you can mount a for-real tailgunner.
http://batfredland.free.fr/AA2003_Nh90war.jpg
Btw, the ramp on the NH-90 is really too small to be of real value, which is why the Dutch MTTH (marine assault) version removes the ramp to save weight and extra maintenance.
Ok, where do I start? Politics aside:
A national helicopter service with close ties to the military sounds very similar to the French ‘Gendarmerie’, would a pseudo para-military force like this work in the UK? Probably, all it would need is a medical wing to provide the doctors and paramedics to provide the care, although these could be seconded from the NHS like the medics, doctors and surgeons in Afghanistan.
With regards to aircraft:
Light: The problems with a single engine choice, how do you train for multi-engined helicopters economically without using larger aircraft? There is a need to remain flexible. As all basic training can be based in a single location, a civilian organisation can be contracted to supply the maintenance. Hence multiple types can be leased and managed effectively, also newer aircraft fleets can be implemented faster compared to the military. Also, you don’t tie up military personnel in non-combat positions, leaving them free to support front-line operations. Personally, I believe there’s still a place on the battlefield for light helicopters. With a light missile fit they would be ideal for observation, light attack and general duties. The EC635/645 would fit nicely here and the high mounted fenestron adds an element of safety similar to the NOTAR.
Intermediate: An AW169, despite its advanced technology cannot take a section of eight troops with door gunners, its also a large aircraft for carrying out light duties. I would be tempted to forgo the intermediate and settle for either a light or medium.
Medium: NH90? The AW149 or the S-92 seem serious alternatives, but all three lack the pedigree due to their youth. Personally I’d plump for the AW149 as it builds on the AW139 and has the dedicated space for the door gunners. Marcase, you’re right the NH90 ramp is pretty small but is useful for getting bulky/long loads in rather than try and get them through the side doors. I’d accept the maintenance as it also serves as an additional emergency exit if the aircraft rolls on its side after a heavy landing.
Attack: Apache, if the hat fits…..
Heavy: The Merlin wasn’t just a Seaking replacement, it was a HH-3 Pelican replacement for the Italians as well, hence the larger airframe and rear ramp. If there’s a problem with the Chinook‘s bulk, how about a shortened Chinook with folding blades as a true CH-46 Sea Knight type replacement? Excellent lift capability but with a marinised airframe and it would take up less space on the carriers, it could work, just with less troop carrying capability…any takers? Personally I’d like to see a CH-53K Flying Crane, but more on that later……..
Another excellent article! One teensy correction: HMRC (the merged Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise) isn’t responsible for coastguard SAR. That’s one function of the Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA), an executive agency of the Department for Transport. Would you really trust the taxman to pull you out of the sea?
AW101 and AW159 for the RN ( & RM) , CH-47 for the RAF, AW149 and Apache for the AAC. Why re-invent the wheel?
AW139 could replace Griffins in training and in Cyprus, Twin Hueys in Belize, and RN Dauphins (but these are all contractor aircraft anyway).
AW169 may well be suitable for Police forces and Air Ambulances up and down the country but I fail to see what the Army would do with it?
I’m not convinced the Army needs a light Helicopter, it needs a true intermediate Helicopter. But if circumstances arose for a small number, then they could borrow some AW159s from the RN or buy/lease a few AW119 on a UOR.
What would be good was if the AW149 could utilize the RTM 322 or the CTS-8000 of the AW159.
UK SAR contract could also be fulfilled by AW139 or Merlin (if greater size/endurance was required).
Any thoughts on leasing Mil 17s using the HET PFI as a model contract for example? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/fastrax-wins-pound290m-contract-to-supply-army-with-fleet-of-tank-transporters-620405.html
Thanks Brian, can’t believe I made such a schoolboy error
It was late!!!
Hello Again
Marcase, Thanks for that snippet of information regarding the German NH-90 options it would seem pretty daft to opt for a ‘light’ version but I would imagine it’s to do with them thinking it would mainly be a troop transport. Also that flying car on the AVX site really made me laugh but it would be nice to see them give it a go at least they seem to allow their designers to have imagination.
“You might be well and truly fed up with me banging on my ‘ruthless commonality’ drum…”
Apologies Admin I should have said like Marcase did keep on banging that drum as you keep coming up with both the weird and the wonderful when it comes to trying to strive for commonality.
Paul that is indeed a fair point there are some other excellent sites available out there but to me Yeovilton sticks out as it is already a large Helicopter base with the associated facilities and is really close to the folk who make our choppas. One thing I don’t know what you meant was when you said “if all civvy aircraft were maintained….” the security should still be at military camp levels IMHO as both military and civil helicopters would be getting worked on. The reason I think that is I never want to see something like this > http://tinyurl.com/3xj4x8k again especially not if the helicopter is a military bird.
Brian if the Taxman pulled you out of the water I’m pretty sure if you had your wallet on you and you could pay you would get a lift home to terra firma and sometimes I think some of the folk really should be charged for a lift.
Everyone seems to have named their own choppa mix so I may as well do the same
Light/Training: Well think for a start any Light and Training helicopter should be the same machine for the simple reasons of commonality and cost savings. So I think there are two obvious choices I can see, one of which is the latest incarnation of the AW-109 and the other is the EC-135 or the military version the EC-635. The Eurocopter has the advantage that it is already used by choppa coppas as well as some of the Air Ambulance organisations good if we are rolling the entire government air fleet together. The AW-109 is a well known helicopter and is in use with various government and civilian folk not to mention it is made by AW something to keep the politicians a bit sweeter (Yes I know it’s not made in the UK). Ideally I would can the AW-159 and swap it for one of the types mentioned but If I really had to I would reduce the number and have it solely in RN service alongside Merlin.
Intermediate: Well I’m not convinced we actually need an intermediate helicopter since my light options are both twin engined but I’m still open to the idea if someone can convince me after reading all of what I will write.
Medium: I agree with the AW-149 supporters and I have always been a fan of the design especially now there is a flying airframe and there are some nice HD pictures to stare at online. I agree with Jason it would be nice if the aircraft could accept the RTM322 but that would perfect but maybe the airframe could be modified. Alternatively if the Merlin went the way of the Dodo then the NHI-90 would be the Medium Helicopter of choice as it fits nicely between the AW-149 and the larger Merlin.
Richard you mentioned the S-92 but personally I don’t think it’s a real contender for a military machine just look at the mess the Canadians are in trying to get a Naval Helicopter out of it. Nevertheless I respect your knowledge on things with wings as you always seem to know what you are talking about so I will defer to your knowledge.
Medium/Heavy: Well not hard to guess but I think Merlin should stick around as they are not that old and thanks to Afghanistan and Iraq they have been used operationally so the design could be improved if we decided to order more of them. However I think the Merlin should be a solely RN operated machine with additional numbers bought so that we have a decent sized fleet spilt between Amphibious lift and ASW. However if we are allowed BOLD plans then yes I agree it would be advantageous to get rid of them for a larger common fleet of NH-90′s.
Heavy: Well as I said in my last comment the CH-53K would seem like a good bet so I would cancel any plans for more Chinook and probably replace them in a few years with the CH-53K once it is flying about. If other European countries end up doing the same maybe we could all order together or something like that to help push the price down for each of us?
Attack: There is not much to say here but I think we could do with more Apaches and as long as we keep them well maintained and supported as well as following the upgrade paths we should be fine.
In the end we would end up with Civilian agencies like the Police, Air Ambulances etc, a joint training organisation and military light utility all using a single light helicopter type. We would end up with the AAC operating either AW-149 or NH-90 alongside Apache and I would also give them the Heavy lift birds. The Royal Navy would end up operating a single fleet of NH-90 or Merlin or perhaps a mixed fleet of Merlin and AW-159 the Heavy lift birds would be AAC property but available when needed. So that is us at what as little as 4 three engines helicopter types if we went for the bold route or 5 types and 4 possibly 3 engine types if we took the not so bold path. Very close to what Admin said but with a few differences so sorry for rambling on and on as I could have made it shorter but hey I believe you are welcome to do the same:) Anyhow we can but dream.
P.S. I would like to see the Augusta Westland sales managers face if we sat him down and asked for a hundred odd AW-109′s, well over a hundred AW-149′s and some more Merlin or AW-109′s and a few hundred NH-90′s. Of course there might be some grumbling when we ask him to can the AW-159 with little penalty but hopefully that order worth a couple of Billion pounds Sterling would sway them.
pail? i know been poorly, but!!!
on the subject of air ambulances, having spent some time in military aviation i know quite a few guys who have left the mob and then gone on to this, is there not a way we can intwine the 2 if a guy has decided to leave at the 22 year point, give them 5 years on this, he gets 5 years guaranteed work plus another 5 years into the pension pot. obviously posts would be subject to a board just any extended service and maybe a 50/50 split on the wages to help out the charities who run these.
As someone who lives in wales and sees the dullards going up the mountains in shorts and flip-flops I think it’s well overdue that people should be billed for been rescued (if proved they were negligent).
marcase, point noted about the doors but would still like to see a head to head against the 149, with the winner going to the AAC rather than RAF, more importantly action taken, do remember waste-lands had the licence to build blackhawks and nothing was done.
on a side note if you’re going to pfi mil helicopters then don’t piffle with 17′s that area is covered by chinook supersize with the 26 (yes it is my favourite)!
ec635 has been winning military contacts worldwide, as scout/recce and if i remember rightly it has/can be fitted rear doors for medevac so could be re-roled for both if neccessary. perhaps with competion from eurocopter westlands might be more customer friendly, I speak from experience!!!!!
Paul we have nice timing…
That is an excellent idea regarding pilots and air ambulances especially as It keeps the charities alive rather than the state swallowing them up and of course works out really well for the pilots. Also it’s nice to see other people think the same about charging the folk who are frankly idiots and take stupid risks only ending up needing rescued putting the lives of the SAR crews in danger.
I would also like to see a head to head between the NH-90 and AW-149 but it’s only really applicable for the utility role because if the NH-90 was on the table I would want it to replace Merlin as well. Or an option would be that we operate a dual fleet like the Italians but that is far from the Think Defence mantra of ruthless commonality. I think you are right competition between AW and Eurocopter could save money I would also have a head to head between the EC-635 and AW-109 to see which came out on top.
As for Mil helicopters I totally agree if we were going down that route having a PFI agreement with Mil we really need to go for the big boys rather than the garden variety everyday Mi-17′s. As we should have close enough matches with the Medium and Heavy lift helicopters but we won’t have anything like an Mi-26.
Apologies for the half dozen typos in that last comment I should have read it more closely before submitting it and apologies for any in this comment.
Not sure that I’d want to replace the Merlin with the NH90 so early? I’ve nothing at all against the NH-90 but we’d be throwing away the huge investment made we’ve made in the Merlin very early in its potential service life considering how long we’ve been prepared to run types like the RAF’s Puma and the Navy’s Sea Kings.
Regardless of whether the RAF keeps them or whether they’re transferred to the Navy, I would propose that to remanufacture the RAF’s Merlins as navalised helicopters with folding tails and rotors at their next major overhaul/upgrade point would be a cheaper and less painful option than retiring them all and adopting a baby that’s just started teething. Merlin works – it’s reached an operational and deployable state using money we’ve already spent.
And unlike the Chinook, a naval variant was envisaged from the outset of the program and, indeed, we already operate it. I have a worry, probably unfounded, that if we end up using a minimum-change Chinook modified on the cheap for carrier use, it could show some unpleasant airframe corrosion problems that the Merlin with it’s naval pedigree would not be so susceptible to.
Rationalise the airframes we’re putting on the new carriers:
1. Merlin HM2 – as you were
2. Merlin ASAC – HM1s leftover from the HM2 upgrade, perhaps?
3. Merlin Commando – remanufactured HC3s.
4. Lynx replacement – still thinking about this one…
NH-90 and AW149 are not really in the same class. AW149 is an intermediate Helicopter and NH-90 a medium. I favour retension of Merlin over NH-90 any day but part of the reason for my preference of AW149 for the Army Air Corps is to give them a genuine Battlefield helicopter large enough to carry a section, carry out medivac, csar, escort and, be relatively easily deployed to theatre.
As far as Mi-17 I can’t help feel that money spent on upgrading Pumas would have been better spent on Mi-17s purely for the Afghan mission. Maybe it still can?
Loving the site and the excellent posts.
RL,
Getting rid of the Merlin fleet per se isn’t a serious option, I guess most of the suggestions stem from ‘an ideal world’ and a ‘clean sheet of paper’. In reality though the Merlin fleet is here to stay in the long-term, but I like the idea of consolidating the fleet and giving the troop carriers folding tail pylons etc, something they should’ve had from the beginning.
There would be a problem with corrosion on the Chinook given its magnesium rich airframe, which is why they also burn so well, but this can be solved by and large by using marine paints, additional washing regime and inspections in the short term, as well as regularly rotating the fleet inland.
Paul, re: Blackhawks and Westlands licence to build them, the same argument does keep cropping up about adopting it given its low cost and heritage, but given the multi-role requirement and shipboard capability now required, its not the Blackhawk that’s the contender but the MH-60S Knighthawk/Seahawk. I don’t know what the cost comparisons are, but I’m sure they’re higher than the UH-60M.
I also agree with Euan, its about time we had a few fly-offs, starting with the AW149 and the NH90, and settle the argument without letting politics getting (too) involved.
Most of the suggestions for helicopter alternatives are very credible, however, what we should note is that the traditional layout for the helicopter is reaching its upper technological and performance limit. The suggestion by Marcase of the AVX artist impression with the contra-rotating rotors and pusher props is the future and something Sikorsky is currently trialling. But I wouldn’t rely on converting a legacy type like the OH-58.
http://www.sikorsky.com/Innovation/Vision+of+the+future/Technologies/X2+Technology
I feel we should be investing in X2 technology for the ‘lighter’ end aircraft sooner rather than later.
A thought that occurs when we talk about commonality is as follows:
How often do we review the capability? Depending on the system, it will become obsolescent in 5-15 years, obsolete in 10-50years. If we have one supplier then there is no incentive for anyone else to try and break into the market. So 10-60 years later when the MoD tries to buy something new, there is only one choice
Mr Fred, I think in my hair brain scheme we had 4 helicopters for 3 different manufacturers and as many engine manufacturers
Richard, I have always thought the coaxial rotor designs had a lot going for them, have a look at the lift capacity of a KA32 and compare its size/cost and engine power to a Chinook or Merlin. They introduce greater drag and maintenance but what you lose in one hand you gain in the other
For all you rotodyne and airship aficionados, there is a post in the pipeline, plus one from Richard
Hello all:)
My problem with Merlin stems from the fact that we really have a tiny fleet with only 30 airframes going to be converted to HM.2 standard this is not really enough even for the size of fleet we are headed for. We also have far too few HC.3′s utility airframes 28 IIRC so even if they are to become the new commando helicopters we could really do with at the very least another dozen airframes to work with. So if Merlin is to stay I would need to see at least another 24 airframes appearing, 10 HM.2 standard and a dozen HC.3 commando versions then I could be reasonably happy. Also I don’t know how well a full rebuild of the HC.3′s would work because ideally I would like to change the door positions. There would also be the problem of trying to get them all the same standard and configuration or the exercise gets a bit pointless in my humble opinion. However at least with the experience of Afghanistan and Iraq the lessons learned could be incorporated so that the Royal Marines have some proper amphibious and battlefield lift. Basically the Merlin fleet would end up numbering 80 airframes (of course more would be nice) split down the middle between ASW and Utility types all operated by the Fleet Air Arm.
Also if the Merlin stays then I think the AW-159 then has a reasonably safe place as a lightweight multi-purpose naval attack helicopter and the whole fleet should also be solely operated by the FAA.
With the RN and RM’s now happily with their own helicopter fleet more secure from buggering around with the Army Air Corps could now have it’s own proper fleet of support helicopters. As has already been said it would be a reasonably straight shoot out between the AW-149 and NH-90 but I suspect the AW-149 would get it.
“For all you rotodyne and airship aficionados, there is a post in the pipeline, plus one from Richard “ Wooohooo! can’t wait to have a read especially as my knowledge is not as good when it comes to rotodyne history.
And finally a quick Welcome to William Bryan feel free to comment or ask any questions I’m sure someone will reply.
Just asking you helo-heads out there, there were some rumors about plans about proposals about a future Super Merlin, grown to H-53 size. Haven’t heard anything about it anymore (so it’s just that rumor).
But still, why not inflate the Merlin? You have the robust transmission, three-engine config and all the FADEC and avionics available off-the-shelf, as it were.
With Merlin as-is, combined with a Merlin “Heavy” as Chinook replacement, you’d still neck down to a (semi) single type.
Sort of on topic, any takers for a UK MV-22…?
Admin,
The high drag contra-rotating design the Russians have pales in comparison to Sikorsky’s lower profile, rigid rotor design.
Unfortunately, despite the advantages of contra-rotating props I can’t see the conservative minded UK dropping the conventional configuration in the near term, hence the reason I didn’t suggest them on this occasion, although miracles may happen.
Bring on the Rotordyne C-130!
Airborne MV-22, only in an E-2D Hawkeye alternative, the costs of a large fleet would be unaffordable.
Euan, I agree we need more Merlin (more like the Italian ASH- an HU.4?)
If it were feasible to convert the HC3/3A then perhaps we could start with the two aircraft damaged after “brownouts”. Converted aircraft would then be augmented by new-builds. Looking at the recent Thales/AW offering of a TOSS Merlin for ASAC I wonder if a similarly palletized ASW dipping sonar system could be developed? This would be the route to standardized Merlin fleet.
Marcase, we did recently idly conjecture a “Skycrane” Merlin but a “Super Merlin” now there is an idea.
I also throw in ‘compound lift’ as it was suggested as a future Merlin development.
For a Super Merlin we would need a new engine and transmission
The RTM322 is about 3,000shp and the CH53K’s GE 38 is 7,500 SHP
http://www.rolls-royce.com/defence/products/helicopters/rtm_322.jsp
http://www.geae.com/engines/military/ge38/index.html
But its a reasonable proposition, it would be interesting to see a cost balance between extending one design or buying off the shelf another
Tango Six over at Grand Logistics has done some work on Helicopter costs. The results are interesting.
http://grandlogistics.blogspot.com/2010/08/helicopter-costs.html
so it’s fantasy chopperland, going back to the mil 26 from what i can gleam from the t’internet it’s using a new engine D-136 which has adapted from the engine used in the antonov an-70 (antonovs’ A400M) this produces 14,000 shp and it uses 2!! So as this fantasy chopper if you’re going to stretch the merlin can you not use 2 of the A400′s engine (11,000shp). This ties with our theme of commonality, I’m willing to be shot down by engine experts.
I notice that the mv22 has raised it’s head my i read that out in the sandpit it’s going through engines like kerry catona goes through chicken wings. So once again turning to the yeovilton mafia utilise the BA609 tiltrotor with the BAe radar that they demonstrated a while back on the merlin, it’s not as big as mv-22 but do we need thatbig, being smaller it will fit in CVF and then have the height,range and endurance for radar cover, plus if equipped with AAR it can carry medvacs or troops when far out in the blue oggin.
Jasons,
The cheapest option for a Super Merlin would be a simple stretch of ‘few’ (couple?) metres. The investment required for a complete ‘scale up’ would be huge. The European Heavy Transport Helicopter programme has taken Boeing on board, hence its new ‘Chinook’ style layout. It looks like a choice of heavy lift will be the Chinook CH-47F, the CH53K, the new HTH or the venerable Russian Mi-26.
If we had a crack at the Super Merlin, would it ever get off the drawing board before the HTH?
forgot to say the pdf brouchure on the 609 tiltrotor on the westland website has excellent info on range height speed and configurations that doesn’t make me look like a mad fool for my idea!!!
@ Euan re CH53K
This is the MoD we are talking about it. We don’t have to wait until it is working before we buy it.
Will somebody who knows better comment on those supposed 60 Blackhawks that the MoD could have bought but didn’t. And would they also like to comment on the gentlemen’s agreement between AAC and RAF over air frame weights.
And I thought the wheels had started to fall of NH90? Which is a shame………
Perhaps we should take note of what the US Army (the world’s second largest air-force) when they cancelled Commanche and bought Lakota. The speed of the programme compared to a typical MoD programme is startling.
I think we need to move all the RAF Merlins over to FAA. Keep the Chinooks with the RAF and perhaps look at second type like the CH53K.
Does anybody here have objections to Sea/Black/Jay Hawks as the small helicopter for the UK?
There seems to be a lot of overlap with helicopter types.
@ x
It doesn’t matter if the wheels fall off the NH-90 – because if they do, you can just stick your feet through the cabin floor when you want to land it
I did smile when I first heard that they were having to put plywood panels in the NH-90 cabin. The back of a Ford Transit van came to mind…
x,
af vs metric
@ paul g.
Not BSW?
all i know is when they decided to put the uk engines in apache one of my mess muckers was on the apache team and he was ticking and whinging not because of the certification required for the new engines it was because the airframe was being re-drilled, i can only take his word for it but have no doubt not to believe it. It makes sense though if we had bought the blackhawks then we would’ve been totally dependant on the us for every spare on the aircraft and i bet that wasn’t included in the price quoted, plus where would we be in the pecking order if spares were tight?
I have updated the post with a new CH53K video
26 years ago, in another life, my regiment went to the American ranges at Grafenwohr for a firing camp. Guns and misslies fired there 24 hours a day, 364 days a year, with a bountiful number of helicopters around. I noticed a Huey when we were driving out one day on a pad. It was a medvac chopper on 24 hour standby; “good idea,” I thought.
Some months later, a friend of mine suffered internal injuries when sitting in the back of a Land Rover going round the Sennelager ring road. An HGV scraped the side of the canvas with it’s bumper, striking my friend. It took an age to get him first to a medical centre, then a BMH by road. He died. No luxuries of medvac choppers at Sennelager.
Our helicopter strategy has always been an utter mess and those responsible over the years should hang their heads in shame because it has cost soldiers their lives. Cynical pursuit of service and political self interest has failed the people the ministers and Chiefs are charged to look after.
Thats a good article; you should send it to the Defence Secretary and if you don’t, I will.
@ paul.g
Alan Bristow in his autobiography didn’t say anything favourable about Blackhawk. And it does seem “we” pay more than Americans for the same airframe. What did Lewis Page say in his book about Apache if we had bought them at Boeing prices; save a billion, twice as many airframes, and still have enough money to give everybody at Westlands a million pound redundancy. I find it interesting what you say about spares. My intuition says that spares would be plentiful because of the number of airframes the US buys (if not as cheap as what the US charges itself) and that at least there was bound to be some in theatre. Of course I don’t know just how easy it is “acquire” stuff from the US; I doubt BH gearboxes are sold in the PX.
@ Admin
CH53K is the way to go. I wonder if they will fit the hanger of CVF………..
Before I start lookikg at the various catagories, the first area I would look at is availability. As with most platforms in service the availability of rotary assets is woeful compare to the sizes of fleets. WE must ensure that there ia sufficient funds, spares and manpower to maximise what we already have.
Light – I would leave this well alone. The vast majority in service are provided by contractors under “Power by the hour”, service contracts. IF there ia an additional requiremetn I would continue the trend.
Intermediate – I agree this is an area that can be removed. The AH-7 units are on the way out and does the Army really need a section lift platform. Maybe for SF but they have the resources to fund a bespoke but small fleet if required. Maybe some of the AH-9As could be updated to fill this role? THe Wildcat should be canned as we cannot afford to order helicopters just to keep people in work. The Politicians cannot have it both ways, if funding is to be cut to the bone the where we but are kit form needs to be out of the equations bu that is for another topic
Medium – Here the Merlin is king depending on the amount of investment. I would modidify all the ASW Merlins upto HM2 standard which should be sufficient to meet requirements given the likely number of platforms that will be able to operate them. As for the HC3, additional airframes are needed to support operations, around 12. All should be marinised with folding rotors and tails.
Heavy – I would stick with the Chinnok bring the existing fleet up to CH-47F standard with work carried out to extend the life of the original airframes. I would continue with the order for new airframes but bring them in as CH-47Fs. I would not expect these to operate at sea except in dire emergencies or if additional Merlins are not puchased in which case a marinisation progamme would have to be started as a neccessity of face massive repair and overhaul bills after any deployment cancelling out any savings gained by not carrying out the work.
I saw the words Helicopter and strategy in the same sentence and almost laughed, I actually did when I found out it didn’t have “what is a” preceding it
H-53K – I remain to be convinced, H-53 has had an absolutely disgraceful safety record to date, it’s a high risk gamble. I wouldn’t commit to anything before it has an established safety record in US service.
Either NH-90 or Merlin will create capability overlaps with other aircraft, NH90 with an intermediate helicopter, Merlin with the heavy lift
Militarised AW-169 – seems a little on the modest side of an intermediate helicopter and would do nothing to solve the problems with 4-6 Tonne helicopters in AAC/CHF service
Personally I’d like to see a fleet along these lines
AAC:
Apache AH1
EC635 (The deal maker was that it stands out as an potential Griffin replacement aswell as squirrel)
AW-149
RAF:
AW-149
Chinook
RN:
AW-149 (SCMR)
Merlin (HM.2 & ASaC)
CHF:
AW-149 (BLUH)
Merlin (SABR)
4 Aircraft although 2 different AW-149 variants and 3 Merlin variants although a navalised Chinook would be preferable to the RM Merlins as the medium lift requirement disappears with the selection of a larger intermediate type, which would give the UK
~100 Chinooks and more than 100 AW-149, a more than credible lift/assault force.
Lord Jim
Richard and I waded into availability in some of the very earliest posts on Think Defence
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/07/afghanistan-and-the-case-of-the-missing-helicopters/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/07/on-the-subject-of-helicopters/
Hope the mods don’t mind, but some posters have been asking about the old Blackhawk story, which is a bit misleading. I’ve dug out an old ARRSE post that I did on this, in the hopes it answers a few questions. (Context was a daily mail story about buying the airframes at 8 million each as opposed to Lynx)
Its nice to see the old chestnut of 8 million quid blackhawks emerging again. It’s a great story and sadly one that’s only partly true. While it may be that the UK was offered the Blackhawk at 8 million per copy, (and that’s the line that Sikorskys PR is keen to spin), what is never mentioned is the huge additional costs that the UK would have incurred to bring the type into service.
The 8 million quid is for your basic, no frills and no extras copy of the helicopter. Great if you’re a country with no real threats, but pretty much useless for the environments where we plan to operate Lynx. Additionally this would be the US basic standard – in other words, it would have no in service UK equipment in it. To get it to a decent standard, we would need to invest a lot of time and money in adding in all the UK bits that come as standard on our helo fleet (for instance weapon mounts, DAS, communications, even internal fittings). We’d then need to spend more time and money ensuring that the kit worked properly, and when integrating it all together, we had an airframe that didn’t fall out of the sky. The moment you start adding kit to extant airframes, that’s when things start to go horribly wrong and cost lots of money. To my knowledge no integration work has been done with current UK kit on the Blackhawk airframe, so we’d be starting from scratch.
Once you’ve got the basic kit integrated, we then need to bolt on all the UOR kit to ensure its at Theatre Entry Standards (TES) – or the level at which PJHQ and Theatre feel it has the necessary enhancements to operate safely and effectively on Ops. That again adds in a lot of time and money to make it happen.
While all this is going on, you need to consider the problem of where you get your spares and support chain from. The 8 million quid helo will not come with spares – you’ll need to place a large supply contract to do this. Additionally, there are no Blackhawk maintenance facilities in the UK, so you’d need to invest a lot of money in siting a facility which could be used. By contrast, the Lynx fleet already has spares contracts and fully developed maintenance facilities in place already – we’ve been operating the type for 30 years, so the infrastructure is already there. If you have to start from scratch you will incur enormous costs to get this work done, and it will take several years to do (for instance we started preparing for the new tanker aircraft nearly 5- 7 years before they even fly, let alone enter service).
At the same time, we haven’t even touched on manpower constraints. We can’t magic up aircrew and groundcrew to run these aircraft. We’d have to either recruit more (lots of money) or send existing aircrew on courses to run them. This means that not only do we have less aircrew to do existing jobs (which AAC commitment do you want us to stop doing to train the crew), but we’d have to have a couple of years notice to set up and run the ‘train the trainer’ courses required. The Apaches introduction into service is a classic example of this – the training pipeline hadn’t delivered enough pilots, so we had apaches sitting in storage waiting for bodies to fly them. The same would happen again – we may well get the airframes in a year, but its going to be a lot longer than that before we can fly them, support them and repair them.
There is the issue of employability – the Lynx buy covers both the Army and RN variants – the Blackhawk is no use as a naval helo, so we face the decision to either spend lots of money converting it (and almost certainly failing or buying seahawks instead) or we run on both fleets in tandem. If we chose the former we waste lots of money in development costs, and spend a fortune to refit every air capable ship in the fleet to carry Blackhawk flights, not Lynx (Ships are designed to support certain a/c types – you can land on a ship with a new type, but you can’t maintain it – navalising Blackhawk would mean massive costs to change the surface fleet).
Alternatively we could run a mixed Lynx / Blackhawk fleet, which suddenly doubles your helo fleets in service, and creates dual supply chains and associated J4 problems. The UK is trying to reduce the number of helo fleets in service to save money and free up manpower. Introducing a small new fleet to service would run against this, and cost far more money.
For those who think I am naysaying, I would suggest you look at the example of the Mk3A merlin, which we bought off the Danes. This was a modified variant of an in service design, for which we had a lot of expertise. Despite this, by the time the airfames had been modified and trialed extensively to make sure they worked, it cost tens of millions. It is not cheap to introduce a modified or new airframe to service, no matter how cheap the unit buy costs are.
In summary, we could buy Blackhawk now, but to do so would cost far, far more than the much quoted Unit price, and would almost certainly be far more expensive than the Lynx package. It would take longer to put into service, and there is no guarantee it would work as planned. The result would leave us with even less money than before to support the helo fleet.
Finally, the mail article notes that the UK could have bought the P8 Orion at 40% less cost than the Nimrod – I don’t think the P8 has even flown yet, and according to friends in the know, its turning into a disaster which makes Nimrod look like a model procurement by contrast. The mission system doesn’t work, there are major issues with the airframe (it’s a converted jet airliner and not designed to operate in the way that the P3 does) and the whole thing is apparently an utter nightmare. Another classic example where cost up front does not always equal better value for money.
RL,
‘I did smile when I first heard that they were having to put plywood panels in the NH-90 cabin. The back of a Ford Transit van came to mind…’
The Lynx and Gazelle, plus a whole host of other aircraft have plywood panels on the floor, its cheap and sacrificial and stops grunts putting bayonets and other sharp objects through it and into the floor structure. ESpecially if you have fuel cells underneath. Also, it could be replaced, if necessary, with a kevlar armoured plate to protect the cabin from small arms fire.
You are undoubtedly right that there has been little resembling an overall strategy to helicopter procurement. But, whatever the merit of ruthless commonality I have no expectation that one is going to start now given that change for changes sake is not the strongest of arguments – you would have to save a heck of a lot in maintenance to justify the capital cost of changing, if a new purchase is not required for some other reason as well.
Looking at your list the plethora of types can be rationalised after a fashion:
- The Sea King is only still on the list because funding for its replacement hasn’t materialised.
- Puma is only there because in desperation someone thought it cheaper to life extend rather than buy new
- Gazelle – well my take on that is that very small helicopters are not high on anyone’s requirements and it will likely disappear without any ‘type’ replacement.
- Apache is what it is and cannot be standardised with anything else.
- In a large military there will always be a few ‘other types’ knocking around.
That leaves the bulk of the UK’s helicopter effort (if not in numbers) not totally irrationally centred around three types; Chinook, Merlin and Lynx. The main reason why the helicopter fleet appears so disjointed is not so much lack of planning as much as the lack of funding to replace the old stuff.
Richard W, you are right of course, this isn’t going to happen but the post was just a means of asking with a fresh piece of paper, what would things look like. Wishful thinking taken to extremes. I would say however, that the costs of diversity extend beyond maintenance. Crews, training, certification, integration of DAS and weapons, comms kit, simulators, people to train the trainers, support contracts for simulators, test equipment, documentation and the list goes on and one. The helicopter sitting on an apron is the tip of a very large and costly resource pyramid.
Jim30, you are always welcome to post but I would add on the $8m Blackhawk nonsense I like to think the commenters and readers of Think Defence are too wise to fall for that nonsense, in fact I know they are. I even covered the story a while ago…
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/01/so-how-much-is-a-blackhawk/
Firstly combining the civvy air-ambulance, police etc with Coast Guard – why? different agencies, with different needs and different conops – your strict regime of standardisation may provide no benefits here.
Also combining pilot training for these orgs with military training – why ? Most of the pilots for above are ex-miliary pilots anyway !
Second – as ex-RN I really take umbrage with the cack that Merlin is too big for ‘frigates’ ? What a load of rubbish. It may have required mods to T22′s and early T23′s but that was years ago, all new construction can be built with flight decks and hangers as required. It is a world beating ASW platform, only reason it has not sold more in the role is expense.
As for the rest – well are you trying to offer pragmatic, budgetary constrained ideas for moving forward, or just indulging in fantasy fleets ? Most of the 40 plus comments to the article rehash ideas what we have discussed here before.
I would like to see some ‘modest’ investment for some consolidated fleet that would look like:
RN
Merlin – All HM1 airframes upgraded to HM2. HC3 modded for ‘Commando’ fleet plus another 8 to 12 new.
If Merlin is to be SeaKing AWaC replacement, then these should be new build.
Lynx – Reduced Wildcat purchase. AH9 to 3 Brig. Air Squadron (when AAC gets replacements – see below)
AAC
Apache Longbow – Armed scout recce aircarft.
AW149 – multi-role replacement for Lynx.
RAF
Chinooks, chinooks and more chinooooooks…..
Girffons, Dauphins and Squirrels (oh my..) – whatever, dont care, keep using civvy contracts for these support functions. Ideally take the Chinooks and give them to the Army, but now we are into politics again…..
Just one final question for all the NH90 fanboys – why????
- Euan and Richard Stockley,
Just to develop my Merlin ideas further. If politics requires a generous cashflow be maintained to Westland, I would propose that they be given the order to convert all Merlin HC2s to a navalised Merlin Commando configuration in exchange for the cancellation of Future Lynx. If we’ve got money leftover for new build HM2 and Commando airframes, then they should also be added to the order to bring the force up to the level you suggest.
I don’t believe that complete fleet commonality can be achieved but we’ll at least be in a position where all the Commando, ASW/ASuW and ASAC roled helicopters embarked on a carrier share such major elements as engines, gearbox, rotors, fuel, electrical, hydraulic and flight control systems. That must be worth something even if the airframes and installed mission systems differ in some respects? This is also why I’m against buying V-22s for the ASAC role.
Also, what are the new door positions you want?
- Lord Jim, Agree with your comments on the Chinook.
—–
AW169 and Future Lynx
I mentioned cancellation of Future Lynx. I’m keen on canceling it as it appears to be neither fish nor fowl but very expensive nonetheless. However I’m not sure what to replace it with. The original article proposes the AW169 as a replacement for the AAC Lynx but doesn’t mention the Navy variants. Are the naval variants to be replaced by the AW169 too?
Presuming so, where do we start with working out the exact size of helicopter to procure? It seems that the specification driving the discussion is the minimum number of troops it would be useful to lift in one airframe. Is it 4, 4 + 2 door gunners, 8, 8 + 2 gunners or some other number? I’m making the presumption here that the navy’s sonar and radar gubbins will weigh less than the X fully equipped troops.
If we’re at the 8+2 end of the scale then we’ve got a great platform for the army, navy, coastguard and air ambulance bods but will have ended up with something that’s probably too big for the police who won’t be routinely flying with more than a pilot, co-pilot, sensor operator and TV cameraman on board.
As for missile armament of the AW13/4/69, I would recommend Hellfire over the LMM, purely as Hellfire is already used on the Apache, so commonality benefits exist. The inclusion of a downlink to send sensor ball imagery to ROVER terminals would assist in fulfilling the helicopter’s reconaissance role in military service and could also provide a useful capability in coastguard and police service.
—-
Gazelle
Just what are the remaining Gazelles doing in service these days? They seem to have become the AAC’s stealth helicopter… In the clamour of more helicopters for Afghanistan, has the Gazelle ever been mentioned? Is it deployable now or in the future? Is it fulfilling an essential training role in the UK? If not, then retire them for some immediate savings. There’s a limited civilian market for old Gazelles too, so we might even be able to make a little bit of money from some of them.
I would like my tuppence too
AAC
3, 4 & 9 Regiments:
X2 Attack Squadrons –Apache
X1 Recon Squadron – AW159 Wildcat (would prefer AW109 but small production quantity makes it unviable)
1,7(TA) & another be formed Regiments:
X3 Support Squadron – AW149
5 Regiment & Others:
665 Squadron, 657 Squadron, Overseas Flights – AW169
RAF
X7 Support Squadron – Chinooks
X1 Heavy Lift Squadron – Mil26
X1 Training Squadron – AW169
X1 VIP Squadron – AW 169
X1 SAR Squadron – AW169
RN
X4 Anti-sub Squadrons – AW101 Merlin
X3 ASaC Squadrons– AW101 Merlin
X2 Anti-sub Squadrons– AW159 Wildcat
FOST Aircraft- AW169
CHF
X3 Assault Squadrons– AW101 Merlin
X1 Assault Squadrons– AW159 Wildcat
RL
The Gazelle is still used by 7 REG(V) AAC as a taxi service for brasshats as far as i know but could be disbanding as helicopter equiped unit.
The other unit is 665 Squadron in NI along with 651 Squadron as ‘eyes in the sky’ keeping tabs on the Fenians
Anyone know why Pratt & Whitney Canada are supplying the PW210 engines, obviously they won the tendering process but what did Rolls Royce come up with?
Did I read once that we could buy 4 Mil-26 for the price of one Merlin? And that cost per hour of Mil-26 was a quarter of that of a Merlin?
I think I am right in saying it takes 18 Chinooks to lift one light infantry battalion.
Fantasy helicopter squadron is more fun to play than fantasy navy. All I want is Merlin to be Harpoon capable.