A Quick Comparison of Helicopter Lift

158 thoughts on “A Quick Comparison of Helicopter Lift”

1. Wstr April 24, 2011 at 12:24 pm

   Chinook (CH47F): Max passengers in special ‘you have to buy me dinner first’ configuration – 80+ (paras ’82; Iraqi POWs ’91)
2. Jed April 24, 2011 at 4:41 pm

   Wstr – indeed, I think that might not even be the record, I think the US may hold that in Vietnam.

   In which lies a good point – flying into the assault against enemies with defences, then 27 guys well strapped down in a decent seat with some element of enhanced survivability in case of a crash, as opposed to, “we have to get everyone out of here, now !”
3. Wstr April 24, 2011 at 5:05 pm

   Good summary table by the way useful to compare side-by-side instead of tabbing between wiki pages.
   I’ve got the NH90 cabin-only dimensions written down in a spreadsheet (don’t ask) as 4.10×2.0×1.58 (LxWxH with 1.82H Swedish) although I can’t remember where I got that from.
4. Xxx April 24, 2011 at 5:15 pm

   CH-47 does not use “crash worthy” seating but just like the puma the record speaks for itself! There have been no fatalities due to poor seating in any of the puma crashes of 2007.
   It’s easy to get caught up in this business of “crash worthy” seating but reference previous posts troops don’t like the configuration of having to use 5 or 4 point harnesses as it takes time strapping in and out, a simple lap strap design works best. Be careful of using brochure information which is what quite often ends up on this site.
   Gentleman please stop defending the indefensible! Wildcat and Merlin (mk3 only) are not good battlefield helicopters, the Merlin is a good heli-liner and nothing else (apart from naval versions)
5. Wstr April 24, 2011 at 5:16 pm

   Belay that last. Airforce Tech website is reporting cabin length as 4.8m all other dimensions the same.
6. Jed April 24, 2011 at 5:38 pm

   Xxx – that is your opinion and your entitled to it, I am sure if I go back through various comment threads you have explained your position.

   As for “crash worthy” seating – I agree entirely, it is a risk assessment task. I did most of my flying on removable seats in the back of Naval Lynx’s – that fact that they were not wall mounted “crash worthy” did not matter to anyone. So the wall mounted seat with 5 point harness, versus simple lap belt, well its all part of the risk assessment for any particular op – don’t get detected, don’t get hit, if you get hit keep flying, if you get shot down, survive the crash…

   I however think Merlin is a fine, highly flexible battlefield taxi, and as I have noted before, 3 engines and five blade main rotor actually gives you the ability to carry both a useful number of troops or cargo PLUS good defensive suite of threat warning avionics, active and passive defences. We don’t have enough of them, and apparently we don’t have the spares holdings required; I am sure AW could come up with a very reassuringly expensive support package…..

   The whole point of the table is to note where it Merlin (or other type under discussion) sits, statistics wise. E.g. the Merlin fits between the “medium” EC725/NH90 and the Chinook (which I would characterize as ‘heavy’ lift alongside the CH53 family and Mi26 Halo). So it offers a set of capabilities which are not easily compared to other aircraft.
7. x April 24, 2011 at 8:01 pm

   16pax is OK seeing as the army seem to like the “multiple.”
8. Gabriele April 24, 2011 at 8:16 pm

   Cost factor would be interesting to factor in, too, but i for one know how difficult it is to find reliable sources for costs of military hardware, since i tried many times!

   However, for example, the myth of cheap 8-millions Blackhawks is gone to hell with the turk deal:
   109 Blackhawks at 3.5 billion dollars, or a good 32 millions each, four times as much as reported in that sorry example of absurd press-feed westland-bashing which sold the public the myth of cheap blackhawks. And this is before any cost overgrown/delay happens.

   http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/21/sikorsky-turkey-idUSLDE73K1EM20110421
9. Gabriele April 24, 2011 at 8:20 pm

   Oh, and by the way, good work Jed!

   and @Wstr

   Chinooks can fit a lot of standing people indeed, but we should remember that you can squeeze more standing people in any other airframe as well.
   Sure, Chinook still offers advantages, but that is expected.
   It is a brilliant design, with a fuselage which exploits very well all its lenght.

   You also pay for that on size and costs, however. I’m all in favor of more Chinooks (and gods know that folding rotors would be handy too), but we still need other kind of choppers too.
10. Euan April 24, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    The Turkish deal includes a large domestic industrial workshare so that complicates things further and just to complicate things even more the Swedish are getting 15 for around $51M each IIRC. The Swedes however will probably include a massive sensible spares, support and training package because they tend to have their heads screwed on properly. The UAE or someone else also ordered some blackhawks for a similar price although i think they were the battlehawk varaint with all the toys.
11. John Hartley April 24, 2011 at 8:49 pm

    I see the Dutch are still doing suicidal defence cuts. They are selling off 14 “son of Puma” whatever they are called now.
    If Whitehall was awake, a chance to buy 14 decent helicopters cheap. So no chance of that then.
12. x April 24, 2011 at 9:10 pm

    In Feb according to AFM the US military bought two Blackhawks for a total of $22.7million (so $11.35mil each.)

    And then in March another order was placed for $129 million for Hawks in 4 varieties for the US Army and USN. No details of how many of each variant was to be purchased. One of each would match Gabby’s Turkish figures (approximately,) but I bet the US are getting about 10 airframes. Considering the world is in recession Sikorsky must be doing OK…….

    This is to be contrasted with Bell who offering a paramilitary version of the 407 for a starting price of $5million to which all sorts of fun stuff can be added like FLIR, armoured seats, sliding doors (yes sliding doors!!) and all sorts of weapons. I bet a well spec’ed 407 wouldn’t come close to $10million.

    Apparently the wrinkle is these aren’t being offered as armed aircraft so avoid US Foreign Military Sales system, doesn’t come under International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and so can be sold directly to customers……

    (I wrote a very boring paper once on SALW proliferation and I spent an age, ok and afternoon, trawling through ITAR. All good clean fun. Yawn……)
13. Think Defence April 24, 2011 at 9:34 pm

    I have covered those £8m Blackhawks a number of times a while ago

    http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/10/more-on-those-cheap-blackhawks/
    http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/01/so-how-much-is-a-blackhawk/
    http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/09/how-much-is-a-blackhawk-part-2/
14. Euan April 24, 2011 at 9:47 pm

    The UK Military realigning its support helicopter fleet to use Puma derivatives that just makes too much sense and would perhaps be a political hot potato. Especially if those airframes are second hand and old enough to claim their pension when they retire mind you that would be an excellent example to folk. There would also be the big problem that none of this would keep the boys at Westland in work and I doubt 62 FLynx will keep them occupied very long or at least it shouldn’t or the factory is a waste of time.

    Although a fleet of Puma and second hand Super Puma for land support helicopters with new EC725 for Civilian/Combat SAR as well as CHF replacements does make some sense because we have an active upgrade line in Romania. However the idea of the UK Armed Forces belonging to the 6th largest global economy with arguably a large defence budget scraping together a fleet of ancient and second hand airframes just seems sickening.
15. x April 24, 2011 at 9:59 pm

    It makes me wonder how Third World countries operate their helicopter fleets. It seems the UK isn’t big enough to play at being mini-US. But not small enough to not feel guilty about buying helicopters that do the job. We seem to be caught in the middle. In a limbo where we must buy the best, can’t afford them, and exacerbate the problem buying fiddling about with them which then requires extra testing that costs more money adding some minor questionable capability. (Yes MoD SF Chinnook buying team I am looking at you!)

    Myanmar has bought 12 Mi35; a rather large and not so simple helicopter. If a Third World country can buy good simple helicopters why can’t we……..
16. Gabriele April 24, 2011 at 10:14 pm

    @TD

    I know you did TD, and it was very correct of you to do so and overall admirable!

    Fact is that the 8 million figure was on the major press more than once, and i’m not aware of them ever admitting their “error”.
    That was deeply unfair, and it caused a lot of bashing on the MOD (and on Westland) which truly had (and has) little reason to exist.
    That article created a “monster” which no one quite managed to slain so far. Is to them that goes my rage.
17. Euan April 24, 2011 at 10:41 pm

    X, other nations like us for instance France, Germany, Italy all are involved in the NH-90 and have had support helicopter fleets of Puma derivatives or in the case of Italy AB-412’s. We just seem to make a complete arse of it for many reasons and it ends up costing far more blood and treasure but never gets sorted out. I agree with your point about third world countries they buy helicopters, mainly tough Russian/Soviet designs, and seem to in the most part operate them without as much of a mess. Even South Africa which is somewhere in the middle managed to produce and support the Oryx and Rooivalk domestically. Perhaps a better example as they actually utilise their aircraft a bit more, that I know of, than the third world countries that buy a number of Russian designs but only have a few working.

    It just pisses me off with the politically dicking about we could buy what Westland’s produce and have a decent helicopter fleet. We could have bought UH-60’s almost a decade ago and have an active production line up and running in Yeovil Sikorksy was happy to do that as they had done many times in the past. Failing that we should or could have at any point in the last decade produced a large number of Merlin off the active line, now probably shutdown, driving down the flyaway unit cost. Hell we could have even done what the Italians now plan to do and build Chinooks domestically keeping the idiots happy although the cost might be horrendous compared to a straight buy from Boeing. Admittedly Building designs under license might be a bit more difficult now it’s Augusta Westland but Boeing are allowing CH-47F’s to be built in Italy and AW are not really direct competitors with Sikorksy IMHO. Then there is also the mess that we now call Wildcat, what was so wrong with the Super Lynx 300 that necessitated re-designing an almost new aircraft at not insignificant cost to the Taxpayer? The effort that has gone into the re-design could have been directed at a spinoff of the AW-139 essentially the AW-149.

    Vent over with for now…. Sorry about that

    Serious Question, how many aircraft do we think a place like Yeovil realistically needs to produce for it to be considered a viable production location. AFAIK Yeovil only produces Lynx for any export customers and that’s about it.
18. Jan Guest April 24, 2011 at 11:05 pm

    The point about both Merlin and Wildcat is not that they are bad aircraft but whether they fitted the UK’s needs at the time they were procured. Merlin is a great ASW helicopter but was it affordable enough that we could make it our only ASW/ASuW shipboard helicopter? Obviously not as we didn’t do it. Was it sensible for the FAA to operate 2 or even 3 (At the time Merlin HM1 Lynx HAS3 & HMA8) types of shipboard helicopter in this role? To keep long-term cost of ownership low obviously not.

    Similarly was it sensible to only purchase 28 troop carrier variants and not replace the Commando Sea Kings and Pumas too? Possibly even some of the older Chinooks as well, due to Merlin’s relatively large size and capability. But with none of these efficiency savings realised for whatever reason, there are too many fleets and not enough spares is an indicator that the costs of this have taken their toll. Merlin might have been a great aircraft but if the costs of procuring it over something like the dreaded Blackhawks was the difference between have one fleet of aircraft well supplied with spares and with good availability rates and 3 (at least) without either of the above then was it really worth it? Merlin is possibly to good for its own good, being so large and capable that it is too expensive to acquire in sufficient numbers to be the core medium helicopter, serving shipboard and battlefield utility roles, and yet not large enough to be a genuine Chinook/CH-53 replacement.

    Similarly Wildcat may do lots of things well but I don’t see the particular need for it. With surface combatant numbers dropping through the floor why not upgrade all the Merlin HM1s to HM2 standard, cancel Wildcat and finally get a one type fleet for ASW? As to the battlefield version I don’t really get what advantages it has over the AH9A? If we need a new airframe in this role it also seem very expensive compared to other options.
19. Mark April 24, 2011 at 11:15 pm

    We are now I believe too late to get either the chinook or blackhawk in final line in the UK any european chinooks will come from Italy and any blackhawks most likely from poland.
    The wildcat significantly reduced the part count in the a/c now you can argue about the benefits of that but it is supposed to increase serviceability. As for the production line to be realistic and efficient you would probably need to get to about 100 a/c per year.

    My problem with the MI a/c ect is this. To be acceptable in a western army these a/c will require self defence systems and modern avionics ect this is were the cost is and we cannot get away from that.

    We have a issue with our helicopter fleet that need storing. We need 4 types apache and wildcat will do the light recon attack ect. All the other tasks from heavy civil sar asw ect can be preformed with 2 types but we need to pick them. We must maximise numbers across the services as much as possible. The chinook upgrade were doing is 1 step short of a nonsence were still going to have 4 mini fleets within a fleet we either bring them all to the same standard or scrap the lot. Maybe ch53 is a better option for all the other roles outside heavy we need to choice a platfrom and start building it either merlin or nh-90 or blackhawk (puma should be scraped as well).(ino this crosses over with the other thread sorry)
20. Euan April 25, 2011 at 12:12 am

    Mark I agree if we went for Chinook or Blackhawk the viability of them being built in the UK is well and truly gone with 2 active European Blackhawk lines and a Chinook line in Italy that is already active or about to be so. However as we all know never rule out the lunacy of politicians and Unions so we could probably get a line in the UK if we really pushed for and were willing to pay for it. We could perhaps get cheaper Blackhawks by playing the UH-60, S-70 and T-70 against each other to see who could give us the best deal.

    I know the Wildcat has a reduced part count as well as the benefits of a composite airframe, some would argue drawbacks as well, which help reduce what is probably the biggest lifetime cost man-hours. However I don’t know if it is really worth all the money and brainpower that was ploughed into it as the electronics and dynamic systems could have been integrated onto the Super Lynx airframe. To be through I could point out that we could have got rid of Lynx altogether and replaced it with NH-90 which although odd operating with Merlin is exactly what the Italians are doing and we could have bumped Merlin HM.2 onto the Carriers and larger vessels such as RFA’s.

    As for production line viability I’m wondering because AW have made it clear in the past that they would rather move production/assembly elsewhere because Yeovil is not really economically viable for them. The arrangement I could see as viable is Yeovil producing components and spares for the AW family and acting as a support hub for UK based aircraft with all the assembly work going to Verigate or one of the other Italian locations. I just can’t see the viability of keeping flight testing and assembly resources at Yeovil when from what I can guess they are hardly utilised.

    Anyhow from the current and projected helicopter picture up to and beyond 2020 there is nothing we can do that would avoid adding additional types or binning aircraft that are still relatively young or that have not just had major work done on them.
21. ChrisM April 25, 2011 at 10:32 am

    I am a free marketeer and dislike nationalised industries, but the defence industry is not a normal market, and BAE etc have ballsed up their chance – which leads me to this recurring notion:

    Nationalise key monopolistic defence factories (Westland in Yeovil, the sub yard in Barrow etc) so that they are supplier agnostic. Surely we are still a big enough customer that we can tell the suppliers that we want their product, but they have to lease the government facility to produce them (and I mean produce,not just assemble) or get someone like SERCO to run the factory for them – a sort of factory franchise/concession?
    We get to choose the best kit, but keep the manufacturing jobs and knowledge, and probably keep parts suppliers in UK as well. Also it would open up the UK defence industry to more innovation from small technology/design centred companies, as they wouldnt have to raise the capital for a factory or go begging to the big boys for partnership deals.
    If the world goes utterly tits up then we could ignore the licencing niceties and have the ability to build what we like.
22. A different Gareth April 25, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    Xxx said: “Gentleman please stop defending the indefensible! Wildcat and Merlin (mk3 only) are not good battlefield helicopters, the Merlin is a good heli-liner and nothing else (apart from naval versions)”

    I sometimes wonder whether the Merlin airframe would make a good heavy gunship.

    How about going the other way too – take an Apache airframe but build a light helicopter out of it of a size similar to the Lynx. The AAC would then have more commonality and a chopper with an excess of power. Folding rotors would suit the Navy too.
23. Jan Guest April 25, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    @ ChrisM I think you have a point – if we need to keep this industrial capacity in the UK and they only effectively do work for the UK government then they a private in name only. Public control might allow the MoD better control over production cycles to keep costs more stable eg. its in Bae’s interest to build the Astutes in a batch and then close the plant when there is no more work but in the UK govs interest to build one SSN every 3 years and incrementally update the technology so there are no cost peaks (commonality less important with 6 highly specialised SSNs). I’m not sure that helicopters are vital to have as a sovereign manufacturing capability but it doesn’t seem like Westlands builds many a/c for export – the Italians seem to have effectively cornered all that work so why not get them to simply build what the MoD wants at the required frequency.
24. Gabriele April 25, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    Westland was going to build in the UK the other Chinooks that made up the original Labour-planned buy.
    Now this is down to 14 helos (2 replacement for afghanistan lossess, 12 additional) and they will be Boeing-built and the first won’t come until 2013 or very possibly 2014.
25. ArmChairCivvy April 25, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    Hi ChrisM, couldn’t agree more:
    “Nationalise key monopolistic defence factories (Westland in Yeovil, the sub yard in Barrow etc) so that they are supplier agnostic. Surely we are still a big enough customer that we can tell the suppliers that we want their product, but they have to lease the government facility to produce them (and I mean produce,not just assemble) or get someone like SERCO to run the factory for them – a sort of factory franchise/concession?
    We get to choose the best kit, but keep the manufacturing jobs and knowledge, and probably keep parts suppliers in UK as well. Also it would open up the UK defence industry to more innovation from small technology/design centred companies, as they wouldnt have to raise the capital for a factory or go begging to the big boys for partnership deals”
    - at times, there is a total misunderstanding of how free market works, the other example is the railways( natural monopolilis, they can’t walk even if owned by ‘bloody foreigners’ but introducing ‘competition’has just strengthened the monopolistic behaviours)
26. Mark April 25, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    I thought most uk helicopter upkeep was done at fleetlands. Would it be such a bad thing now if the main servicing was down at each of the main operating bases of the helicopter types. It has helped with the fj fleets. Some capabilities need to be kept in uk like ssns but I don’t think helicopter design and final line is one as most of our current types are overseas ones and we don’t have a design to break into a very crowded Market
27. McZ April 25, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    “To be through I could point out that we could have got rid of Lynx altogether and replaced it with NH-90 which although odd operating with Merlin is exactly what the Italians are doing and we could have bumped Merlin HM.2 onto the Carriers and larger vessels such as RFA’s.”

    Are any NFH-version birds delivered to the MM by now?

    Btw, the flight hour cost of the NH90 should be 50% above that of a Wildcat (calculated through fuel consumption, personnell, spareparts). For zero additional capability. So, in a conceived hi-lo mix, it is no valid lo-option.
28. x April 25, 2011 at 7:16 pm

    @ Euan

    You rant away mate if makes you feel better.

    Um. We can’t afford many helicopters so I think we have to get away from the idea of heliborne warfare a la Nam. Helicopters (lets leave AH and ASW to one side) in the UK are for liaison, observation, and as logistical assets (either from ship or air head.) We need Chinnook on land, Merlins from the sea (because they can be folded,) and something cheap, cheerful and small for the other stuff. Blackhawk as good as it is too big for liaison and not big enough for the logistics. If we can rejig Lynx (without ending up in a Nimrod situation) then lets re-jig Lynx. If not lets get something else. I mentioned the Bell above as something cheap and cheerful. Or we could go European as the US Army have done and buy Eurocopter EC145 (Lakota.) Actually that programme is good example of how things should be done. Similarly NH90 is too close to Merlin so why bother?
29. x April 25, 2011 at 7:24 pm

    @ Jan re BAE and SSNs

    As you are aware SSNs are special and can’t really be lumped in with other programmes. I know how much BAE is invested in Barrow and I would say the opposite of what you say is probably true, they need to keep Barrow in work. BAE (and a surprisingly huge number of sub-contractors) would loose too much.
30. Euan April 25, 2011 at 8:30 pm

    ChirsM I’m probably less of a free marketer than most although I’m no idiot and can see the problems with state controlled businesses and the problems with the free market so as always there is a middle ground to be found.

    If you’ve been around here for a while you’ll have noticed I’ve also suggested nationalising Yeovil to become a Government Aircraft factory so we can simply buy in the design we need from any of the major suppliers. Furthermore with the work share now mandated in most procurement decisions worldwide producing a high percentage of the aircraft from scratch in the UK should be more than feasible. However to be clever I would also try and keep a ‘design house’ going to ensure we maintain the skills to solve problems perhaps like BMT DSL with their naval design and problem solving. This would help provide some insulation for the times when the leadership goes off on a tangent and gets us into political trouble and spares are held back although pissing off both the EU and USA should be rare.

    McZ I’ve been doing quite a bit of reading on the NH-90 and to be honest I’m unsure of it for various reasons but it still is the biggest new helicopter program out there. One thought I’ve had about the HC.3 and 3A’s is to just use them on RFA’s as is just build nice big hangars for them because as someone pointed out on here a hangar is just a steel shed. Either that or bump them into the SAR role if that is kept within the Military domain (Paramilitary Coastguard please).

    X, thanks sometimes we just need to have a wee rant
    Back to Helicopters I think the AW-149 fits nicely for the UK it’s 2 tons below the Blackhawk and 2.5 tons above the Lynx or if that’s still a bit too big then we can go for the AW-139M. I would think that the EC-145 would suffer from the problem that Lynx has, once you add a competent DAS and other goodies it’s too small to be useful.
31. Chris.B. April 25, 2011 at 9:02 pm

    I’m in favour of privatisation, but with a caveat; you need to keep an eye on those companies.

    Simply handing over the keys with no proper oversight is not acceptable.

    Of course at the other end of the spectrum is making sure the government doesn’t have too much control.
32. x April 25, 2011 at 9:34 pm

    It is the small end of the helicopter market I find confusing. There seems to be lots of models with lots of overlap in performance, pax, and cargo specs. Since my last comment I think Lynx should be moved wholesale to the FAA. And a new model bought for the AAC. So that would be RAF gets the Chinook, FAA gets Merlin and Lynx, and Army gets a new 6pax,10pax or whatever liaison/observation platform/lightly armed airframe.

    @ Euan re government factory.

    Yes it could become part of Qinetiq. If it isn’t building fresh helicopters it could be doing conversion work like adding foldable blades to Merlin and Lynx. What I don’t understand is that sometimes major modifications can be done quite quickly and at other times things are test to death. Take the roll out of those new blades for Sea King that seemed to be done quickly. But I bet if the go-ahead to make the ex-RAF Merlins’ tales fold there would be a battery of tests and it would take an age.
33. Jan Guest April 25, 2011 at 9:45 pm

    @McZ Btw, the flight hour cost of the NH90 should be 50% above that of a Wildcat (calculated through fuel consumption, personnell, spareparts). For zero additional capability. So, in a conceived hi-lo mix, it is no valid lo-option.

    Yep – the only argument for NH90/Hawks is as a one type fleet replacing everything between Chinook and Apache. As that is not going to happen for the forseeable future they aren’t really on the table any more.

    @x I guess letting the drumbeat production of subs stop between Vanguard and Astute was another superb decision of the MoD. The thing is as Bae is the only builder the MoD buy subs from and they are the sole customer, the action of the market and competition is an irrelevance. The Barrow yard is effectively a nationalised industry in all but name and Bae making a profit out it possibly makes costs higher than they would be if it was non profit-making.
34. Tubby April 25, 2011 at 9:49 pm

    @X

    Re: Sea King with Carson blades and Merlin’s with folding tails.

    Presumably it costs less to draw a testing programme out over time, so you go rapidly for UOR and slowly for scheduled upgrade programmes, though I sure it helped that Carson blades were proven technology (though the ability to fold the blades was new to Carson).
35. Euan April 25, 2011 at 9:53 pm

    Update on Swedish Blackhawks. Just noticed this online: http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2010/Sweden_10-63.pdf

    So the Swedish deal includes various bit’s and bob’s and looking around the first aircraft are to arrive next year with crews being trained this summer in the US the first aircraft are also due to be in Afghanistan in 2013. In total the Swedes plan to spend around $775M buying and supporting these helicopters up until 2020ish so I don’t know about anyone else but I would guess that is a cracking deal and a kick in the nuts to the NH90 and shows how metal our politicians really are. (AFAIK it’s a new type in Swedish service although I’ve not bothered to check)

    X, I think the RN/RM should operate Lynx and Merlin and the AAC Chinook, WAH-64 Apache and one other type either Blackhawk, AW-139M or AW-149. Search and Rescue would either be PFI’ed out or done by a paramilitary coastguard flying a mix of Merlin and whatever utility type the army ends up with. Your right it can also be darn right confusing that some things like new blades for the Sea King can be rolled out really quickly without much fuss and then other simple things take so long and end up as a bit of a mess.
36. ArmChairCivvy April 25, 2011 at 9:54 pm

    RE “Yes it could become part of Qinetiq. If it isn’t building fresh helicopters it could be doing conversion work like adding foldable blades to Merlin and Lynx.”
    - that’s the way the management of armoured fleet works, to my understanding: As maintenance is in house, small or urgent modifications can be done in-house, whereas major upgrades are contracted back to the original supplier?
    - Qinetic, though, was privatised; and a lot of the helicopter maintenance has been contracted with the original supplier
    - therefore; would that analogy work?
37. x April 25, 2011 at 10:36 pm

    @ Jan

    Yes in a nut shell! But nuclear submarines aren’t just submarines; being able to build decent nuclear submarine is still a technological feat that many countries are struggling to achieve. If there was a “need” for a SSK I would rather BAE build a nice German or Swedish designed one. Or indeed buy it at source; I would be buying fleet tankers from Italy tomorrow if I was in charge. And you are right that the missed beat in boat orders did harm Barrow and has cost “us.” Apparently orders for long lead items for the V-boats replacements have already been placed. And there isn’t a design to be built yet; such is the complexity of the undertaking. Hopefully if there is a fudge on the V-boat these orders can be used to support the idea of ordering Astute 8.
    Um. One final thought is that without BAE there is no Barrow, and I wonder if the welfare bill is ever factored into MoD deliberations.

    @ ACC

    In today’s corporate world things get contracted out and brought back in all the time. Businesses take on other businesses. Admittedly the MoD doesn’t hold as much of Qinetiq as it did when it was first floated but Qinetiq is more tied to the MoD than another contractor would be. There alternatives I suppose such as dealing with AugustaWestlands directly. Or perhaps using a company like Marshall.

    @ Tubby

    Yes true. What I was driving at was the Carson blades were new tech. While the bits and plans to fold Merlin are “known.” Yet the arse about face we work the “known” is bound to take longer than the new……

    @ Euan

    I was avoiding talk of AH64 because it is a given really. As for AAC operating Chinnook I don’t want to become embroiled in another RAF “discussion;” as this is TD’s playground I will play by his rules so that means for me RAF operating the large army supporting rotorcraft. And as the RAF operate SAR too I won’t comment on that beyond the status quo in that both RN/RAF operate SeaKing in this role. And if they were to continue in this role perhaps a common type could be purchased for not only the two armed services but for the Coastguard too who’s SAR is already PFI’d out.

    Um. Jed did make a point over in the thread where I suppose all this should be discussed in that does the RAF need a second type below Chinnook to replace Puma. I am lost on that one. Merlin is big. NH90 seems only a tad smaller than Merlin. I am going to have to do a google and get out the Jane’s and think about it!
38. Think Defence April 25, 2011 at 10:53 pm

    x, I don’t mind at all you suggesting the RAF divest itself of SH but make the case from a position of sanity, not irrationality!
39. Jed April 26, 2011 at 12:15 am

    Ref Carson blades and tail fold.

    Simply one is more complex than the other. A civil company designed and tested the blades, in order to make a profit; “all” we had to do was buy them, and fit them.

    Tail fold requires cutting the aircraft up, not quite so simple.

    Don’t think we need it anyway, we are going to have the two biggest LPH in the world, one of which could easily accommodate the entire Merlin HC3/3A fleet in one go, with plenty of room to spare……
40. x April 26, 2011 at 12:28 am

    @ Jed

    I think we will need rotor fold though. As for tail folding being a Land Rover owner rivets and aluminium don’t frighten me. Nothing an angle grinder and a Draper pop river tool can’t solve. Um. I bet sophisticated machines Merlins are built too something like an eighth of inch tolerance and not the half inch I am used too. Better put my glasses on then…..

    I think I have mentioned here that I favour filling CVF with Merlin and fitting them with SeaViper. And in my wilder moments when I have had too much sugar in my tea I even envisage buying BrahMos missiles too…..
41. Somewhat Removed April 26, 2011 at 8:23 am

    Having spoken to a few RAF Puma types the widely held view is that Merlin is too large to be used in the medium troop lift role that the Puma currently fulfils, and having seen the size of Merlin I’m inclined to agree. It also makes sense to shift the Merlins to CHF as a consequence, as without the Sea King CHF ceases to be, and we end up with commonality across the FAA. Lets not forget just how vital a role CHF has played in Afghanistan (once again where is the vaunted and 40,000+ strong RAF?). The current plan, which is under much debate, is to transfer the Merlins across in 2016 in exchange for new CH47′s, but the Merlins require heavy modification to 3a/4 marks to give them folding tails and rotors, and bring the standard up to that of the Merlin ASW Mk2 following that aircraft’s upgrade. The whole thing is in jeopardy because, funny old thing, because of the RAF. Since there is a threat to the new CH47 buy, they are refusing to give up the Merlins.

    Another fascinating fact I’ve heard is that the future of MASC is now Merlin and will never be the Hawkeye, as the powers that be had intended not to replace the SKASAC when it leaves service in 2016. In order to keep this capability, the RN has ‘promised’ to develop a palletised package for Merlin that can be installed in any Merlin airframe in a matter of hours, thus no longer having a ‘specialist’ airframe but retaining the capability. Such is the desperate nature of these reductions that this is what we’re reduced to. Apparently though the package will consist of two active electronically scanned arrays mounted on the weapons carriage pylons port and stbd. In addition I have recently learned that the Cerberus processing suite in the SKASAC was invented by a FAA observer in his garage, and is so capable that the US is screaming for it, and may even generate significant leverage towards son-of-Trident.
42. Mark April 26, 2011 at 9:37 am

    X

    1/8th of an inch that would be nice. I think it would be more like .020 for the assembly and tending to tenths of a thou for the really close stuff unless it’s composite and then you just hope.
43. Euan April 26, 2011 at 10:20 am

    Since I started it I’ll try to explain myself.

    Why? Well in Euan’s World the AAC would be operating a nice number of something like AW-149 in the utility role essentially replacing lynx but also replacing the Puma and current Merlin utility fleet. So the AAC would be operating a large fleet of helicopters and the RAF operating Chinook would be out of place amongst lots of fixed wing so it makes sense to me to move them into the AAC which is primarily geared toward support helicopters. The rotary wing Training role will probably get contracted out a bit more than it already is so it won’t really belong to anyone anymore as it’ll be a big purple blob. The FAA and CHF would be left operating a larger common fleet of Wildcat and Merlin ideally depending on how happy the RM’s are to work with that combination of aircraft sizes. The argument could easily be made and I hear it about to be made that the CHF could be moved into the AAC well yes but Merlin would be a dissimilar type within the AAC or AW-149 would be a dissimilar type when operating from ships.

    SAR is an interesting one to me because there are various options but the one I favour most and have always been vocal about is a proper coordinated paramilitary coastguard rather than the current array of organisations. Coastguard aviation would then not just simply be about rescuing idiots who did not check when the tides change or those who think a kids dinghy is ideal for fishing in. It would also have to cover the fisheries, customs, immigration and general maritime security roles around the UK coastline so privatising it might be a bit more difficult when it’s not just clear cut SAR. Naturally the oddity might be the large number of helicopter rescues carried out inland by Coastguard aircraft but I believe under the PFI they were all to follow the current scheme used by the S-92’s and AW139’s.

    Also if anyone hadn’t guessed if it really was Euan’s world the UK’s Armed Forces would probably be much like the USMC and the UK simply a big Aircraft Carrier. That is until we got our energy and food supplies as well as the general economy toward being more sustainable and secure from interruption or shock. Then I would cut the armed forces back to something a bit smaller than now and generally keep our nose out of other people’s business while trying to deal with the probably huge demographic pressures at home.

    P.S. Your probably right and this should all be in the other thread but I’ll post this then pop over there.
44. x April 26, 2011 at 10:54 am

    @ Mark

    Just in case……you do know I was joking don’t you? The first time I ever did some structural work on a LR chassis the repair was built with less than a mil error. And of course the repair section didn’t fit; it was then I found out the rather generous tolerances used by Solihull in the ’70s……

    But back to helicopters. As you are the man in the know tell me is it really that difficult to chop the end off a tail and refit to fold? The design and necessary bits and bobs are known. I assume that airframes aren’t a complete right off if they get dented slightly, they must be repairable, I am sure I have seen aircraft on jigs at some point.
45. x April 26, 2011 at 11:03 am

    @ Euan

    Well Euan’s world seems to be very much like x’s world.
46. Mark April 26, 2011 at 11:34 am

    X

    Sorry x I never can tell. Yeah I don’t see it being a big issue as the engineering is already there it’s a known quantity proved they didn’t change the tail drive mechanism to accommodate the rear ramp. Most a/c structures/joint have up to 3 repair option built in. One whilst in manufacture 2 in the field. You can repair most things usually cost plays a part. Dents on helo skin is less important than a/c as it’s not pressurised if it’s metal you can always get the big hammer out and give it a wack
47. Jan Guest April 26, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    @ SR

    “The whole thing is in jeopardy because, funny old thing, because of the RAF. Since there is a threat to the new CH47 buy, they are refusing to give up the Merlins.”

    The RAF can ‘refuse’ all they like but in the end if the Minister tells them they will they have to. As you will notice from the cuts, which all of the services would have refused if they could, ultimately they do what the politicians tell them. The problem is that rather than developing a plan and driving it through the politicians allow the forces to beg and bicker and then change everything to please the treasury. Then the papers kick up a stink and something gets ‘saved’ even though there is limited rationale for saving it.
48. Think Defence April 26, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    The fairly basic plan was for RAF Merlin crews to move to Chinook and CHF move from SK to Merlin HC3/3a

    All very sensible.

    However, if no Chinook, lots of aircrew and ground crew with nowhere to go
49. Tubby April 26, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    Also it would be fair to say rather than refusing to let the Merlin’s go the RAF have actually put together a plan that basically says it’s cheaper to let the FAA crews go, than let the RAF crews go AND re-train the FAA crews, and that given recent usage it makes sense to have the Merlin’s stay with the RAF and occasionally deploy at sea. The counter argument is that have two different forces maintain the Merlin is less cost efficient than one force. However on balance, from a purely budget basis this is likely the RAF’s proposal is cheaper and leads us back to question asked in a previous post, do we really need a dedicated CHF. I think the answer is yes (before I get flamed, but this a gut feeling rather than a strategy).

    Transferring the Merlin’s is also likely a sop to the FAA, as if they lose CHF, they are just left with naval flights, which do require long stays at sea and will be increasingly difficult (and possibly expensive) for them to be able to recruit sufficient pilots and maintainers due to their small size and I would be surprised if the RAF actually wanted the naval flights if you then decided to absorb the FAA into the RAF to try to reduce costs.

    Then there is the issue of harmony guidelines, which without bringing in the bitter rhetoric of the CVF thread, would be a problem if a Frigate went to sea for 6 months, but had to rotate its maintainer and pilots off after 4 months. It could also explain the differences between RAF and FAA, the FAA is forced to do what is best for the ship deployed crews, so it may be that towards the end of a 6 month tour a FAA pilot is mentally shattered flying in difficult situations for 6 months and would be better for the FAA pilots to do four month deployments, but for the ship’s crew a four month deployment would not be sufficiently long enough to work up the crew, steam to where they are needed, do something useful, and return home.
50. Ixion April 26, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    ‘Lets not forget just how vital a role CHF has played in Afghanistan (once again where is the vaunted and 40,000+ strong RAF?).’

    Somewhat removed is a which burn him!

    It is now X’s Euans and Ixions world, I third the motion.