Boeing Chinook (RAF)
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
Well, actually Chinooks are there all the time, pretty much, although in small numbers. Can't do any heavy lift without them.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
Agree in full. It was very rare to see Ocean going anywhere without at least a couple of Chinooks carried onboard. Good news about Gen. Carters appointment as CDS - NOT!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
Ocean has gone, Ch47 will be role specific. Merlin has been trialed with boom recently in an attempt by RM/RN to generate an off the book JPR capability.
Which is to there credit as when the RAF got into the game with the same Merlins and were told by DSF that it’s the requisite of SF.
Funny how during Op Elemey we might have used USN/USMC assets on ocean. Allegedly.
Which is to there credit as when the RAF got into the game with the same Merlins and were told by DSF that it’s the requisite of SF.
Funny how during Op Elemey we might have used USN/USMC assets on ocean. Allegedly.
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
Give Carter a chance, He has quite a lot of combat time and has made himself quite unpopular with the bean counters which is a major win in my books.
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
It was USAF cabs on Ocean wasn't it? My issue is that putting a AAR probe on a Merlin does not make it a JPR/CSAR capability. It is part of one, but there are a lot of other assets needed to operate in anything but a permissive environment.Tinman wrote:Ocean has gone, Ch47 will be role specific. Merlin has been trialed with boom recently in an attempt by RM/RN to generate an off the book JPR capability.
Which is to there credit as when the RAF got into the game with the same Merlins and were told by DSF that it’s the requisite of SF.
Funny how during Op Elemey we might have used USN/USMC assets on ocean. Allegedly.
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
It most certainly was not USAF Chinook ! Dont think I ever saw USAF embarked, they were 18 and 27 Squadron aircraft out of Odiham, rotated all the time.Funny how you only really appreciate something now she has gone.....
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
For Libya they embarked Pave Hawks from 56th Rescue Squadron, RAF Lakenheath, for CSAR duty was it to become necessary.
http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/2011/09 ... eployment/
It is no mystery.
And the USAF, of course, does not have Chinooks. The US Army aviation brigades have Chinook. How radical a concept, huh...? Army helicopters in army hands? No way!
http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/2011/09 ... eployment/
It is no mystery.
And the USAF, of course, does not have Chinooks. The US Army aviation brigades have Chinook. How radical a concept, huh...? Army helicopters in army hands? No way!
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
Thank you Gabs as always and I stand corrected but my point about Chinook remains, and Gabs loves Nick Carter too, almost as much as me ! Of course USMC Osprey were a regular visitor to Ocean and we hope to QE too....
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
I know, that’s why I never said it was USAF Chinooks.Pongoglo wrote:It most certainly was not USAF Chinook !
- The Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1755
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
"They were practicing for the RAF 100-year celebration flypast of 103 aircraft over London (on 9 July 2018)."
That'll be something to behold.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
To increase the number of Chinooks in the fleet, replace older Chinooks (on a like for like basis in terms of numbers), or perhaps replace Puma? Or something else?
Also, $3.5 billion seems like an awful lot....
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
It does, when you divide it by 16... what do you get (an F-35 )dmereifield wrote:$3.5 billion seems like an awful lot....
Then again, reading the headline
(Extended Range) Helicopters and Accessories
it clearly is "code" for one of those past tinkering projects (Special Forces special UK edition of Chinook) that only burnt money - lots of it! - but did not get anywhere
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
If this, and the Wedgetail, go through we will have signed up to about $10 bn worth of Boeing kit (Apache upgrades, P8, Wedgetail and the Chinooks) over a period of a couple of years (all non-competitively tendred too, which is fair enough for the most part given lack of options)...despite Boeing's antics with Bombardier. In contrast, Boeing has invested about £20 million in the UK (one small factory)....I hope that they are planning to invest a bit more back into UK given the fact that we are throwing money at them hand over fist
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4094
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
Could these 16 extended range Chinooks be used to keep HMS Prince of Wales that little bit further Over The Horizon?dmereifield wrote:To increase the number of Chinooks in the fleet, replace older Chinooks (on a like for like basis in terms of numbers), or perhaps replace Puma? Or something else?
Should they be marinised?
Powered folding rotors?
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-expl ... licopters/
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
Seems excessive. Why not upgrade or purchase new Merlins at the Italian spec. The HH-101A Caesar as they've called it.
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
So effectively, these are a replacement for Ocean's LCVPs? Seems like a reasonable idea - can they carry an M777?Poiuytrewq wrote:Could these 16 extended range Chinooks be used to keep HMS Prince of Wales that little bit further Over The Horizon?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
These are the special forces long range insertion helicopters. They will replace older chinooks most like, unless mdp has decided to ditch puma as well. Though pumas urban capabilities would be lost. May well see a trimming of Hercules numbers and potientially an aar capability added to the remaining depending on helicopter clearances on a400m
https://defence-blog.com/wp-content/upl ... q95-12.jpg
Boeing has had a lot of single source contracts with little in return. This is the west’s heavy lift helicopter of choice and already in service so less controversial than the two recent fix wing aircraft purchases.
On cost yep very expensive goes to show why banging on about fly away cost of under $90m ect ect is complete pointless load of nonsense unless all your interested in is a big paperweight and a catchy headline
https://defence-blog.com/wp-content/upl ... q95-12.jpg
Boeing has had a lot of single source contracts with little in return. This is the west’s heavy lift helicopter of choice and already in service so less controversial than the two recent fix wing aircraft purchases.
On cost yep very expensive goes to show why banging on about fly away cost of under $90m ect ect is complete pointless load of nonsense unless all your interested in is a big paperweight and a catchy headline
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4094
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
YesCaribbean wrote:....can they carry an M777?
Its possible but PoW just won't have enough Marines on board to make full use of the large numbers of Chinooks and landing spots.So effectively, these are a replacement for Ocean's LCVPs?
With the change of Amphibious doctrine to OTH Lilly Padding, it highlights the fact that the UK's Amphibious vessels are badly under equipped for this transition. Just not enough Chinook capable landing spots.
If it turns out that these Chinooks are going to spend a high proportion of their service life at sea I would seriously look at marinising them where possible and it must now be time for someone to bite the bullet and invest in powered folding rotors?
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
Boeing complained about Canadian Bombardiers being dumped in the US at less than cost in order to gain market share.dmereifield wrote:Boeing's antics with Bombardier
Just like the UK complained when China dumped steel into the UK market at less than cost in order to gain market share.
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
Of course only after Boeing dumping old aircraft into its own market and then offered second hand Brazilian jets to competite the contract in a vain attempt to keep the US market as a Boeing only one while demanding every overseas competition is a fair and open one, Boeing were hypocritical chancers and attempted to play up to trumps rhetoric sad.
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
If this is correct it’s a win. Proven product with nothing comparable in existence.
Armchair generals should shut their word holes.
Armchair generals should shut their word holes.
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
Seems like a sensible choice, whether they are replacements, or an addition to the current fleet. Seems that they may be useful for SF purposes as well.Poiuytrewq wrote:YesCaribbean wrote:....can they carry an M777?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill