Boeing Chinook (RAF)

arfah · Post by **arfah** » 08 Dec 2015, 15:53

............

Phil R · Post by **Phil R** » 08 Dec 2015, 17:13

Small world arfah, i too saw that that Chinook whilst driving home Southend bound on the 127.

Phil R

arfah · Post by **arfah** » 08 Dec 2015, 17:36

Small world indeed

Engaging Strategy · Post by **Engaging Strategy** » 13 Jan 2016, 18:36

As it stands the Queen Elizabeth carriers have been designed to operate the RAF's Chinook heavy lift helicopter, with deck lifts and a hangar suitably sized for it. However, without folding its rotors, only eight or nine can be accommodated in the carrier's hangar (with no room for anything else except on deck and exposed to the elements). Is it time for the UK to seriously consider a Chinook conversion with powered folding rotors (unlike the current models' unpowered system) to make the core UK heavy lift helicopter more compatible with the new carriers?

shark bait · Post by **shark bait** » 13 Jan 2016, 21:12

If the plan is to regularly deploy as a LPH then it should be given serious consideration.

However I don't expect to see Chinook's on the decks too often, I expect the more compact merlin to be the main vertical lift asset aboard the carrier's.

Engaging Strategy · Post by **Engaging Strategy** » 13 Jan 2016, 21:44

Clearly someone's been investigating the idea. Looks like a paper project but shows there is interest.

R686 · Post by **R686** » 13 Jan 2016, 23:15

arfah wrote:Pointless thread is pointless.

Masturbate over this instead.

http://www.sikorsky.com/Pages/Products/ ... CH53K.aspx

Great machine for a number of roles, but with a price to match aswell.

As to the folding blades, they can still be folded manually just takes a bit of time, but then you also don't have to do the whole fleet just say 12 airframes and make the the aircraft that rotate on the CVF

arfah · Post by **arfah** » 13 Jan 2016, 23:29

............

Gabriele · Post by **Gabriele** » 14 Jan 2016, 09:46

I think manual folding blades will do well enough for Chinooks, since the folding can happen down in the hangar, away from the wind on deck. Since it fits the lift unfolded, what matters the most is probably making sure the brakes can stop the rotors for good even when it gets windy.

R686 · Post by **R686** » 14 Jan 2016, 12:31

Gabriele wrote:I think manual folding blades will do well enough for Chinooks, since the folding can happen down in the hangar, away from the wind on deck. Since it fits the lift unfolded, what matters the most is probably making sure the brakes can stop the rotors for good even when it gets windy.

Yep that's true not sure if it effects Chinook in windy conditions, but for the ADF MRH Taipain had similer trouble.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-2 ... es/6581894

I am assuming they have the problem sorted as I have heard nothing since.

Gabriele · Post by **Gabriele** » 14 Jan 2016, 14:02

A stronger rotor brake was in the list of wishes of the Army Air Corps after sustained operations with Apache from HMS Ocean over Libya.

Would not be surprised if Chinook had similar issue, although i don't know for sure.

ArmChairCivvy · Post by **ArmChairCivvy** » 14 Jan 2016, 14:03

Engaging Strategy wrote: Is it time for the UK to seriously consider a Chinook conversion with powered folding rotors (unlike the current models' unpowered system) to make the core UK heavy lift helicopter more compatible with the new carriers?

2-3 years ago a California firm confirmed (in a press report) that they had done a design for Chinook power-folding... for an unspecified foreign client

EDIT: Now that I got to the end of the tread, might well have been Ingenium (top of this page) but the article here does not contain "the foreign client" mention... just the hurry, but to confirm rather than order straight away... who could it be, make it around the time of the sea trials for PoW?

arfah · Post by **arfah** » 14 Jan 2016, 20:28

............

ArmChairCivvy · Post by **ArmChairCivvy** » 14 Jan 2016, 20:37

I am not convinced that constant refining is good VFM. The next-gen Chinook was meant to have 50% more lift... now we are talking.

The Block III Apache is such an improvement that if it will "cost" us going down from 64 to 50, so be it.

But back to Chinooks, leaving SF and Medevac aside, it is a heavy lifter. Not a pick up (that you can turn into a life style vehicle), but a 4t truck (how many of those have you seen tarted up; there is utility and that's the VFM)

arfah · Post by **arfah** » 14 Jan 2016, 21:57

............

arfah · Post by **arfah** » 18 Jan 2016, 21:11

............

Dahedd · Post by **Dahedd** » 19 Jan 2016, 11:37

Am I correct in thinking that the new Italian CSAR Merlins are coming with the option of refuelling probes as well?

In which case if the works already been done to develop it are we not as well to fit it to some of the RM/RN Commando Merlins as well as the RAF Chinooks?

marktigger · Post by **marktigger** » 19 Jan 2016, 12:34

Dahedd wrote:Am I correct in thinking that the new Italian CSAR Merlins are coming with the option of refuelling probes as well?

In which case if the works already been done to develope that are we not as well to fit it to some of the RM/RN Commando Merlins as well as the RAF Chinook s?

yes it would be nice but has the funding for the chinooks inflight refueling probes come out of the special forces helicopter budget.

Post by **Ron5** » 19 Jan 2016, 17:16

I thought I had seen photo's of UK Merlins with refueling probes*. Maybe mistaken.

*probably on Gabrieles excellent blog

Gabriele · Post by **Gabriele** » 19 Jan 2016, 18:00

No no, you saw them. A british Merlin HC3 was used, it was maybe 2005, to trial AAR and demonstrate the probe. The C-130J tanker was one of six that the italian air force has.

Am I correct in thinking that the new Italian CSAR Merlins are coming with the option of refuelling probes as well?

The probes are part of the package.
Italy is putting in service 12 to 15 HH-101 CAESAR, a variant of the Merlin for Special Forces and CSAR, with AAR probe, 3 miniguns, comms, enhanced DAS, LOAM for low-flying in low visibility.

Post by **Ron5** » 20 Jan 2016, 00:01

Gabriele wrote:No no, you saw them. A british Merlin HC3 was used, it was maybe 2005, to trial AAR and demonstrate the probe. The C-130J tanker was one of six that the italian air force has.

Am I correct in thinking that the new Italian CSAR Merlins are coming with the option of refuelling probes as well?
The probes are part of the package.
Italy is putting in service 12 to 15 HH-101 CAESAR, a variant of the Merlin for Special Forces and CSAR, with AAR probe, 3 miniguns, comms, enhanced DAS, LOAM for low-flying in low visibility.

Very sexy too ....

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5582/1460 ... ac15_b.jpg

with a sting in the tail ..

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5573/152 ... f6e0_b.jpg

ArmChairCivvy · Post by **ArmChairCivvy** » 20 Jan 2016, 00:11

The fitting out that was proposed for patrolling US missile silo areas wasn't bad, either

This CSAR version is only marginally less fighty:
http://m.jjang0u.com/chalkadak/view?db= ... 9&no=13477

Dahedd · Post by **Dahedd** » 20 Jan 2016, 11:26

If the Italians can do that with the Merlin then what are we faffing around for

ArmChairCivvy · Post by **ArmChairCivvy** » 20 Jan 2016, 11:55

Been wondering myself...

Chinook is fast (can the gunships actually keep up?) but has a relatively short range

We have a large fleet and there is clearly some cross-over between the medevac, CSAR and SF roles (therefore also as to the extra kit to be fitted, or available)
- you can slip in a specially equipped Chinook without it being much noticed

However, only the SF versions can/ will be able to AAR; the others can be fitted with extra internal tanks, but presumably that would take time

It is a mystery? Also, the RAF Rgmnt used to train specialists for the role, but is that still the case?

bobp · Post by **bobp** » 20 Jan 2016, 12:52

So it seems that its technically possible to fit a probe to some of the Chinooks, and Merlin Helicopters. What now seems not possible is using the Voyager Airtanker or even the A400 to refuel them. Is this why the MOD intends to retain 14 C130 for SF use. Bearing in mind that the C130j has been heavily used in recent conflicts how cost effective is it to refurbish them and fit refueling gear to them. Would we be better of buying new? I'm assuming that the US refuelling gear would fit.

Boeing Chinook (RAF)

Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)

Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)

Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)

Navalised Chinook

Re: Navalised Chinook

Re: Navalised Chinook

Re: Navalised Chinook

Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)

Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)

Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)

Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)

Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)

Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)

Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)

Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)

Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)

Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)

Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)

Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)

Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)

Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)

Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)

Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)

Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)

Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)