Boeing Chinook (RAF)

[abc123]

After the cseries debacle Boeing should be lucky we are dealing with them at all tbh. So it’s not really embarrassing at all tbh imo.

The US has been rather hostile under dopy Biden and has done more damage to relations probably since Grenada.

I'm perfectly happy to screw Boeing as hard and as many times as we wish. As I say above, our armed forces sometimes appear to be sponsored by them

The perceived embarrassment is that we chose to:

1) Order the things in the first place
2) Made a decision to defer our order to save money (when has that ever worked??)
3) Find that the cost has increased by £0.5bn
4) Suffer (contracted) buyers remorse
5) Try to cancel without going through the proper channels
6) Have the entire process reported on in the press

Somewhere between 3 and 5 we had a Defence Command paper.

As for Biden, he's got bigger issues than the emotional state of a rapidly declining and unreliable ally, that keeps gaping military capability. Irrespective if he's fit to be President.

[SW1]

After the cseries debacle Boeing should be lucky we are dealing with them at all tbh. So it’s not really embarrassing at all tbh imo.

The US has been rather hostile under dopy Biden and has done more damage to relations probably since Grenada.

I'm perfectly happy to screw Boeing as hard and as many times as we wish. As I say above, our armed forces sometimes appear to be sponsored by them

The perceived embarrassment is that we chose to:

1) Order the things in the first place
2) Made a decision to defer our order to save money (when has that ever worked??)
3) Find that the cost has increased by £0.5bn
4) Suffer (contracted) buyers remorse
5) Try to cancel without going through the proper channels
6) Have the entire process reported on in the press

Somewhere between 3 and 5 we had a Defence Command paper.

As for Biden, he's got bigger issues than the emotional state of a rapidly declining and unreliable ally, that keeps gaping military capability. Irrespective if he's fit to be President.

We had two defence reviews! Delaying things never save money but then if you start too many programs that’s what happens.

Choosing to go a different route I don’t see as embarrassing if that’s what happens.

I don’t see the U.K. as rapidly declining anything but that’s just an opinion.

Under the Biden administration I think there is more allies asking if the US is unreliable than the other way round.

As I’ve said elsewhere I would have preferred a defence review that laid out our priority areas for investment and roles but it didn’t it’s just shoved decisions dwn the road as it has continuously been doing since the Cold War . The U.K. cannot do everything to there will always be gaps.


Also on thread you can see from the FMS the purchase with full support in place was never £1.4b unless the exchange rate was near 2 to 1 but then we seen with E7 order the ability to add up the accounts is sadly lacking.

[Jensy]

We had two defence reviews! Delaying things never save money but then if you start too many programs that’s what happens.

Choosing to go a different route I don’t see as embarrassing if that’s what happens.

I don’t see the U.K. as rapidly declining anything but that’s just an opinion.

Under the Biden administration I think there is more allies asking if the US is unreliable than the other way round.

As I’ve said elsewhere I would have preferred a defence review that laid out our priority areas for investment and roles but it didn’t it’s just shoved decisions dwn the road as it has continuously been doing since the Cold War . The U.K. cannot do everything to there will always be gaps.

There's nothing wrong with not having a capability if we can't afford it. It's the middle ground where we say we need a capability but can neither afford to sustain our legacy platforms nor buy new. So instead we burden ourselves 5-10 years down the line when priorities have changed.

Not suggesting there's an easy way out of that, other than increased defence spending (which is unlikely) or else are more pragmatic about what we can afford.

US foreign policy has been unreliable since Obama stood up in Cairo and threw away decades of pragmatic and carefully balanced diplomacy in one of the most tense regions on the planet. His successors have been little better. However just as Defence is largely irrelevant for the electorate here, so to is foreign policy for the average (non-coastal) American.

[SW1]

We had two defence reviews! Delaying things never save money but then if you start too many programs that’s what happens.

Choosing to go a different route I don’t see as embarrassing if that’s what happens.

I don’t see the U.K. as rapidly declining anything but that’s just an opinion.

Under the Biden administration I think there is more allies asking if the US is unreliable than the other way round.

As I’ve said elsewhere I would have preferred a defence review that laid out our priority areas for investment and roles but it didn’t it’s just shoved decisions dwn the road as it has continuously been doing since the Cold War . The U.K. cannot do everything to there will always be gaps.

There's nothing wrong with not having a capability if we can't afford it. It's the middle ground where we say we need a capability but can neither afford to sustain our legacy platforms nor buy new. So instead we burden ourselves 5-10 years down the line when priorities have changed.

Not suggesting there's an easy way out of that, other than increased defence spending (which is unlikely) or else are more pragmatic about what we can afford.

US foreign policy has been unreliable since Obama stood up in Cairo and threw away decades of pragmatic and carefully balanced diplomacy in one of the most tense regions on the planet. His successors have been little better. However just as Defence is largely irrelevant for the electorate here, so to is foreign policy for the average (non-coastal) American.

Yes indeed the need for the capability priorities may have changed. It’s not really a secret that the SF have used the Puma a lot and was the reason for it being in Baghdad and Afghanistan for so long. If the army is focusing more toward working in the urban environment it maybe seen as more of a priority area as there isn’t anything equivalent in service. If for other task the SF are starting to move around in bushmaster style vehicles then perhaps given the capabilities to modern fixed wing a/c that maybe seen as a better method of long range insertion.

I don’t think the delay and dither helps at all

I can see the headlines though if they said we are prioritising SF type operations and forces with expensive helicopters, a/c ect as that is what our allies request most and as a result we are reducing heavy armour. People don’t wish to chose and so we attempt to do both less well but chose we must as can be seen these things cost a lot! It takes a very big set to stand up and make that choice because there will be a lot of vested interests out to get you.

[Poiuytrewq]

….since Obama

That is when the unreliability started and it has been downhill from there.

…prioritising SF type operations and forces with expensive helicopters

Add (whatever is left of) that £2.3bn to NMH and everything changes.

[SW1]

….since Obama

That is when the unreliability started and it has been downhill from there.

…prioritising SF type operations and forces with expensive helicopters

Add (whatever is left of) that £2.3bn to NMH and everything changes.

Yes thought I would go all in and buy both helicopters

[SD67]

Serious question - is chinook marinised?

[Jensy]

Serious question - is chinook marinised?

Short answer: partially.

Long answer: it doesn't have the sort of salt water corrosion protection that say Sea Knight, Merlin or Sea Stallion have. Fine for limited deployments but it would need modification if it were to become a primarily ship-borne platform.

However the US has never had the need as they have a comparable and far better suited heavy lift helicopter in the shape of the CH-53 family.

Mechanised folding blades have been proposed numerous times but they've never reached production. Also it has a waterproof hull to accommodate touch and go landings on water.



Back in the 1960s it was briefly considered as an alternative to the Sea King by the Fleet Air Arm for the ASW role.

[SD67]

If the case I'd say the army needs to be challenged on its "CH47 only" stance. Could Ch53 be more Joint, more maritime more In line with future con ops?

[R686]

If the case I'd say the army needs to be challenged on its "CH47 only" stance. Could Ch53 be more Joint, more maritime more In line with future con ops?

At what price, whilst I dearly love to have some CH53 but not at that price point

With a price tag per unit higher than the F-35, the CH-53K — approximately $138 million per aircraft — costs about three times that of its predecessor the CH-53E, which costed roughly $45 million per aircraft ($24.36 million in 1992 adjusted for inflation).

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2020/08/ ... flation%29.

WASHINGTON, July 30, 2021 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign
Military Sale to the Government of Israel of CH-53K Heavy Lift Helicopters with Support and related
equipment for an estimated cost of $3.4 billion. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the
required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.

The Government of Israel has requested to buy up to eighteen (18) CH-53K Heavy Lift Helicopters;

https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major- ... rs-support

The US Department of State has approved the sale of four Boeing CH-47F Chinook cargo helicopters to Australia for an estimated $259 million.

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopter ... 40.article

WASHINGTON, December 6, 2022 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Republic of Korea of CH-47F helicopters and related equipment for an estimated cost of $1.5 billion. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.

The Republic of Korea (ROK) has requested to buy eighteen (18) CH-47F helicopters;

Press Release - Korea 22-66 CN.pdf


But there is a reason for there being. for Australia we do not have the same CONOPS needs as the USMC nor does the RM

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/com ... poor-idea/

[Jensy]

If the case I'd say the army needs to be challenged on its "CH47 only" stance. Could Ch53 be more Joint, more maritime more In line with future con ops?

I would personally have liked to have gone that direction for commonality and flexibility between land and maritime operations.

Once upon a time the UK (Westland) were very good at building Sikorsky products to British spec, and even exporting the things... (including a massive missed opportunity to supply 80 WS-70 Blackhawks to the Saudis which became a scandal) but Leonardo is a very different company, with a focus on in-house design and development.

Also, as things stand, the CH-53K is between twice and triple the price of a Chinook, and even more than the rather costly V-22.

With a per-unit cost of $32 million, the CH-47F Block II is also far more affordable in terms of initial acquisition compared to the CH-53K, which has a flyaway cost of $91.6 million per aircraft.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/g ... helicopter

However, the USMC is about to carry out a brutal process of 'divest to invest' (selling off brand new kit for jam tomorrow)....

The Marine Corps is divesting 44 advanced MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, 30 new AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters and 24 new UH-1Y Venom utility helicopters, and it will divest 48 new CH-53K King Stallion heavy-lift helicopters and 54 F-35B Lightning II fighter aircraft.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/com ... -aviation/

Not that we have the money, but I daresay this would probably be the best value opportunity to grab hold of some King Stallions at knock down prices.

I'd also quite like to take those Super Hueys.... but that's a whole different story.

[Scimitar54]

How about acquiring some of the surplus MV22s ?

[Jensy]

How about acquiring some of the surplus MV22s ?

They're the only aircraft in that seleciton not described as "new". Have a feeling they might not be the finest airframes in the USMC inventory.

We also spent a vast amount of money (twice) on the Commando Merlin which will likely serve past 2040. Not sure what else MV-22 could replace... though it would be amusing if we transferred them back to the RAF.

[new guy]

How about acquiring some of the surplus MV22s ?

They're the only aircraft in that seleciton not described as "new". Have a feeling they might not be the finest airframes in the USMC inventory.

F-35B's?

[Jensy]

How about acquiring some of the surplus MV22s ?

They're the only aircraft in that seleciton not described as "new". Have a feeling they might not be the finest airframes in the USMC inventory.

F-35B's?

We scarcely have enough trained pilots for the ones we have.

Also those I suspect will be held in storage by the USMC to replace their early Bs that are beyond worth upgrading. A bit like we did with the newest Typhoons.

[new guy]

How about acquiring some of the surplus MV22s ?

They're the only aircraft in that seleciton not described as "new". Have a feeling they might not be the finest airframes in the USMC inventory.

F-35B's?

We scarcely have enough trained pilots for the ones we have.

Also those I suspect will be held in storage by the USMC to replace their early Bs that are beyond worth upgrading. A bit like we did with the newest Typhoons.

USMC keeping them in storage is a valid point, trained pilots less so as we will need to get more F-35B regardless so it's not like pilots won't already be an issue.

[SD67]

With a per-unit cost of $32 million, the CH-47F Block II is also far more affordable in terms of initial acquisition compared to the CH-53K, which has a flyaway cost of $91.6 million per aircraft.

How does a CH47 per unit cost of 32 million USD translate into a program cost of 2.3 billion GBP for 14. Support? Support needs in the first 2 years should be minimal. I am very cynical about "marketing brochure prices", particularly from the US majors. P8 and JLTV come to mind.

[Jensy]

With a per-unit cost of $32 million, the CH-47F Block II is also far more affordable in terms of initial acquisition compared to the CH-53K, which has a flyaway cost of $91.6 million per aircraft.

How does a CH47 per unit cost of 32 million USD translate into a program cost of 2.3 billion GBP for 14. Support? Support needs in the first 2 years should be minimal. I am very cynical about "marketing brochure prices", particularly from the US majors. P8 and JLTV come to mind.

I'm frankly stumped on that too. Even with all the bells and whistles, inflation and currency fluctuation it seems ridiculously high. As too does the German order.

Going back to the CH-53K, this is what Israel got for $3.4bn (c.£2.7bn) in 2021:

eighteen (18) CH-53K Heavy Lift Helicopters; up to
sixty (60) T408-GE-400 Engines (54 installed, 6 spares); and up to thirty-six (36) Embedded Global
Positioning System/Inertial Navigation Systems (EGI) with Selective Availability/Anti-Spoofing Module
(SAASM). Also included is communication equipment; GAU-21 .50 caliber Machine Guns; Mission
Planning System; facilities study, design and construction; spare and repair parts; support and test equipment;
publications and technical documentation; aircrew and maintenance training; U.S. Government and contractor
engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program
support. The total estimated cost is $3.4 billion.

[SD67]

I like Israel's deal

18 Helicopters twice the size, presumably fully marinized

[SW1]

https://x.com/key2med/status/1702049508 ... q02bHexwZA

3 RAF Chinook HC6 helicopters arrived this evening at #Gibraltar from RAF Odiham on their way to Morocco to assist in disaster relief efforts after the devastating earthquake in Central/South Morocco last week

[bobp]

14 extended range chinooks on order...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/capa ... w-chinooks

[tomuk]

14 extended range chinooks on order...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/capa ... w-chinooks

No cost for the 14 Chinooks quoted just a £300m discount and £150m of UK industrial gains.

[bobp]

14 extended range chinooks on order...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/capa ... w-chinooks

No cost for the 14 Chinooks quoted just a £300m discount and £150m of UK industrial gains.

2.3 billion before discount I believe.

[tomuk]

14 extended range chinooks on order...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/capa ... w-chinooks

No cost for the 14 Chinooks quoted just a £300m discount and £150m of UK industrial gains.

2.3 billion before discount I believe.

Yes I understood it to be about that but odd that the press realise doesn't mention a 2 billion investment in our warfighters as the Americans would say but majors on £450m of savings\industrial gains.

[bobp]

This is the resurrection of a old contract that was cancelled by the previous Defence Secretary as being too costly or unaffordable at the time. Been going on for a few years.