Boeing Chinook (RAF)
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
............
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
Small world arfah, i too saw that that Chinook whilst driving home Southend bound on the 127.
Phil R
Phil R
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
Small world indeed
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
- Engaging Strategy
- Member
- Posts: 775
- Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
- Contact:
Navalised Chinook
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?
Last edited by The Armchair Soldier on 13 Jan 2016, 23:39, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Thread merged with the existing Chinook thread. The off topic replies have been removed.
Reason: Thread merged with the existing Chinook thread. The off topic replies have been removed.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Navalised Chinook
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.
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.
@LandSharkUK
- Engaging Strategy
- Member
- Posts: 775
- Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
- Contact:
Re: Navalised Chinook
Clearly someone's been investigating the idea. Looks like a paper project but shows there is interest.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
Re: Navalised Chinook
Great machine for a number of roles, but with a price to match aswell.arfah wrote:Pointless thread is pointless.
Masturbate over this instead.
http://www.sikorsky.com/Pages/Products/ ... CH53K.aspx
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
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
............
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
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.
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)
Yep that's true not sure if it effects Chinook in windy conditions, but for the ADF MRH Taipain had similer trouble.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.
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.
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
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.
Would not be surprised if Chinook had similar issue, although i don't know for sure.
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
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
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 clientEngaging 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?
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?
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)
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
............
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
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)
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)
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)
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
............
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
............
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
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?
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?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
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.
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
I thought I had seen photo's of UK Merlins with refueling probes*. Maybe mistaken.
*probably on Gabrieles excellent blog
*probably on Gabrieles excellent blog
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
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.
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.
The probes are part of the package.Am I correct in thinking that the new Italian CSAR Merlins are coming with the option of refuelling probes as well?
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.
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)
Very sexy too ....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.
The probes are part of the package.Am I correct in thinking that the new Italian CSAR Merlins are coming with the option of refuelling probes as well?
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.
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
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
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
This CSAR version is only marginally less fighty:
http://m.jjang0u.com/chalkadak/view?db= ... 9&no=13477
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)
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
If the Italians can do that with the Merlin then what are we faffing around for
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
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?
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?
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)
Re: Boeing Chinook (RAF)
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.