UK Defence Forum

I can't see an assault gunship ever being produced for the Chinook in this day and age. Apache largely filled that role post Vietnam and in the future it's bound to be replaced by an autonomous UAV that can loiter and provide close air support

Lord Jim wrote:I wonder given the increased engine power of current and future Chinooks whether the ides of an Assault Gunship Chinook might resurface? The main issue of the platform developed during the Vietnam War was the lack of engine power to cope with the weight of the weapon systems fitted.

I can't see why we'd turn our transporter into a gunship? Surely separate platforms are needed for top cover when settling down, and Apache and Wildcat provide that?

I'd rather see an AC-130 than an ACH-47 join the fleet

Little J wrote:I'd rather see an AC-130 than an ACH-47 join the fleet

C-27 would be my choice! But then I'd replace the whole C130 fleet with them.

RunningStrong wrote:

Little J wrote:I'd rather see an AC-130 than an ACH-47 join the fleet

C-27 would be my choice! But then I'd replace the whole C130 fleet with them.

Agreed. That or the new Brazilian job. Though you'll never see a gunship version of that.

Well the Israelis have armed their CH-53s for fore support for long range missions using Spike NLOS amongst other things. As a fantasy project a ACH-47 could be armed with two door mounted M2 .50cal HMG and a 7.6smm Gatling at the rear. Fixes weapons could be six Brimstone and two pods of CVR-7 Rockets. The weight shouldn't be an issue but my calculations have been of the "Back of a fag packet", variety. Add a Day/Night EO turret under the nose and ensure all gunners have binocular NVGs, and the helicopter could still carry a SF team as well as escorting and providing fire support of more traditionally equipped SF orientated Chinooks. Adding AAR probes to work with tanker/SF support versions of the Atlas and the RAF would be providing serious support to our SF community. Just a fantasy though.

By the way has anyone seen anything anywhere about fitting a AAR probe to an Apache?

Lord Jim wrote: The main issue of the platform developed during the Vietnam War was the lack of engine power

Also the small issue that they were all lost (or is there one in a museum)?

They have rebuilt one based one that actually flew in Vietnam. The crews actually liked them, but they were slower than the helicopters they were to escort, the reverse of today, and their fire control system was simply the Mk1 Eye Ball. Increased speed as well as increased protection and greatly improved FCS could make such a platform viable if unlikely.

Well Deserved retirement Bravo November

https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/cosford/wh ... o-cosford/

End of an era

Ianmb17 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 19:10 End of an era

Brilliant the museum is just 15miles from me.

Looking good in new home

Ianmb17 wrote: ↑23 Mar 2022, 23:12 Looking good in new home

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... k-chinooks

(Forces News) 10th April 2022

A ‘celebrity chinook’ has gone on display at the RAF Museum in Cosford after 40 years of service.

Many regard Bravo November as the country’s most famous helicopter.

She was one of the first chinooks to enter service when they were introduced into the force, was the only one to survive conflict in the Falklands and has served in every conflict since.

In tomorrow's Sunday Times (£):

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/1d7c ... 0d4cf1282c

The former defence secretary issued the warning directly to his counterpart in the Pentagon last month before an agreed position had been reached among ministers back in London.

It can now be disclosed that Wallace, 53, spent his final weeks in office pushing to cancel the deal, worth billions, to buy military helicopters for UK special forces.

UK sources said that in recent weeks Wallace began to express serious misgivings about the deal. During internal discussions, he proposed cancelling it as part of a cost-cutting exercise to relieve pressure on the MoD’s tight budgets.

Sources close to Wallace said he had tried to cancel the project during the last spending review, but had been assured that delaying it would produce savings of close to £200 million. The costs have since ballooned, rising by approximately £500 million to about £2.3 billion.

Wallace has argued that he could buy two Airbus A400M Atlas transport aircraft for £500 million. The UK’s 60-strong Chinook fleet costs approximately £14,000 an hour to run, a source said.

The logic seems sound with such a ridiculous increase in cost and especially considering the relative lack of other platforms...

Now, who was it who ordered these in 2021....?

https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/1- ... ook-fleet/

OK he ordered them but really if the costs go out of control he's entitled to cancel and Boeings reaction sounds way OTT. It's 14 helicopters FGS

Boeing are in a death spiral IMHO. The 737MAX saga, 777x delays, botched takeover of Embraer, no new Medium Airliner, many ex-MD defence programs running down, 787 actually went out of production for a year. Theyre taking the proverbial on military pricing to cover losses elsewhere

£1.4bn was never pocket change.

Wallace overestimated his ability to have the defence budget increased under Johnson, despite it being obvious that Sunak was always opposed.

£2.3bn ??? That is complete insanity.

Considering how tight the margins currently are spending the equivalent of a Warrior replacement programme, the complete replacement of the Amphibious fleet or another 6x T31 Frigates on 14x Chinooks is simply unjustifiable.

Something must have been lost in translation.

Given these are the SF version of chinook with a couple of years support the figure is at least plausible if you look at the German chinook purchase cost which were the basic versions.

You probably have a couple of years worth of inflation and probably a ~25% move the wrong way in currency since that was first proposed.

Right to be questioned in light of everything. It’s really where you choose to invest and what your priorities are.

SW1 wrote: ↑04 Sep 2023, 13:42 Given these are the SF version of chinook with a couple of years support the figure is at least plausible if you look at the German chinook purchase cost which were the basic versions.

You probably have a couple of years worth of inflation and probably a ~25% move the wrong way in currency since that was first proposed.

Right to be questioned in light of everything. It’s really where you choose to invest and what your priorities are.

There's a big difference between Germany setting up shop for a brand new platform that replaces their established CH-53 fleet, versus us purchasing a follow on order to something we've operated variants of since 1980. A few years support included or otherwise.

Though the numbers are big, the point is that this is one of the few major new investments that wasn't previously part of the equipment plan.

It is a U-turn, and an embarrassing one if it has caused diplomatic friction with our most important and powerful ally. Admittedly small in the grand scheme of MoD incompetency but we are far from flush with funds to throw away on luxuries.

Even if we managed to cancel the order (which I've heard rumours we will be doing regardless) I'd very much like to know how much money has been wasted, or lost to contract terms.

Lastly, how much of a spec-ops fit are they intended to have, beyond the long range tanks? They've been referred to as H-47ER rather than CH-47F, as the Germans have bought. Are they intended to be fitted with AAR probes, or even the proposed powerplant planned for 2025? Is that why the ISD was so distant? I could understand some of the cost in that case.

Jensy wrote: ↑04 Sep 2023, 14:24

SW1 wrote: ↑04 Sep 2023, 13:42 Given these are the SF version of chinook with a couple of years support the figure is at least plausible if you look at the German chinook purchase cost which were the basic versions.

You probably have a couple of years worth of inflation and probably a ~25% move the wrong way in currency since that was first proposed.

Right to be questioned in light of everything. It’s really where you choose to invest and what your priorities are.

There's a big difference between Germany setting up shop for a brand new platform that replaces their established CH-53 fleet, versus us purchasing a follow on order to something we've operated variants of since 1980. A few years support included or otherwise.

Though the numbers are big, the point is that this is one of the few major new investments that wasn't previously part of the equipment plan.

It is a U-turn, and an embarrassing one if it has caused diplomatic friction with our most important and powerful ally. Admittedly small in the grand scheme of MoD incompetency but we are far from flush with funds to throw away on luxuries.

Even if we managed to cancel the order (which I've heard rumours we will be doing regardless) I'd very much like to know how much money has been wasted, or lost to contract terms.

Lastly, how much of a spec-ops fit are they intended to have, beyond the long range tanks? They've been referred to as H-47ER rather than CH-47F, as the Germans have bought. Are they intended to be fitted with AAR probes, or even the proposed powerplant planned for 2025? Is that why the ISD was so distant? I could understand some of the cost in that case.

Defence projects get cancelled, deferred, amended all the time, it is the nature of the beast. Compared to the maddening hoops Boeing are likely jumping through right now trying to sell F18s to India we're kittens. They need to told to stop whingeing and put their big boy pants on.

SD67 wrote: ↑04 Sep 2023, 14:57 Defence projects get cancelled, deferred, amended all the time, it is the nature of the beast. Compared to the maddening hoops Boeing are likely jumping through right now trying to sell F18s to India we're kittens. They need to told to stop whingeing and put their big boy pants on.

As you said yourself upthread, they're desperate at the moment.

Decades of preferential treatment have made Boeing see us a 'sure thing'. Heck we don't even run competitions when they're involved (AH-64E/E-7/P-8/never ending supply of Chinook).

Even after the C-Series fiasco, we kept coming back for more. I was almost shocked when they pulled out of being a prime for NMH.

Though from what's been reported, it sounds like the US were more frustrated with the way in which Wallace went about trying to cancel the aircraft (not using the proper diplomatic channels) than the cancellation itself.

Jensy wrote: ↑04 Sep 2023, 14:24

SW1 wrote: ↑04 Sep 2023, 13:42 Given these are the SF version of chinook with a couple of years support the figure is at least plausible if you look at the German chinook purchase cost which were the basic versions.

You probably have a couple of years worth of inflation and probably a ~25% move the wrong way in currency since that was first proposed.

Right to be questioned in light of everything. It’s really where you choose to invest and what your priorities are.

There's a big difference between Germany setting up shop for a brand new platform that replaces their established CH-53 fleet, versus us purchasing a follow on order to something we've operated variants of since 1980. A few years support included or otherwise.

Though the numbers are big, the point is that this is one of the few major new investments that wasn't previously part of the equipment plan.

It is a U-turn, and an embarrassing one if it has caused diplomatic friction with our most important and powerful ally. Admittedly small in the grand scheme of MoD incompetency but we are far from flush with funds to throw away on luxuries.

Even if we managed to cancel the order (which I've heard rumours we will be doing regardless) I'd very much like to know how much money has been wasted, or lost to contract terms.

Lastly, how much of a spec-ops fit are they intended to have, beyond the long range tanks? They've been referred to as H-47ER rather than CH-47F, as the Germans have bought. Are they intended to be fitted with AAR probes, or even the proposed powerplant planned for 2025? Is that why the ISD was so distant? I could understand some of the cost in that case.

There isn’t a huge difference between them, beyond any infrastructure they maybe setting up Germany it was merely a guide.

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.

There would be a significant difference in radars,
EO and ew systems and comms than the standard version.

https://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/file ... _18-40.pdf

WASHINGTON, October 19, 2018 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the United Kingdom of sixteen (16) H-47 Chinook (Extended Range) helicopters for an estimated cost of $3.5 billion. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.
The Government of United Kingdom has requested a possible sale of sixteen (16) H-47 Chinook (Extended Range) helicopters; thirty-six (36) T-55-GA-714A engines (32 installed, 4 spares); forty-eight (48) embedded GPS inertial navigation units (32 installed, 16 spares); twenty (20) common missile warning systems (16 installed, 4 spares); twenty-two (22) radio-frequency countermeasures (16 installed, 6 spares); nineteen (19) multi-mode radars (16 installed, 3 spares); nineteen (19) electro-optical sensor systems (16 installed, 3 spares); forty (40) M-134D-T mini- guns, plus mounts and tools (32 installed, 8 spares); and forty (40) M240H machine guns, plus mounts and tools (32 installed, 8 spares). This sale also includes communications equipment; navigation equipment; aircraft survivability equipment; initial training equipment and services; synthetic training equipment; support package including spares and repair parts; special tools and test equipment; aviation ground support equipment; safety and air worthiness certification; technical support; maintenance support; technical and aircrew publications; mission planning system equipment and support; and, project management and governance; U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistic and program support.

Total estimated cost is $3.5 billion.

SW1 wrote: ↑04 Sep 2023, 15:35 The US has been rather hostile under dopy Biden and has done more damage to relations probably since Grenada.

Way OT but it will be illuminating to see how hard they try to repair this after next years election.