By: flanker30 - 8th February 2011 at 22:51
With the current government, they’ll probably just cancel the contract and tell stranded mariners they’re on their own.
“Mayday, Mayday, Mayday…….”
“This is the Coastguard. Before we respond to your Mayday call, please advise whether you will be paying by Visa or Mastercard…”
By: benroethig - 8th February 2011 at 20:37
With the current government, they’ll probably just cancel the contract and tell stranded mariners they’re on their own.
By: Fedaykin - 8th February 2011 at 20:32
Truly excellent news!
So Fleetlands do what they are so good at and keep the Sea Kings going for a few more years! No big deal!
Lets hope they drop the PFI nonsense and do a proper tender for a helicopter to be inducted into the RN and RAF for SAR. The National Audit Office have already slammed PFI as a total waste when it comes to military procurement when looked at on the long term!
Oh and in respect of the article I do hate agreeing with that Marxist Cretin Bob Crow!
By: jbritchford - 8th February 2011 at 09:53
The bidding process has been halted, looks like the Sea Kings have earned a reprieve 🙂
By: flanker30 - 28th January 2011 at 10:54
Exclusive: Military police investigate ÂŁ6bn privatisation deal
January 27, 2011 7:41 pm by Alex Barker
Military police have been called in to examine allegations of improper conduct during bidding for the ÂŁ6bn privatisation of the search and rescue helicopter service. It has brought the deal to the brink of collapse…. The main elements are:
– MoD police are investigating the access to information given to bidders and the relationship between a military officer, who has since left the forces, and CHC, a Canadian helicopter operator that is part of the Soteria consortium chosen as preferred bidder.
– Royal Bank of Scotland have pulled out of the Soteria consortium because their concerns over the allegations. It will make it much harder for the deal to be revived, even if the concerns over improper conduct prove to be unfounded…..
So maybe the SAR Sea Kings at least will be around for a few years more.
By: nocutstoRAF - 26th January 2011 at 13:15
Are all the discussions of 12 out of 22 Chinook’s about additional numbers above an additional 14?
Answering my own post is likely the first sign of madness, but after a lot of research I am shocked to conclude that Flight Global made a mistake, the author of the article obviously got confused by the 12 new Chinook’s that are meant to be on order from 2009 and the previous order for 14 which has now been completed (and includes the 8 Chinook’s rebuilt to factory specifications as we could not certify their airworthiness).
Any more news on the Sea King’s retirement or the SAR-H programme?
By: Grey Area - 25th January 2011 at 19:16
Moderator Message
It would be nice if you could stay vaguely on-topic, chaps.
This thread has been whizzing about all over the place, as witnessed by the number of recent deleted postings!
No more, please.
GA
By: nocutstoRAF - 25th January 2011 at 19:11
I know that this is a thread about Sea King’s not Chinook’s was reading the Flight Global story on Project Julius and at the tail end is reference to 14 Chinook’s under contract – is this correct? Are all the discussions of 12 out of 22 Chinook’s about additional numbers above an additional 14?
By: nocutstoRAF - 25th January 2011 at 13:31
The JULIUS upgrade of the Chinook to HC4 standard is definitely safe, i think.
I think I may have not be clear in my points – I think JULIUS upgrade is safe, but as it going to cost a good chunk of money over the next 4 -5 years I cannot see them paying to upgrade 46 Chinook’s and buying another 12, it seems like to big a expenditure, especially if they are downsizing the army after Afghanistan.
Question, how much is true i.e. is there a gap between what is being saved and what was expected? They may get the nature of the cuts wrong, but I for one wouldn’t be surprised if more did come along.
I am sure there is no doubt that some of the cuts where a bit hazy in the SDSR so that now we are having to cut further than expected to make budget’s balance, but if you take all of the recent Telegraph stories we are apparently going to end up with 50 tanks, 200 odd Warriors which will not be upgraded until the end of the decade, no FRES SV or FRES Utility, many other army vehicles deleted or mothballs, 60 Tornado’s, reduced surface fleet and a massive drop in helicopter numbers.
By: Liger30 - 25th January 2011 at 08:56
The JULIUS upgrade of the Chinook to HC4 standard is definitely safe, i think. The first upgraded helicopter made the first flight in these last few days, and by 2015 the whole fleet will be updated, with common cockpit, engines and stuff, with obvious performance, cost and commonality advantages.
The cut is, eventually, cancel the order for the 12 additional HC6 Chinook, that are already been saved from an order of 22, as you know.
rumours floating around that both Sea King for SAR and Sea King MaSC are going to get life extended to take them into the next decade.
Never heard those, but i will trust your word. However, i see far more likely an update, eventually, of SAR and HC4 Sea Kings, if that is a viable possibility.
I think that, without aircract carrier until 2020 at the earlier, the ASaC Sea King is too easy a cut not to be made as soon as the need for them in Stan’ fades out.
So long as the Marines are not left without their choppers, i can accept it. But i continue to have huge doubts on the viability of these proposals.
By: nocutstoRAF - 25th January 2011 at 08:50
Puma cancelled, 12 Chinooks confirmed (i think it would be hugely embarrassing to try and cancel the Chinook order, for obvious reasons…). Doing the opposite would be the greatest idiocy EVER.
Read the story – usual Daily Telegraph speculation, while they have about 40% success rate on guess cuts, so I do not think all the cuts will occur. I think the major driver to cutting the Chinook’s is the Chinook upgrade programme we have just started which is costing a pretty penny, combined with rumours floating around that both Sea King for SAR and Sea King MaSC are going to get life extended to take them into the next decade.
I would therefore not be surprised if they upgrade Puma and the Sea Kings, and leave the Merlin’s with the RAF to compensate for them loosing the extra Chinooks, and look to new helicopter programme around 2022 (which I would expect to be more Merlin’s).
By: LordJim - 25th January 2011 at 06:10
It would have been far better to put the Sea Kings through a major overhaul than the Pumas. They offer far better performance and would have allowed a breathing space for a proper replacement programme to be sorted out for around 2020, by which time funding may have been available for new build navalised Merlin HC3s for both he RAF and RN replacingboth the Sea King and incresing the RAF fleet, togther greatly improving the UKs helicopter capability.
By: Fedaykin - 24th January 2011 at 13:25
If you replace the rotor, gearbox, wiring, avionics, cockpit & engines, you’re not far off a bare metal gutting – but you’re doing it to 30-40 year old aircraft, out of production for many years, being withdrawn from service around the world, instead of modern aircraft, still in production & selling & with an expanding support system.
Ahhh but we are not talking the whole fleet and many are newer then 30-40 years old. Actually the last Westland Sea King was built during 1990.
I personally think at least the SAR Sea King fleet should be retained and upgraded rather then the PFI nonsense.
Also the Sea King has a very old school over engineered airfame, certainly tougher then the Merlins. As I said the airframe is not the major stress component in a helicopter, with a strip down and rebuild there is no reason why they could operate for many more years. This is why there is such a thriving market for overhauled/remanufactured secondhand helicopters.
By: nocutstoRAF - 24th January 2011 at 13:03
In terms for value for money and risks then IMO that an upgrade of the Sea King’s is the best way forward.
It is low risk as they have already, via UOR developed special Carson blades for the Sea Kings and a new tail rotor, and Carson Helicopters have done the hard work on the replacement engines and everything is off the shelf.
Therefore the sensible option would be to bin the Puma upgrade, leave the Merlin’s as is and upgrade Sea King, as it looks to me that converting the Merlin’s would be more expensive and higher risk.
However factors against this are as follows:
By: swerve - 24th January 2011 at 10:16
Marinization of HC3 will involve pretty much a bare metal gutting of the helicopter plus replacement of significant systems with ones that are suitable for use at sea.
Sea King is already marinized and there are upgrade packages already in place.
The work involved to upgrade Sea King is pretty much bread and butter work for Fleetlands:
Rotor
Gearbox
wiring
avionics
cockpit
enginesAll been done before and not exactly anything to lose sleep over. As for sensors well take it or leave it really but again not a big deal!
If you replace the rotor, gearbox, wiring, avionics, cockpit & engines, you’re not far off a bare metal gutting – but you’re doing it to 30-40 year old aircraft, out of production for many years, being withdrawn from service around the world, instead of modern aircraft, still in production & selling & with an expanding support system.
By: Liger30 - 24th January 2011 at 08:15
why will there be so much space on the CVFs? Oh that another arguement!
Because the RAF is trying, with large success, of robbing the navy of all rights and ownership on the carrier aircrafts, with the valiant help of successive, demented governments.
I agree that reworking the existing Sea Kings does make a lot of sense whilst the proposed HC3 conversion seems to be shaping up to be a disaster waiting to happen. The plan is probably to only deploy them when actually needed so the bare minimum of alteration swill be carried out as the platforms will go into deep maintenance after the deployment has finished. Another case of save a bit now and spend a lot later.
That might be true, but only if the RAF has its way: that is what the junior service is advocating for, in order not to lose anything to the Navy’s advantage.
Luckily, a letter of David Cameron himself to a PM in the last month confirmed that the plan is to modify and transfer 25 Merlin HC3 to the Fleet Air Arm.
As to the “bargain” of the Sea King upgrade, i struggle to see the real advantage of:
Changing engines. Both Sea King and Merlin likely will require it, so why do it on Sea King?
Changing wiring. Changing the wiring on the Sea King has any chance of really being cheaper than changing the wiring of the Merlin…?
Changing cockpit. Again, what would be the advantage of doing it on Sea King and not on Merlin…? Especially when the Merlin can be kitted with the same cockpit of the HM2 with obvious commonality advantages?
Keeping in service a reduced fleet of Sea Kings and all the logistics. Advantageous? No, definitely no, compared to closing a whole fleet line, while concentrating all Merlins, their training and logistics in Culdrose. There’s already the Puma staying in line with 20 helicopters without even a clear mission destined for them, with the cost of training crews, ground crew, and all the logistic tail.
Besides, we already know that the target is a “two-platforms” flying line for all services.
The RAF wanted the Puma and the Chinooks. Fine, that’s two. The Army gets Wildcat and Apache, the Navy the Merlins and Wildcat. It is actually logical.
Without considering the Performances:
Sea King HC4
Range: 396 km / 640 km
Payload: 24 soldiers (up to 27)
Underslung load 2.4 tons
Max speed: 125 knots
Merlin HC3
Range: 927 to 1389 km
Payload:
* 24 seated troops or
* 45 standing troops or
* 16 stretchers with medics
Useful load: 5,443 kg (12,000 lb)
Underslung load of up to 4100 kg
Max Speed: 167 knots
Merlin HC3 entered service in 2001. The Sea King first flew in 1969, and is progressively being retired from service, in all its variants, all around the world.
I definitely do not see the bargain of keeping the Sea King. Quite the opposite, actually.
By: LordJim - 24th January 2011 at 04:23
And why will there be so much space on the CVFs? Oh that another arguement!
I agree that reworking the existing Sea Kings does make a lot of sense whilst the proposed HC3 conversion seems to be shaping up to be a disaster waiting to happen. The plan is probably to only deploy them when actually needed so the bare minimum of alteration swill be carried out as the platforms will go into deep maintenance after the deployment has finished. Another case of save a bit now and spend a lot later.
The MoD will have to be watched closely post Afghanistan. Do not be surprised if Helicopter numbers begin to fall as Depth Maintenance is cut and worn out platforms not brought back into service or replaced.
By: nocutstoRAF - 23rd January 2011 at 18:34
I am no expert but surely for the HC3 you will also need to change the rotors, and if they are doing a full life extension they will need to do the wiring, rebuild the engines and make changes to the cockpit and avionics (for example they will need to integrate cockpit aids for the ALS). Then on top of this you need to add lash points and other structural changes to allow you to stow the HC3 on Ocean.
Plus the RN Sea Kings already have Carson blades fitted (just found this out)!
By: Fedaykin - 23rd January 2011 at 18:31
Marinization of HC3 will involve pretty much a bare metal gutting of the helicopter plus replacement of significant systems with ones that are suitable for use at sea.
Sea King is already marinized and there are upgrade packages already in place.
The work involved to upgrade Sea King is pretty much bread and butter work for Fleetlands:
Rotor
Gearbox
wiring
avionics
cockpit
engines
All been done before and not exactly anything to lose sleep over. As for sensors well take it or leave it really but again not a big deal!
By: Liger30 - 23rd January 2011 at 18:16
Maybe. Or maybe no. The MOD might have showed shortcomings more than once, but i’m not willing to play engineer and go say they are wrong on the HC3 conversion by launching ideas. I expect people in the planning teams to have some more knowledge than me of the helicopter, of the industry, and of the chances to choose from.
Also because, honestly… you are proposing to change:
Rotor
Gearbox
wiring
avionics
cockpit
engines
and add in sensors.
Against a planned marinization of the HC3 that might reportedly not even involve folding-tail, seen as not indispensable since the CVF will offer lots of space anyway.
I have my doubts.
Sign In
December 17, 2010 at 11:18 am