Chinook Mk.6; a good choice?

Pingu

New Member
So, the UK MoD has given the go ahead for the purchase of 14 new Chinooks to be designated the Mk.6 and to arrive in 2016.

The problem I have with the procurement is that the very reason it has been procured will not be met by the Chinooks. I believe the reason the MoD under the labour government initiated the idea was to bow to the newspapers glamourisation of the iconic Chinook amidst accusations of poor helicopter availability. And as for the current government, well they wouldn't want to be seen cancelling would they? As it happens though, they will enter service after the planned 2014 Afganistan withdrawal.

While older chinooks are being upgraded to a fairly common standard, there will still be many sub-fleets of chinooks; the Mk2 and Mk2A will become the Mk4 and Mk4A respectively and the Mk3 will become the Mk5 and added to this will be the new Mk6. The specifications of these will still differ quite considerably and the age even more so. What happens 20 years down the line when we have half a fleet of ageing helicopters in need of replacement while half are too new to justify replacing the entire type.

I also question whether there is a real need for any more Chinooks when the Julius upgrade as well as the introduction of the Mk5 will considerably increase the availability of the whole Chinook fleet. The aim is ultimately to get more Chinooks into the front line and I don't see how 14 new helicopters will translate into a proportional increase in availability. I worry that the RAF will not have enough trained pilots to make full use of the additional helicopters.

Now, it may seem like I am against the idea of investing in helicopter numbers but I am not. I am just wondering if the money would be better spent elsewhere. My proposal would be to procure the CH53K. The main reason I recommend this is the fact that it is "marinised" and the Chinook is not. It also has a greater payload which is becoming inceasing more important as vehicle weight continues to grow. Another reason is that if the CH53K was procured, it would be of a single specification and of a consitent age throughout the fleet.

Now, the downsides to this are that the initial capital costs would be high and we would have to wait a little longer before it could be introduced. The Julius project however, would be a sufficient stop gap. It could be argued that keeping the Chinook is better in that it takes full advantage of the existing support already available for it as well as the large amount of skilled pilots. The CH53K would cost more in terms of capital costs, and a lot to set up new training and support but I believe it would be worthwhile. I wonder how much the life of the Mk2 and Mk2As will be extended by their upgrades and how soon they will need replacing. The point being, they could have just been replaced pre-2020.

If the CH53K were to be procured, then it may be wise to cancel Julius. It would make little sense to upgrade something destined for replacement within 10 years and the money saved, could help the CH53K buy. The deficit of losing Julius would be mitigated by the introduction of the Mk5s.

The reason I am in favour of having more marinised airframes is that as the UKs frontline is reduced, co-operation and flexibility between services is more important. We could effectively have an entire main helicopter fleet able to operate at sea as and when necessary and would be true to the benefits of the formation of the JHF. CH53K, an upgraded 'marinised' Merlin (HC4/4A?), the Wildcat and the Apache would make a very flexible all 'marinised' fleet.

While I am at it, I would like to see the Wildcat as a true single variant with 'swappable' modules rather than two variants with a lot of commonality. The reason for this is that I believe that certain systems such as optical sensors and an updated Brimstone would work well in both roles and the whole fleet could be tailored as necessary to requirements. I also don't quite see the need for a dedicated naval fleet of Wildcats in light of a shrinking surface fleet and 30 Merlin HM.2s. A modular, single type could be re-roled as an when required to bolster the Merlin's ASW/ASuW role.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
So, the UK MoD has given the go ahead for the purchase of 14 new Chinooks to be designated the Mk.6 and to arrive in 2016.

The problem I have with the procurement is that the very reason it has been procured will not be met by the Chinooks. I believe the reason the MoD under the labour government initiated the idea was to bow to the newspapers glamourisation of the iconic Chinook amidst accusations of poor helicopter availability. And as for the current government, well they wouldn't want to be seen cancelling would they? As it happens though, they will enter service after the planned 2014 Afganistan withdrawal.

While older chinooks are being upgraded to a fairly common standard, there will still be many sub-fleets of chinooks; the Mk2 and Mk2A will become the Mk4 and Mk4A respectively and the Mk3 will become the Mk5 and added to this will be the new Mk6. The specifications of these will still differ quite considerably and the age even more so. What happens 20 years down the line when we have half a fleet of ageing helicopters in need of replacement while half are too new to justify replacing the entire type.

I also question whether there is a real need for any more Chinooks when the Julius upgrade as well as the introduction of the Mk5 will considerably increase the availability of the whole Chinook fleet. The aim is ultimately to get more Chinooks into the front line and I don't see how 14 new helicopters will translate into a proportional increase in availability. I worry that the RAF will not have enough trained pilots to make full use of the additional helicopters.

Now, it may seem like I am against the idea of investing in helicopter numbers but I am not. I am just wondering if the money would be better spent elsewhere. My proposal would be to procure the CH53K. The main reason I recommend this is the fact that it is "marinised" and the Chinook is not. It also has a greater payload which is becoming inceasing more important as vehicle weight continues to grow. Another reason is that if the CH53K was procured, it would be of a single specification and of a consitent age throughout the fleet.

Now, the downsides to this are that the initial capital costs would be high and we would have to wait a little longer before it could be introduced. The Julius project however, would be a sufficient stop gap. It could be argued that keeping the Chinook is better in that it takes full advantage of the existing support already available for it as well as the large amount of skilled pilots. The CH53K would cost more in terms of capital costs, and a lot to set up new training and support but I believe it would be worthwhile. I wonder how much the life of the Mk2 and Mk2As will be extended by their upgrades and how soon they will need replacing. The point being, they could have just been replaced pre-2020.

If the CH53K were to be procured, then it may be wise to cancel Julius. It would make little sense to upgrade something destined for replacement within 10 years and the money saved, could help the CH53K buy. The deficit of losing Julius would be mitigated by the introduction of the Mk5s.

The reason I am in favour of having more marinised airframes is that as the UKs frontline is reduced, co-operation and flexibility between services is more important. We could effectively have an entire main helicopter fleet able to operate at sea as and when necessary and would be true to the benefits of the formation of the JHF. CH53K, an upgraded 'marinised' Merlin (HC4/4A?), the Wildcat and the Apache would make a very flexible all 'marinised' fleet.

While I am at it, I would like to see the Wildcat as a true single variant with 'swappable' modules rather than two variants with a lot of commonality. The reason for this is that I believe that certain systems such as optical sensors and an updated Brimstone would work well in both roles and the whole fleet could be tailored as necessary to requirements. I also don't quite see the need for a dedicated naval fleet of Wildcats in light of a shrinking surface fleet and 30 Merlin HM.2s. A modular, single type could be re-roled as an when required to bolster the Merlin's ASW/ASuW role.
Even though the MK6 (CH-47F + UK spec'd kit) will not be ready in time for Afghanistan, the experience of using Chinook in theatre has impacted the decision to bring the total number of new and upgraded airframes to 60, which along with the upgraded Puma (SF's favourite) will become the backbone of the army's lift (flown by the RAF), primarily in support of the UK's rapid response formation - 16 Air Assault Brigade. Short of investing in tilt-rotor Chinook offers the next best thing for moving men and equipment (including 105mm's) around the battlefield.

With 3 Commando supposedly getting all the Merlin's, leaving the RAF operating just Chinook and Puma, I suspect the latter considered marinisation a low priority other than having the option to have fold-in rotors (as with Apache). The cost of marinisation might have impacted the fit-out of other must have pieces of kit the RAF deemed as being more of a priority based on likely operational commitments. I would like to see the difference in price between a marinised and non-marinised MK6 equivalent .

I do agree in an ideal world that all helicopters under JHF should be marinised as standard, however the cost may simply prove too much. Wildcat, whether operated by AAC or Navy will come marinised, which is a sensible move. Chinook will spend time at sea aboard the new QE class, but how many and how often we will have to wait and see. More likely to see ASW and troop carrying Merlin.

Having a large Chinook fleet takes some of the strain of the C130's for shorter in-theatre supply flights. The UK doesn't have the funds to invest in C-27J, so it will have to rely on Chinook and a dwindling fleet of C130's until A400 becomes a reality.
 
Last edited:

colay

New Member
So, the UK MoD has given the go ahead for the purchase of 14 new Chinooks to be designated the Mk.6 and to arrive in 2016.

The problem I have with the procurement is that the very reason it has been procured will not be met by the Chinooks. I believe the reason the MoD under the labour government initiated the idea was to bow to the newspapers glamourisation of the iconic Chinook amidst accusations of poor helicopter availability. And as for the current government, well they wouldn't want to be seen cancelling would they? As it happens though, they will enter service after the planned 2014 Afganistan withdrawal.

While older chinooks are being upgraded to a fairly common standard, there will still be many sub-fleets of chinooks; the Mk2 and Mk2A will become the Mk4 and Mk4A respectively and the Mk3 will become the Mk5 and added to this will be the new Mk6. The specifications of these will still differ quite considerably and the age even more so. What happens 20 years down the line when we have half a fleet of ageing helicopters in need of replacement while half are too new to justify replacing the entire type.

I also question whether there is a real need for any more Chinooks when the Julius upgrade as well as the introduction of the Mk5 will considerably increase the availability of the whole Chinook fleet. The aim is ultimately to get more Chinooks into the front line and I don't see how 14 new helicopters will translate into a proportional increase in availability. I worry that the RAF will not have enough trained pilots to make full use of the additional helicopters.

Now, it may seem like I am against the idea of investing in helicopter numbers but I am not. I am just wondering if the money would be better spent elsewhere. My proposal would be to procure the CH53K. The main reason I recommend this is the fact that it is "marinised" and the Chinook is not. It also has a greater payload which is becoming inceasing more important as vehicle weight continues to grow. Another reason is that if the CH53K was procured, it would be of a single specification and of a consitent age throughout the fleet.

Now, the downsides to this are that the initial capital costs would be high and we would have to wait a little longer before it could be introduced. The Julius project however, would be a sufficient stop gap. It could be argued that keeping the Chinook is better in that it takes full advantage of the existing support already available for it as well as the large amount of skilled pilots. The CH53K would cost more in terms of capital costs, and a lot to set up new training and support but I believe it would be worthwhile. I wonder how much the life of the Mk2 and Mk2As will be extended by their upgrades and how soon they will need replacing. The point being, they could have just been replaced pre-2020.

If the CH53K were to be procured, then it may be wise to cancel Julius. It would make little sense to upgrade something destined for replacement within 10 years and the money saved, could help the CH53K buy. The deficit of losing Julius would be mitigated by the introduction of the Mk5s.

The reason I am in favour of having more marinised airframes is that as the UKs frontline is reduced, co-operation and flexibility between services is more important. We could effectively have an entire main helicopter fleet able to operate at sea as and when necessary and would be true to the benefits of the formation of the JHF. CH53K, an upgraded 'marinised' Merlin (HC4/4A?), the Wildcat and the Apache would make a very flexible all 'marinised' fleet.

While I am at it, I would like to see the Wildcat as a true single variant with 'swappable' modules rather than two variants with a lot of commonality. The reason for this is that I believe that certain systems such as optical sensors and an updated Brimstone would work well in both roles and the whole fleet could be tailored as necessary to requirements. I also don't quite see the need for a dedicated naval fleet of Wildcats in light of a shrinking surface fleet and 30 Merlin HM.2s. A modular, single type could be re-roled as an when required to bolster the Merlin's ASW/ASuW role.

Just some thoughts on the matter..
If your concern is finding additional pilots for the new Chinooks, then it would be an even bigger concern for a CH53 acquisition, wouldn't it?
The logistics train to support the new Chinooks already exists.
If at some point in the future you have to retire the older Chinooks, then that's the time perhaps to look at another helo.. Its sensible to phase in a new model gradually with your legacy fleet of Mk6s to fall back on just in case the new kit experiencing teething problems. but who knows, there may be a futurized Chinook version available by that time too..Mk7 anyone?
 

Pingu

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
Just some thoughts on the matter..
If your concern is finding additional pilots for the new Chinooks, then it would be an even bigger concern for a CH53 acquisition, wouldn't it?
The logistics train to support the new Chinooks already exists.
If at some point in the future you have to retire the older Chinooks, then that's the time perhaps to look at another helo.. Its sensible to phase in a new model gradually with your legacy fleet of Mk6s to fall back on just in case the new kit experiencing teething problems. but who knows, there may be a futurized Chinook version available by that time too..Mk7 anyone?
Had I not addressed the issue of a higher training burden and support infrasttucture for the CH53K? Yes, it is better to phase things in and out gradually, which is why sooner rather than later would be better, given that the age between the airframes will be up to 40 years apart.
 
Top