Anyone know anything about BLUH?

[brandnew]

Anyone know anything about the whole BLUH thing? Which aircraft type / who gets what etc. Surely it's time for the Air Corps to finally get an aircraft that we can support apache / do our own thing with; without having to rely on our sideways scuttling "friends".

[BEagle]

First post and you're deliberately offensive.....

So, $od off back to your dung-filled trench!

[L J R]

.

Surprised that you even lifted a finger for a reply.

.

[whowhenwhy]

Bad form BEagle old chap, never seen you get so easily riled by one of the lower life forms! Sit back, relax and put your slippers back on:ok:

[brandnew]

My apologies,

Did not realise you were all so sensitive,

Genuinely did not mean to offend.

Have heard that some announcement should be made by DAAvn by the end of April, any more news?

[breakscrew]

Brandnew,
somebody ought to have told you - pprune military forum is only for the RAF and occasional RN posts; AAC is unwelcome, so don't expect any sensible answers, it only erupts into an unseemly slanging match.
BS

[juliet]

"A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here."

Army not welcome? RAF and FAA only? It will be soon with attitudes like that, and to the sites detriment.:*

[Forgot]

Morning,

Also a newbie, albeit one who has read a lot of PPrune for a long time. Do we know what's up with BLUH?

Cheers

Forgot

[jimgriff]

What is (a) BLUH?

[JNo]

Battlefield Light Utility Helicopter (i think)

[nosefirsteverytime]

BS, no offence, but stop talking BS! I'm sure the Great Dan would not look kindly on that kind of attitude!

[Echo 5]

BEags,

Although I agree with your sentiments I think you could have been a tad more helpful. You could have directed the poor chap to ARRSE or the AAC Pilots thread where he could have japed with like minded sorts.
Come to think of it that lot have been quiet recently.Probably still dug in, in their foxholes, after the last barrage they received.

E5.:D

[QE4]

In answer to

Anyone know anything about the whole BLUH thing? Which aircraft type / who gets what etc. Surely it's time for the Air Corps to finally get an aircraft that we can support apache / do our own thing with; without having to rely on our sideways scuttling "friends".

JDW reports (10 Mar 04) "Possible problems funding the AAC BLUH are making the MoD planners look favourably at a two type solution using the winners of the Support Amphibious Battlefield Rotorcraft (SABR) contract."

The article suggests that a mix of new Chinooks and Merlins will replace RN Sea Kings, RAF Pumas and the SAR fleet. However, it also suggests that there wont be enough money for the SAR element so it will be civilianised, suprise suprise.

[Bootneck]

Is it acceptable for a mild mannered Bootneck with a preference for Crab in sandwiches and long past his sailing days, to join in the festivities? Or should I stop taking the Prozac and return to my normal non-avuncular self?
Why do all our aircraft options, be it the TSR2 or the Typhoon, have to be multi-functional? It compromises so many aspects of design, construction and useage, with the added 'benefit' of costing us tax payers dearly.
I await my departure instructions, please note, slit trenches are never dung filled. The woods maybe, but not the trenches.
I remain Sirs your incontinent cousin.:)

[Gainesy]

Welcome aboard Royal.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Good grief:rolleyes:

"Surely it's time for the Air Corps to finally get an aircraft that we can support apache / do our own thing with; without having to rely on our sideways scuttling "friends".

Why not get AH working before you start thinking about your next "feat of ar@e":E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[brandnew]

The first AH CTT finished today. A whole Sqn. How's Eurofighter?

Back to the original question and thank you for the few sensible answers.

Are we looking at a SABR (NH90 / Blackhawk) platform or are we staring down the barrel of another Lynx?

What would most AAC pilots want?

Lots of "Super" Lynx or fewer cabs but more capable?

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

"The first AH CTT finished today":rolleyes:

As I said get it "workin" first before you start on your next, well thought out project:E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Bill O'Average]

You clearly didnt understand what he said, ABIW. CTT1 complete today. Wouldnt expect you to understand that though, being rear baggage.

Seems to be 'workin'.

From what I can gather the BLUH has been pushed back a bit. 2 year hold at least.

[SilsoeSid]

The first AH CTT finished today. A whole Sqn.
really ??


What would most AAC pilots want?
That makes no difference whatsoever.

Being present at the BLUH roadshow presentation, somewhere in Germany, sometime last millenium, the main feature of any future BLUH was that it HAD to fit inside a C-130 without too much down time once transported to theatre.
At the end question session I brought this up and made the point that this limited the choice to one type only, which just so happened to be built by a company in Yeovil.

Future usage of the C-17 was totally ignored and of course any air to air refuel possibilities with Blackhawk variants was laughted at,
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/hh-60-3-onw-s.jpg

and the question session was quickly ended before any acceptable answers were given by the team.

Anyway it was good crewroom chat for a short time, (before use of the the crewroom was time restricted!! "If youre in here you can't be working",a different subject?

Does the C-130 issue still stand?

[Tourist]

Bluh is dead. Its just a lynx with a few bits added on and no extra range or endurance. The gap between the asking price and what the MOD will pay is too large. Nobody wants it, however thats not Westlands fault, as nobody at the MOD had even considered procuring a replacement for lynx until Westlands put Bluh forward. Because Bluh is dead, Scummer will also die because the numbers without Bluh are not economical. The army will get Blackhawk, which Westlands used to have a license to build, and 847 will lose its lynx and upgrade its gazelles with a squirrel rotor head and hot missiles and Gray lynx will go I favour of either super lynx, seahawk(ok, I'm dreaming) or more Merlin.

Or possibly they will just shut down the Military and have done with it.

[brandnew]

Have heard the same as above.

If the papers were correct this morning, and Puma will go soon to be replaced by Merlin, then it makes sense for the Air Corps to increase the size, payload capability etc etc of BLUH i.e. Blackhawk / NH90 / AB139.

Also, if the Air Corps have a D model Apache and Blackhawk, we can actually work on a similar level and pace to our cousins over the water.

There's no reason why 847 could not get the armed version of Blackhawk / Seahawk, ditto 657.

If not, then is NH90 only a Maritime aircraft or can it be sensibly used on land as well? Is AB139 used by anyone yet or is it still at the prototype stage?

Did not know that Westlands had the release contract to build Blackhawk. Is that for anyone in particular, or just a useful mistake?

[SilsoeSid]

IF the first CTT has been completed as reported, then some serious issues are out there.

Akin to having a motor-race at Brands Hatch and the first 12/24 to surtees corner only have to race the Indy circuit and not the GP circuit.

:ooh:

[Archimedes]

Is there an echo? ;)

Silsoe, could you explain the analogy for the uninitiated/hard of thinking (me!), please?

[SilsoeSid]

Without aactually spelling it out

http://www.redshoes-racing.com/Trackside/BrandsHatch.gif

Indy Circuit
Circuit Length : 1.2262 miles (1.9735 km)

Grand Prix Circuit
Circuit Length : 2.62 miles (4.22 km)

[brandnew]

Took me a while to understand the analagy too. You might have a point in that "The plan will work, long live the plan" mentality could have its limits. Still, almost there.

As someone else pointed out, green Lynx still has a part to play, especially if Puma is pulled out of Ireland: merlin looks unlikely to be used in the province.

With reference to time taken to bring an aircraft into service, how long are we looking at before we have BLUH working. Two, five or ten years? (ABIW, don't feel the need to add any childish, chippy rear crew comments at this point)

Anyone any idea how long?

[Archimedes]

Silsoe,

Ah-hah!

Thank you.

[Bill O'Average]

Brandnew, 2010 if it goes ahead. A hold of 2 years for all the big MoD spending at present means the BLUH is still in limbo.


PS ABIW cant resist adding his 'witty' responses as he's looking at a future with Ryan Air as a trolley dolly once he demobs, great.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Far too old for that, wrinkled willy old fella:rolleyes:

8 years to go to 55 and if the new pension scheme delivers as promised full retirement for me and no more work:ok:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Bill O'Average]

My mistake, ABIW. I believed you to be an 18-year-old Sgt baggage handler due to your immature replies to all threads not concerning you. I stand corrected.

Having said that, you’ve still got into the mess via the back door though. You provide a worthwhile service and should be respected for that. We have RP sgts who have a similar respect in our mess too.
:8

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Oh wrinkled willy how silly do you seem to me:rolleyes:

Brief resume....joined 74 as nav inst mech....fitters course...cpl 82, sgt 86.....busted to aircrew cadet for ALM trg.......promoted back to Sgt on completion.....now FS and happy as a pig in
sh!t:ok:

Now the one thing I have learnt in my 30 year service is how to wind up "bottom feeders".........hence what you perceive as "immature replies" is nothing more than ground bait........which you seem to thrive on :E

So in conclusion as long as people take the hook I will attempt to reel them in:E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Bill O'Average]

Big chuffing deal.

I think you will find the one that has taken the bait is you, nonce. You appear to have had to justify your existence to me by posting what can be considered to be 'underachievement on a scale akin to The defence of Pearl Harbour'.

So you’ve been in 30 years and you’ve achieved the dizzy heights of FS.
".....now FS and happy as a pig in
sh!t"

And probably have the manners and hygiene values of aforementioned swine too. :hmm:

Does your annual confidential report read 'this man works well under supervision'? or 'He demonstrates leadership qualities that would make a member of Mencap look like Dave Stirling'?

You'll find it's a lonely place in civvy street for types like you.

What’s it like knowing that a 21 year old can do your job?

:D :D :D

[EmpireOne]

Ah sod it! Can't resist throwing my tuppence in!

For what it's worth (probably not that much), I attended a briefing on BLUH last year. The old S-70 vs Super Lynx was quickly raised at question time with all the compelling arguments given for the Shytalk. The presenter was, inspite of the clearly overwhelming urge to toe the party line, willing to concede the S-70 was by far a better aircraft for the job. The issue however was one of finance. In the preceding months our witless friends in the corridors of power in Whitehall had decided to divert £850 million from the Sea Harrier (Stick that in your pipe and smoke fish-heads!:D) to the BLUH project. As welcome as this funding was, it was limited in buying scope and how long the funding was available for. Essentially, presenter chap was saying that if the Army Air Corps didn't choose an acft that was within budget and able to be in service by around 2008, it would lose the funding all together. Admittedly I have precied what he said but essentially the jist was use it or lose it. Given that the S-70 unit cost was about £30mil compared to about £8.99 for Super Lynx the AAC was pretty much hamstrung into opting for Lynx.

I see now from previous posts that the funding has been delayed and therefore so has BLUH, so who knows what's going to happen. What was so frustrating at the time was that everbody in the AAC from the Director down wanted S-70 as it fits the bill perfectly. However the reality was/is that doctrine does not drive capabilty as it is supposed to (as taught at the Joint Staff and death-by-powerpoint College), pocket money does! How naive was I to ever think otherwise?

I know from first hand, that the S-70 is the best capability option for BLUH for all the reasons given by the postees above and for many more. I think that the reality however is that Army has blown its wad with WAH-64D and that if it doesn't buy Super Lynx, they're going to get the square root of sweet FA. What a sad state of affairs.:uhoh:

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Wrinkled bloke,

As i said this fishin malarcky is soo easy:E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[EmpireOne]

Gentlemen, Gentlemen, if you want to draw Mess Webleys at dawn, please do so elsewhere and lets try to keep this thread on the path of enlightenment. There's nothing more unseemly than two senior citizens baring their private parts in public:uhoh:

Now where were we?

[Bill O'Average]

Empire, totally agree.

From what I can gather, the BLUH as it stands is Lynx, driven by the need to keep Westland’s buoyant. Its not what we want as it is basically a 'cut and shut' of the existing version.

Want and need are two totally different aspects.

We need something to replace the current tired frame. We don’t have the dosh as we've just forked out on a large quantity (relatively speaking) of 'Cold war assets wrapped in a 25 year+ old airframe'. I can’t see the treasury playing ball when the AAC ask for another all singing and dancing spanking new heli. So we need a cheap alternative. Politics dictate BLUH being Lynx as it’s a rehash of what we already own. Not ideal. The newer engines are thirstier, no extra room for bigger tanks = less range. A rewrite of existing doctrine to fulfil this cab. Not exactly a leap forward.


The want.
From what I gather, if we push for S70, it steps on the toes of SHF and as they have a larger portion of the pie, it will go to them as a Puma replacement, of sorts. Result, AAC becomes a one type force (AH) = AAC need to start practicing wearing white socks in the mess and a sideways walking drill movement. That, in my opinion, is not a viable solution for many reasons.

When you have fcuk all to spend, but need to re equip, you need to shop at Costcutters and live within your income.

As we know, the current dictatorship doesn’t have any idea how important an insurance policy the armed forces are and will chop it to a bare minimum just for a couple of Guardian reader types votes.

Empire, a battle of wits with ABIW is akin to hosing down a small Kent Village with DU. Darn unfair and totally unarmed.

[SilsoeSid]

ABIW as it has been hinted at here and else where, it's nothing to do with you baiting people, which you don't actually do, you are abusive to anyone who doesn't follow your line.
This is a military forum and should you wish to talk to other arms in the way you do, I suggest you either go off to Jet Blast or start up your own crab forum and have it 'by invitation only'

Your not good at fishing
http://www.fs.fed.us/dxnf/fishing/Fishing_Cartoon_02tra.gif
You're just a TW@

reply to jet blast, a thread has been started for you thanks;
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=125296

edit
this has now been deleted for whatever reason. :mad:
Even after following the rules for Jet Blast, it seems to challenge a crab or to disagree with their views/opinions on any forum is not the thing to do. :{
CRAB FORUM REQUIRED!!

[EmpireOne]

:ooh: Wow, not sure I want to stick my head over the parapet at the moment.

Anyway continuing on: Bill, I guess the only thing I would be inclined to call you on is an S-70 procurement going to SHF. I think that the AAC would have a strong enough case to keep it as an organic AH support asset. The SHF, though doing a very good job the last time I looked, are overstretched between 16 Bde, 1 Div, 3 Div, JSFAW, Other Ops, blah, blah. I have no doubt that they would be more than happy to offload the 16 Bde work to an S-70 equipped AAC. After all, AAC, SHF and Junglies all work under a joint command (although I did sometmes question the true jointery and indeed 'command' of JHC). I think I would be more concerned about all the BS tasking the S-70 squadrons would get outside of supporting AH and 16 Bde Ops...ie Mail Runs, Village Fetes, flying His Generalship, wife, spaniels and golf clubs etc.

As you have said, in the end, AAC has no choice but to shop at H-Mart and pick from the bargain bucket. Super Lynx looks like it might be a nice jet to fly especially if they put some decent goodies on it, (FLIR, HIDAS, Wx Radar, IFR suite, Latte Machine) but unfortunately it will not really enhance Land Manoeuvre capability and will probably frustrate the fcuk out of everyone involved in trying to employ the thing.:*

EO

BTW, ABIW, you are doing yourself, rank and service no favours judging by your recent posts. I don't know you from a bar of toffee but I have no compunction in also telling you to quote "Nob-Off!":ok:

[brandnew]

Finally, some sense and some informed comments. Thank you.

Very interesting and sadly inevitiable that we are forced into buying a product that is not really suitable merely because

a) it keeps Westlands going

b) if we don't spend the money, we lose it.

If we limit ourselves to the smaller aircraft then we can't really do the job asked of us, but if we go for the bigger aircraft, we might not get it and may run the danger of "wearing white socks."

Unbelievable. A few rhetorical questions.

Is there a danger of us loosing LUH's totally and becoming an all AH force? Or will we have a few LUH's just supporting AH and have to leave 16Bde in the hands of (an RAF led and admitidly competant) SH force? Or could we expand our SH force in the army and do 16Bde and leave the RAF SH to support Apache?

The last scenario could be the most useful for us: we fly up to and beyond the FEBA flying (our) soldiers around while the RAF do what they genuinely do better than us: lug about all the fuel, bombs and associated stuff for AH.

Why not? Soldiers flying about the soldiers and the Air Force lugging all our kit for our Attack Helicopters

[Echo 5]

Ooooooh ABIW,

Looks like some of the cammed up boys have got a strop on.
Maybe a CRABS ONLY FORUM isn't such a bad idea.At least then the brownies from TWA would be excluded.
I note that Blustering BO is out and about.Perhaps ARRSE has been doing a bit of Spring cleaning !!

E5:p

[FJJP]

Can we please drag this topic out of the slanging match it has become and get back to the original question.

It is really tiresome when individuals get ensconced in a personal insult throwing game. Can we now please stop it, or Mr Moderator censure the individuals or pull the thread out of PPrune.

[Forgot]

Asking a dumb question, why does the RAF retain the SHF anyway? Why did we end up with JHC rather than simply gifting the SHF to the AAC as the RAAF did inthe 80s?

Not trying to have a go, just curious.

Forgot

[SilsoeSid]

FJJP
You have summed all this up for me, thanks.

You lot don't like it back, so "pleeeze Mr Moderator stop them being nasty."

Mr Moderator censure the individuals or pull the thread out of PPrune.
In other words, don't let the oiks have their say.

I tried to have this on Jet Blast, but one of 'your lot' has seen that we are unable to upset you all.

[Echo 5]

FJJP,

Now let's be fair here. At one time or another some of us,myself included,go somewhat OTT with our banter.However the individuals who are on the receiving end invariably deserve what they get.
You will recall that quite recently an individual who as it happens is posting on this thread initiated a thoroughly despicable attack on one of our number.Fortunately this happened in the early hours of the morning and after three or four of us kicked of big style,yourself included(and if I am mistaken I apologise) the thread was removed by the Moderator and rightly so.
You will note that even the originator of this thread ended his very first post with some facetious comment but was quite rightly slapped down by BEagle a gentleman most of us have the utmost respect for.
The moral of the story is therefore: If those in the red corner behave themselves then so shall we !!
Regards
E5

[KENNYR]

If we had kept the Westland Scout (Ahhhhhhh God bless her) we would not have needed the Apache!!:D In fact, do we even need the Apache??? Will it fit in the back of a Herc without a major strip-down? Who will it be used against? Why not use the Lynx as BLUH, its a proven airframe, right?

With regards to the childish AAC/RAF/RN/FAA chest thumping.....it really does become tiresome after a while. Can we never agree that each has a major role to play in the defense of our country?

[Bootneck]

While we witter on about who has the biggest todger, old Buff Hoon is busy binning the Puma, Gazelle and Seaking fleets..........................to be replaced with Merlin. However Merlin is in the shed at present, and may well spend a while sulking. So what will he announce next?
If they want to save money why buy a multi million pound sleek baby which cannot get dirty from Westland, when the Yanks have been producing much cheaper proven cabs for donkeys years.
When the EH101 was first mooted I went to Redhill and sat in their (Westland's)mock up, it was quoted at 12.5 million. At that time we could have bought 3, three, trois, Black Hawks for the same price.
Save our industry, give me a break!:rolleyes:

[ShyTorque]

AST401 (?) included BlackHawk years ago, as a possible replacement for Puma & Wessex.

One point to bring back into the equation: BlackHawk is a two pilot aircraft, which increases the real operating cost. Have the AAC sufficient manpower to achieve this and if not, are MOD willing to fund the necessary increase?

[SilsoeSid]

Good point ShyT,

Perhaps one way round this would be to have one Pilot and perhaps someone else up front performing P2 duties, without actually having to go through a complete pilots course.

They could be called something like mmmmm......
......aircrewmen and maybe just wear one wing on their brevet.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[brandnew]

The Air Corps has had a two pilot concept since the late 80's.

The only Single Pilot Ops around are some of the more specialised Gazelles in Ireland and elsewhere, and 8 Flight.

There would be no problem at all with the army providing two Pilots for each Blackhawk.

Crewmen did, and I believe in Ireland, do exist in the Air Corps; however, Door Sliders they are not: they accompany Aircraft Commanders on Single Pilot Ops and sit in the Left Hand Seat.

Our Door Gunners / Door Sliders are Private Soldiers. The Air Corps has never seen the need to give someone three stripes and entry into the Sgts Mess just because then can operate a Door Handle. We have Pilots of that Rank and below!

However, I believe this might change and we might recruit L/Cpls from elsewhere in the Army to become permenant Door Gunners. There's no way we can justify making these people Sgts.

Any more reasons for not giving the Air Corps a decent size BLUH helicopter?

[ShyTorque]

Silsoe Sid and Brandnew,

Fine, perhaps you guys know better. My only qualification is that I have the type on my licence and flew them for some time in a foreign air force. The S-70 flight manual calls for two PILOTS, not one pilot plus an air crewman. The aircraft is more complicated than other smaller types such as Gazelle and Lynx.

The only time single pilot is normally authorised is during some types of ground runs, when the pilot sits in the left seat.

[SilsoeSid]

Fair enough ShyT, if thats what the manual says then that's that I suppose, ordinarily.

The Gazelle and Lynx are single pilot helicopters anyway, so I can see Shy T s point there, in the crewing requirement for the more 'complicated' aircraft. (please explain)

However the definition of 'pilot', possibly can be what the 'service' decides it to be surely?

brandnew,
Our Door Gunners / Door Sliders are Private Soldiers. The Air Corps has never seen the need to give someone three stripes and entry into the Sgts Mess just because then can operate a Door Handle. We have Pilots of that Rank and below!
That is of course apart from the L/Cpls, Cpls, Sgts who are door gunners. ;)
I realise that they are MT/Sigs on 'flying duties' with no recognition of aircrew status, associated manning plot problems and not life insured for flying duties, etc.

As for the door handle line, well you could have fooled me!!! :)

Anyway, where did the rank thing come into it?
You could quite easily have a L/Cpl or Cpl as the second pilot, with a suitable type rating course and ground instruction to back that up. Ticks in boxes, second pilot/navigator.
(at less cost in pay and they wont clog up the mess!) :eek:

In summary
What is the line between aircrewman and pilot?
Why does Blackhawk need 2 pilots?
Is rank an issue?

These door handles, are they the push/pull types that I always get wrong, or handles that operate a catch of some sort? :ugh:

SS

[ginjockey]

This thread seems to be developing nicely, lots of views and some interesting comment. A good thing that it wasn't scuttled in it's opening seconds by some senile goat telling the originator to $od off back to his dung filled trench because it wasn't entirely focused on the RAF. Good to see the AAC get a run methinks.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Trouble is Gin,

If you REALLY want a serious discussion then you really ought to start it off in an appropriate manner. If however you want to start a pi@@in contest then BN's opening gambit was perfect:ok:

Beag's, and quite rightly so as he has seen and heard all this old b@llocks before, tried to put an early stop to the ineveitable bun fight and has been berated for it ever since............oh I wish that I had his level of self control:)........... Imagine being so sad that you feel the need to start a complete thread to slag an individual off..........now how insecure is that :E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[brandnew]

Good point about not all Door Gunners being Pte's, I was quite wrong.

I believe that there is a idea being knocked about to make our rear-crew full time aircrew, especially if BLUH is a complex aircraft.

Any guess where the money is going to come from?

Apparently first tour flying pay might be axed. Still, another story.

As to Lynx being a single pilot aircraft, I would have to disagree. As I'm sure you know, some single engine emergencies do mean that the Handling Pilot can't take his hands of the controls to idle engines, turn off fuel etc.

In addition, nighttime TOW firing. Unless you can teach a crewman to high hover on goggles (difficult) while you go through the launch sequence, the you'll have to trust him with the engagement. Without sounding unfair, I do not think I could do that.

However, the Junglies fly their Mk 4's single pilot and rely on the, highly trained, crewmen to assist with the emergencies. Indeed, the Navy fly Merlin, a hugely complex aircraft, with only one pilot.

However, I believe that the main reason the Air Corps went to two pilots was so you could operate the highly successful, Aircraft Commander / Pilot principle and "bring on" brandnew pilots from the APC by pairing them up with experienced aircrew. Moreover, aircraft were beoming more complicated and required two pilots. Though I do think at one time we did day fly Lynx with only one pilot, but that was stopped fairly quickly.

In short you can quite easily fly a Lynx single pilot, but to operate it is quite different and the Air Corps has had a two pilot concept for over ten years. We have more than enough aircrew to man a large BLUH, such as Blackhawk.

ABIW..... yawn. So old, so predictable, so dull: lots of noise, no real input. Yawn.

[ShyTorque]

Sid,

This topic comes up around every 7 years or so, I remember it at least three times during my military service.

First question: The line between Pilot & aircrewman? I'm not qualified to answer that question but my immediate thoughts are educational background, experience & training. (This is highly controversial and I don't say it to provoke a slanging match or a willy-waving competition).

Second question: Ask Sikorsky and the US military for their views. However, engine malfunction handling, tail stabilator emergencies and certain hydraulics failures all spring to mind. The operational role of the aircraft may require either pilot to handle the aircraft in critical situations, even approaches and hovering, but this is of course true of all larger helicopters. Covert NVG ops complicates this even further. This is a larger BATTLEFIELD aircraft we're talking about.

Third question: Rank is NOT an issue but see question 1. The two things are directly related. Generally speaking, you won't retain a well educated, highly trained and motivated individual if you give him low rank and low pay.

Another question from myself, it's been asked before but it is always relevant. Does the Army really have the engineering backup to fully support the BLUH concept in the field, especially in these times of strict downsizing and streamlining? Despite the undoubted increase in manning levels (?) due to the imminent arrival of the Apache, a larger aircraft requires more manpower than a smaller one. The usual theory "we'll just take over the redundant RAF engineers" doesn't hold any water.

[timex]

In addition, nighttime TOW firing. Unless you can teach a crewman to high hover on goggles (difficult) while you go through the launch sequence, the you'll have to trust him with the engagement. Without sounding unfair, I do not think I could do that.

Actually you put the Aircrewman/ gunner in the LHS and let him fire the missile, he was highly qualified to do so, and his recognition skills were excellent. He could also fly the aircraft. This was the norm before the AAC changed its policy to 2 pilots in preparation for the AH programme. Being honest hovering on goggles is not that difficult.

The Navy do fly single pilot SK on certain sorties, but not on very demanding missions as the battle-field is too busy. Allied to the fact that the crewman is often manning the GPMG, navigating or handling troops and or stores.

[SilsoeSid]

I think that of all the emergencies in the FRCs the AFCS problems are far more likely to the reason for operating 2 pilot, soley for the diagnosis problems. To counteract that why not dump AFCS and land asap.
The Immediate action for any single engine problem is to establish a safe single engine flight condition, ie fly the aircraft first, then sort out the problem. I think I am correct in saying that most twins are single pilot ops, so this levers to idle and fuel shut off thing isn't the reason.
However I don't want to dwell on this and have it end up in an FRC knowledge debate.

As for the crewman having to fly NVG whilst the pilot goes through the launch sequence, I think that was well answered by Timex. NVG are/is not a secret art either.
Anyway, the Blackhawk would be a support asset mainly, as the AH would be the strike, although a role change could be available at extra cost, which I doubt the UK will need.

The system of experienced pilots bringing on 'brand new' pilots from APCs never worked better than pre CREST days. The aircrewman role was 'an apprenticeship' for the APC and the mainly excellent ACM(O) + (G) would pass out with a wealth of experience and training that just needed fine tuning.

I cannot believe that the difference between aircrewman and pilot is educational background, taken that experience and training are gained 'on the job' so to speak.
The majority of Army pilots are of the same educational background, which as it happened, was the same as the aircrewmen of the time.
The only educational differences are between commisioned and non-commisioned officers. In this case all the experience and training is higher in the less educated!

As far as pay is concerned, I think that a Cpl pilot is on a fair wage, taking into account Res PoD, clothing, food/accomodation (if in mess/quarter), medical/dental, gym/sports facilities and so on. Of course he would have to go through the full licence procedure if he/she has less than 2000hrs/1500P1 etc. retention not an issue I think, as pay increases at a fairly good rate.

I bow to the fact that operationally any future BLUH will require 2 pilots, but I believe a case for re-installing the front seat aircrewman would be strong, for financial and manpower reasons as well as being good for moral.

edited to tidy up!

[ShyTorque]

Sid,

Please note, your last post uses quite a lot of British army abbreviations that myself and others will find difficult to understand. For example, I have no idea what CREST refers to.

I wouldn't expect you to know the FRCs if you have never flown the Blackhawk. However, the tail stabilator IS part of the AFCS system on these aircraft, it is constantly motoring,even in cruise flight. Also, a failure of the collective pitch boost system requires the rapid intervention of two people to deal with, possibly even three hands on the controls due to the very high control load feedback, so single pilot ops is not a wise move. It's not just a matter of "dumping the AFCS and landing ASAP" as it is with some smaller aircraft.

Your appraisal of what is required to deal with "any engine malfunction" is over simplified in my book (I speak as an ex-military simulator project chief instructor). Have you ever dealt with an engine runaway UP? Or an oscillation? They are not nearly as simple to deal with as a failure or rundown, especially in an aircraft with such a wide cockpit with the ECLs in the roof.

Regarding your comments on crew complement, in particular the aircrewman (or pilot)/left seat occupant up front. Would he become a separate "trade" to the crew person/s down the back of the aircraft? Who would deal with USL work and pax handling?

Or would you have two aircrewmen (a P2/observer/ crewman up front and a Gunner/crewman down the back) who were dual qualified and swapped roles? This would increase the crew training and currency requirement considerably. How would the rear crewman cope with gunnery and crewman roles together or would this not be a factor for a battlefield helicopter? (This is the reason the US military and others carry two rear crew or sometimes more, the gunnery positions are NOT in the doors).

I don't understand your reference to corporal pilots. Are you saying that army pilots are corporals, or should be corporals? Or, are you just saying that the left seat occupant should be a corporal, whatever he is called? :confused:

If the latter is true, would he, being of exactly the same education and skill level as the right seat occupant, a sergeant, staff sergeant or warrant officer, be happy to be there in the first place, rather than electing to fly something himself and earn far more?

I'm not saying it can't be done, but there is no simple answer. The RAF have operated light/medium SH for years and have tried many variations on who sits LHS. However, they keep coming back to two FULLY qualified pilots up front because it works best. :)

[SilsoeSid]

Sorry;

CREST = crew restructure
APC = army pilots course
ACM(O) (G) = aircrewman (observer)/(gunner) front seat, second pilots, of rank lance corporal or above (non-comissioned)

I have accepted the Blackhawk requires 2 up front.

Oscillations, spool vave seizure, loss of eng oil press, battery overheat, cockpit fire, yes, but afraid no runaway up. (contain with collective)

ACM(O/G) was a seperate trade and formally taught to fly the aircraft and operate the systems, including SS11 and TOW etc.

Trade in the back is Air doorgunner, who is private rank upwards(non- comissioned). Pax handling his job, as is guns, USLs groundcrew and pilots with assistance from doorgunner. Most USL tasks carried out in British Army do not have rear crew to assist, as is mostly the case for pax sorties.

The lowest rank for Army Pilot IS Cpl and is happy to be there because he is P2 with promotion/captaincy ahead.

The aircrewman up front would be a fully qualified "first officer", albeit an NCO with the title aircrewman.

[Bill O'Average]

As of 1st April, all Cpls on pilots course get Sgt on completion.

Reinventing the wheel?

Interesting ref Blackhawk..

[Per Ordure Ad Asti]

Why S-70 and not just plain Blackhawk? If you have just spent your last farthing buying, arguably, the world's best AH, why would you want to buy a very expensive support helicopter with AH pretensions? I quote from the company blurb:

"The major Battlehawk weapons feature is the 20mm GIAT THL 20 turreted gun. Past weapons integration on the Blackhawk using the External Stores/Weapons System (ESWS) have included Hellfire missiles, 2.75-inch Rockets, Stinger Missiles and various gun pods including 7.65 mm, 20mm and 30mm cannon. One current operational configuration has dual 30mm chain guns, dual 7.65mm machine guns and Hellfire missiles and rockets, more than doubling the firepower of existing attack helicopters."

I always thought SH were supposed to carry ordenance for other people to fire.

I also don't think that the concept of soldiers carrying soldiers to the front line, leaving the rear echelon load lifting to the RAF is a player. The full potential of AH requires the ability to operate from FARPs (Forward Arming and Refuelling Points) behind enemy lines. BLUH will never be able to support AH by itself. The US Army concept calls for a sqn of CH47 for every AH sqn. I think we could do it a lot better than that, but it is definitely a Chinook job.

Most infanteers that I have spoken to would also prefer to be delivered by the might Wokka. The lads have an understandable aversion to facing the enemy in small packages and like to fly towards the front line with at least 39 of their mates on board. The CH47 can carry at least 4 times as many troops as any likely BLUH contender but doesn't take up anything like 4 times as much room on the DZ which means that the planning staff can maximise the concentration of force on the first wave and bring in reinforcements and heavy USLs at the same time on subsequent waves.

Like it or not, the CH47 is almost always the choice of the front line customer. Light support helicopters are the choice of accountants and senior officer taxi-cab services.

[Bill O'Average]

well said per.

So, we need a totally combined heli force run by the right people, not the effort we have at present?

[EmpireOne]

(Ah-Ha, at last I can log in. Internet access is dodgy at the best of times in the remote sh*thole I currently working in!)

Where do I start?

Firstly, POAA, S-70 is just plain old Blackhawk. The sepos just happened to call it UH-60(A-M). The one I'm familiar with is S-70A-9 (Basically Blackhawk with HIRSS, ESSS, Hoist and Seahawk AFCS). If AAC gets an S-70 it would probably be very similar to UH-60M (expensive option) or UH-60L (cheap older cheaper version). 'Battlehawk' will definately not be going to UK.

On the issue of crewing on the basis of emergencies, the Flight Manual for S-70A-9 says minimum crew is one pilot. Indeed I know of an MTP who frequently takes the old girl on MTFs single pilot. IMHO I would contest that you need two crew to deal with emergencies. Its always nice to have two crew but having gone through the emergency checklist I can find no emergency action which absolutely requires two pilots.

Although I think Chinook is the absolute DBs for air manoeuvre capabilty, I don't think the argument for it on the basis you can get loads of grunts in it is a water tight one. One lucky punter (bad side) with his SA-7,14,16,18 etc. could really ruin half a companies' day and perhaps ruin a mission. You have to weigh-off numbers on the ground in a 'wunner' (sic) vs force protection and redundancy, ie smaller packets in more acft into the LZ. (Plus, I can't think of a battlefield helicopter anywhere in the world that has the crash and battle damage surviveability of the Blackhawk. Within the last two months an S-70 crashed in training with 8 on board in an estimated 14G impact; all survived, with 6 only receiving minor injuries!)

I have always thought the concept of NCO aircrewman in the CPLT seat was a great idea; and why not in a future BLUH aircraft? Assuming the aircraft will not be fitted with any ISTAR or Weapon system (other than doorguns) all the crewman would have to do would be to assist in planning, map read, talk on the radios and assist with checks and emergency actions. How hard is that? I think a bigger manning issue would be the loadmasters/crew chiefs/doorgunners (whatever you want to call them). You may be able to fly S-70 single pilot (IMHO) but you really do need the guys in the back. Looking after errant grunts, loads internal and underslung, hoisting and firing self protection weapon systems needs dedicated aircrew and I don't know that this is something the AAC has thought about or catered for. (Sums: 12 acft per sqn; 2 loadies per acft plus one reserve = at least 36 loadies per squadron. Perhaps loadies could double hat as aircrewmen?).

Finally, however good or bad (Blackhawk or Lynx) the Army choice is, I 100% agree with what both Bill O'A and Per have said on the joint concept. Whatever happens, RN, Army and RAF can and always should expect to work together in any operation. Mission success will only be achieved with the right blend of tools. One just has to hope one has a nice box. (of tools that is:E )
Bring on the 'purple':ok:

[SilsoeSid]

Thanks for clearing that up EmpireOne.

At the moment the only way that the AAC can provide gunners/loadies, is to 'borrow' the manpower from MT/Sigs/training wing.
Much like the 'CAA agreed passengers' of the UK police air support units, they do not officially constitute part of the crew.
Whatever happens, RN, Army and RAF can and always should expect to work together in any operation. Mission success will only be achieved with the right blend of tools. One just has to hope one has a nice box.
I can only agree that there can only be the purple solution for manpower reasons if nothing else, and in regards to the last sentence, will this do?

http://www.afmc.wpafb.af.mil/HQ-AFMC/PA/image_gallery/product_centers/gunner-use.jpg

(box of ammo I mean!!:E

[ShyTorque]

Empire 1,

What's an MTP and MTF? Is this a battlefield role?

I agree with your comment about the Chinook. In fact a similar argument was running here in the 1970s, certainly well before that particular aircraft came into UK service. The concept of putting all your eggs in one basket or not was discussed in the context of whether the UK military should buy lots of cheaper, smaller helis (Hueys for example) or fewer, larger helicopters.

The purse string holders like big helicopters (and if possible only one pilot up front ;) ). It's a cheap peacetime option but it suddenly becomes a very BAD idea when the first small arms burst brings the whole lot down in a heap because they shot the pilot.....

[EmpireOne]

Silsoe,

If I wrote a 100 posts I don't think I could ever beat that. Top show indeed old boy!:)

ST,

(U)MTP = Unit Maintenance Pilot; ergo MTF = Maintenance Test Flight. I'm not a UMTP because a can't spell manteenince very well.

EO

[brandnew]

Thank you all very much for all your posts - v interesting. Great picture too.

I think that the Air Corps has come round to the idea of two pilot ops in all aircraft types. Also agree that CH-47 is a great platform, and the RAF, as much as I hate to admit it, are very good at using it. However, I still believe that the Air Corps, and indeed the forces in general, would benefit from a bigger and more capable BLUH.

SS - definately take the point about Aircrewmen being a good start for NCO pilots. Having just come through the APC pipeline I can safely say that some very good QHI's started a ACM. In addition, some of them say that they might not have passed the APC if they were not crewmen first, and these are very good pilots.

Even if we do not manage to get S-70, do most people think that we should formalise the rear crew training and try to make it a bit more comprehensive? As mentioned above, it's a great way to cream off NCO pilots. Also makes USL's a bit easier. Also accept the point about NVG's - I'm obviously just a bit crap at it. Very glad to hear that the crewmen fired the TOW / SS11. Having thought about it, no reason why not at all.

Any more news on what BLUH will be, or if the project has been canned, or will we go for a completely different "solution" altogether?

[potcivvy]

Just in case anyone is interested we had a visit from the Lynx IPT not so long ago. There is only one contender for BLUH and that is the future Lynx, like it or lump it! However, it is not there to ferry troops around, although this is a secondary role. It's primary role is ISTAR, basically taking over from the Gazelle.
All of the usual arguments about lack of cabin space, blackhawk, etc were thrown at the team but ISTAR was the answer. Definitely no Blackhawk (except possibly 657 Sqn) and no lugging around troops. As an ISTAR platform it looks very good but it will mean a whole new state of mind for us Lynx jocks that will be left.
That said, the whole project could be binned anyway in favour of Puma replacements or the like. Time will tell. What is obvious is that jointery will take the fore, and rightly so in my opinion. How much longer must the chest beating go on between the services. With money as tight as it is I would suggest that we should stick together to fight the common enemy, Tony and his team!
And all this coming from an Army Lynx driver! Hey, I am out in 6 months because they won't let me continue to fly (just because it doesn't fit the Army career profile). Bring it on, more jointery, more lesbians, more PT, more health and safety at work and more Iip I reckon, I'll be long gone! But that's a different story................

[Bill O'Average]

Well, think about the fact that the Army has just bought a rather large(ish) quantity of Cold War battle winners. Do you really think the Guardian readers AKA The Govn will be lulled into another large procurement of shiny 'Fred Astairs' (all singing, all dancing) just for the sake of Op effectiveness? Nah.........

I think we need to go cap in hand, begging bowl out and get what we are told to get, on the political level and be happy with our lot. This is regardless of what is Doctrinally pure. From what I can gather the doctrine will be written around what we can afford/told to buy.

The long and short of it is, I/we don’t give a hoot as long as it’s newer than what we have at present. And that’s not hard.

I don’t think S70/UH60 will be a runner due to cost and infrastructure, nothing to do with the semantics of crew composition. Lynx Bluh is where it will be as it keeps yet another British cottage industry buoyant for minimum outlay on their part and it’s also jobs for the boys! And we have the Lynx spares chain in situ(again, ish!).

Having seen the new effort from the countries third best garage door builders, it aint half bad for what it is. But what it is, is not what we need. Can’t have it all I suppose!

(BTW, if ABIW posts after this; you’re a throbber as you know nowt and just post for the attention on the internet because you don’t have any real friends and thrive on the responses as you know that you would get chinned in real life if you came out with the majority of the comments you come out with on here. I for one would love to meet you just to 'mill for 90 secs' to prove the point) :}

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

B Overage,

:p I prefer "GS's" at dawn so pm me for a time and date..........along with the title and address of your second:rolleyes:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Bill O'Average]

Ok, edited due to a bad call on my part. Apologies, gents.

[Echo 5]

BO,

You appear to be at your most offensive when you post in the wee hours.Wonder why that is ?
Anyway,this so called "banter" is now becoming more like loutish behaviour and has just crossed the threshold of acceptability.I think most of us recognise this as a personal vendetta on your part and it should stop now. It just aint funny no more.

E5. ;)

[brandnew]

No, what's not funny anymore is us still having to put up with childish, unnecessary, uninformed and boring comments from ABIW and his "friends".

You bring nothing to the thread, so why bother posting? Why? Are you really that sad that you have to? This thread is going fine without your input. You are so boring and predictable its painful.

A thread was started all for you but you still keep coming back.

Why?

Everyone else thank you for your posts - v interesting, keep it coming. Anything concrete on BLUH yet?

[ShyTorque]

Bearing in mind this is a public forum and the general public, journalists et al have full and free access, I am appalled that what was meant to be (I think) a reasonable debate has quickly degenerated into this stupidity. :yuk:

Goodbye, not interested in participating any further.

[ewe.lander]

thought this was developing well as a thread!

pprune in the old days was either good banter, or professional opinion. the question about BLUH is an important one, this weeks american tome 'aviation week' reckons the MOD have a watching brief on a similar american program.

so, like some other pprune watchers. i'm fed-up that this thread developed into an interservice slagging between 2 aviators.

ABIW - use your noddle and learn from fellow herc mates how to banter....not p**s off so many people.

Bill O'A - your last 'milling' reply has no place on this website, civvys must despair of us - until then i was with you all the way.

moderator - moderate.

sad thing is, i'm ex-aac, very proud of the people i had the privilege to work with, i'm ex-loady........and very proud of the people i had the privilege to work with, suppose it's time to try the navy.......least the banter is sharp!:( :(