PDA

View Full Version : MoD to purchase more Chinooks - Rumour or Fact ?


Cmn2644
16th Jan 2007, 16:02
Have heard recent whispers that we are buying another 18 chinooks on the hurry up, some from Boeing and some from the yanks ??

Anyone know any more or is this still in the rumour phase ???

whowhenwhy
16th Jan 2007, 18:41
Last I'd heard, from the most highly paid solo Typhoon pilot, is that you couldn't buy a new wokka for love nor money. Everyone wants one. Apparently they're the new black! :ok:

SASless
16th Jan 2007, 18:46
I thought you had eight setting surplus in a hangar somewhere cause the avionics were considered sub-standard....why not use them. No IFR flying required for air displays....that would free up one would it not?

ProfessionalStudent
16th Jan 2007, 19:54
Even if they did, I bet there wouldn't be many more on the line each morning...

insty66
16th Jan 2007, 20:07
Even if they did, I bet there wouldn't be many more on the line each morning...

Why might that be then?

GreenKnight121
17th Jan 2007, 21:49
Cause if the rotorheads were allowed access, they would be stripped to keep the "full-flight-cleared" ones flying, that's why. 8 more front & rear gearbox/rotor heads, etc....

SASless
17th Jan 2007, 22:11
What has happened to war time stocks of the big bits? One would think along with normal spares stockage there would have been "war stocks" purchased.

Cannibalization can mean too things....lack of spares because they do not exist because they were not purchased at all.... or someone in supply has failed to ensure a timely replacement of stockage consumed.

tucumseh
17th Jan 2007, 22:22
“What has happened to war time stocks of the big bits?”

Long time since it was policy to keep war reserve serviceable. 1992 for avionics. It’s called (variously) “Just in Time” or “AP830 DM87”. Please tell me this has been rescinded!

The Helpful Stacker
18th Jan 2007, 06:46
What has happened to war time stocks of the big bits? One would think along with normal spares stockage there would have been "war stocks" purchased.
Cannibalization can mean too things....lack of spares because they do not exist because they were not purchased at all.... or someone in supply has failed to ensure a timely replacement of stockage consumed.

Actually its a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B.

'Just In Time' was introduced against the wishes of a large portion of the logistics organisation because it was believed that the civil sector could just turn on the taps and produce more kit when required. Unfortunately someone seems to have forgotten to inform the civil manufacturing industry of their abilities and 'long lead times' are the bane of a beleaguered suppliers life.

On top of this is the fact that the people controlling the standing routine contracts are not (well don't seem to be) professionals in this role, with the result that quite often contracts for essential items are allowed to end with no new contract being placed. Desert boots before Telic 1 being one that springs to mind, the contract ran out and the manufacturing company went bust before anyone realised that boots weren't arriving at Bicester.

Of course rumour has it its just us suppliers being awkward sods. We've got tons of kit sat in our stores but we just love seeing the looks on your disappointed faces.;)

ProfessionalStudent
18th Jan 2007, 09:05
On top of this is the fact that the people controlling the standing routine contracts are not (well don't seem to be) professionals in this role, with the result that quite often contracts for essential items are allowed to end with no new contract being placed. Desert boots before Telic 1 being one that springs to mind, the contract ran out and the manufacturing company went bust before anyone realised that boots weren't arriving at Bicester.


Crap contract writers in the MoD? Who'd have thought it?:ugh:

18 more chinnies would be good, but where would they put them and who would fly them?

airborne_artist
18th Jan 2007, 11:45
18 more chinnies would be good, but where would they put them and who would fly them?

Marinise them and give them to the Junglies - you know it makes sense :E

Always_broken_in_wilts
18th Jan 2007, 13:23
Not sure if the Jungly force have either the Aircrew or technical support to be able to fly/maintain something as big and complex as the Chinook:p

Not_a_boffin
18th Jan 2007, 13:52
Not sure if the Jungly force have either the Aircrew or technical support to be able to fly/maintain something as big and complex as the Chinook:p

There may be trouble ahead.......

Training Risky
18th Jan 2007, 13:53
If you try to fly an RN pilot/obs/ACMN above 90 kts... he'll disintegrate into his constituent molecules due to G-force intolerance.:p

(And please don't bring up Navy Harriers in JFH - we all know they're RAF GR7/9s flown by RAF pilots who joined the RAF, and future-RAF pilots who may have joined the RN at some point in the past)

Always_broken_in_wilts
18th Jan 2007, 15:54
TR,

Top post fella almost pi@@ed myself until I realised you are probably right:eek:

The Helpful Stacker
18th Jan 2007, 18:45
If you try to fly an RN pilot/obs/ACMN above 90 kts... he'll disintegrate into his constituent molecules due to G-force intolerance.:p
(And please don't bring up Navy Harriers in JFH - we all know they're RAF GR7/9s flown by RAF pilots who joined the RAF, and future-RAF pilots who may have joined the RN at some point in the past)

Oooo, the WAFU 'aint gonna like that one Guv.;)

Gainesy
19th Jan 2007, 09:10
I don't think they'll be best pleased with todays on-line Torygraph either.
"See RAF rescue video".:}

Been There...
19th Jan 2007, 09:16
I suppose both crews could have all been on exchange at Culdrose but I doubt it :hmm:

WhiteOvies
19th Jan 2007, 10:00
Too obvious to bite!! Typical of the media - if it flies it's the RAF, if it floats it's the navy, if it's on the ground it's the army! Despite the helos having ROYAL NAVY in big letters on the side (which is more than can be said for the Harriers of 800 NAS!).

Si Clik
19th Jan 2007, 10:34
Not to worry, at least BBC Ten O'Clock News got it right - makes a change.

:hmm:

The Helpful Stacker
19th Jan 2007, 12:42
Too obvious to bite!! Typical of the media - if it flies it's the RAF, if it floats it's the navy, if it's on the ground it's the army! Despite the helos having ROYAL NAVY in big letters on the side (which is more than can be said for the Harriers of 800 NAS!).
You are having a laugh aren't you?
How many times were/are Wessex, Puma and Chinook helicopters operating in Ulster described as 'Army Helicopters'?
Try this one, look at this (http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=army+helicopter+northern+ireland&spell=1) link via 'Google Images', search wording Army Helicopters Northern Ireland. What is the first result?

WhiteOvies
19th Jan 2007, 12:49
THS
Fair enough, now you come to mention it when an RN Lynx recently made a trip into a NI school on a PR/recruiting visit there were letters in the local press regarding how shameful it was that the Army were doing such things. (also making my previous post wrong BTW):\
Is it ignorance or just that most civis don't give a t:mad: s either way?

Talk about thread drift - back to the chinnies!

Army Mover
19th Jan 2007, 13:36
THS
Fair enough, now you come to mention it when an RN Lynx recently made a trip into a NI school on a PR/recruiting visit there were letters in the local press regarding how shameful it was that the Army were doing such things. (also making my previous post wrong BTW):\
Is it ignorance or just that most civis don't give a t:mad: s either way?

Talk about thread drift - back to the chinnies!
It's routine in Ireland for the British "Security Forces" of what ever background or colour to be referred to as the "Army", I think it's a link back to when the island was under British rule.