PDA

View Full Version : RAF Chinook HC3's almost useless



Royal
04-07-2004, 02:03 AM
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40013000/jpg/_40013135_chinook203.jpg

At last. Someone's leaked it...


Blunders over software and equipment shortages meant British armed forces in Iraq were unable to use eight brand new helicopters, says an official watchdog.
The RAF was left with eight unusable Chinook helicopters worth £259m due to a "botched" procurement, the National Audit Office said.

Cockpit software concerns mean they cannot be flown in cloudy weather.

Fixing the problem will cost an estimated £127m and the Chinooks will remain grounded until at least 2007.

Britain's armed forces now have less than two-thirds of the required helicopter battlefield capability.

The Ministry of Defence admits, on current plans, that the shortfall will not be made good until 2017-2018.

But if it follows its own guidelines on rest and recuperation time for crew, the deficit could rise to as much as 66% of capability, the report said.

Cloudless skies

The Chinooks were originally supposed to be in service in 1998 but radar and other software developed under a separate contract would not fit in the cockpit, the NAO said.

Thanks to a massively botched job, they cannot be flown when there is a cloud in the sky

Edward Leigh MP
They are now restricted to flying above 500ft in cloudless skies with pilots using landmarks on the ground to navigate and can only be used on limited trial flights.

Tory MP Edward Leigh, chairman of the influential House of Commons public Accounts Committee, said the Chinook contract was "one of the most incompetent procurements of all time".

He said: "Thanks to a massively botched job, they cannot be flown when there is a cloud in the sky."

"Instead of desperately needed helicopters, the MoD might as well have bought eight turkeys. They can just get off the ground but cannot fly enough to be useful."

The report revealed that UK armed forces have to rely on the US military to recover personnel in operations, because the MoD's fleet of search and rescue helicopters does not have the resources to be deployed overseas.

It also revealed shortages in essential equipment, such as sand filters, communications technology and nuclear, biological and chemical protection for aircrew.

A shortage of sand filters meant only 24 Lynx helicopters were used in Iraq, rather than the mission requirement of at least 33, the report said.

Individual protection gear had to be rushed to Army helicopter air crews in the lead-up to the war, resulting in "inadequate training and support solutions".

Streamlining practices

The NAO has made a series of recommendations to help the MoD get the most out of its fleet while waiting for it to be brought back to full strength.

These include eliminating slippages in deliveries and streamlining training practices.

It also says the RAF and the Royal Navy should consider relaxing their rule that helicopters must be crewed by officers, and using less senior staff, as the army does.

More is to be done if the significant shortfall in helicopter capability is not to limit operations in the future

Sir John Bourn
The NAO said Britain's fleet was "arguably the most capable helicopter force in Europe" and recognised that "significant progress" had been made since the MoD's Joint Helicopter Command had been set up in 1999.

Auditor General Sir John Bourn said helicopters had played a vital role in operations in Iraq.

"However, more is to be done if the significant shortfall in helicopter capability is not to limit operations in the future", he added.

In a statement, the MoD said: "The MoD acknowledges the report's findings of a capability shortfall, particularly in the support helicopter area.

"Much of that derives from increases in operational requirements that have evolved over recent years. The MoD is currently in the early stages of planning the next generation of its battlefield helicopter capability, and is preparing for significant investment in future platforms."

The statement said the Ministry a new procurement strategy of "smart acquisition" would enable greater risk reduction "up front".

BTW - the problem with the SAR capacity is because the airframes were privatised (and are civilian models no use on operations).

Flagg
04-07-2004, 02:15 AM
Bloody hell...that's nearly 50 million pounds per airframe!

absolutely inexcusable........I'm quite surprised there aren't any performance/integration/cost/etc guarantees built into the contract(s)


Any idea who the primary avionics contractors are and if there will be any blowback towards them?

obd
04-07-2004, 02:36 AM
You know over the last five years I have heard one bad story after another from England having to do with shoddy management of procurement.

First it was problems with the latest Tornado variant unable to actually fire the latest AMRAAM's

Then is was massive problems with Eurofighter avionics and funding(I guess that solved now???)

Now problems over these Helocopters.

There are more but I just cant remmember them off the top of my head.

Most of what I know comes from reading "Air International" and "Air Power Journal" which both closely montitor virtually the entire world, military, civilian, and buisness procurements of airframes. They make anual lists of all the major procurements of aircraft. Its often quite interesting. What can I say, Im sort of an amatuer aviation buff.....I used to have my VFR license but havnt flown in years so I have to recert....ARGH..... Anyway, its kinda fun to read about who is buying what, even the buisness aircraft markets are interesting......

Anyways, there are a great many procurement bungles around the world but for some reason the British ones stand out as the most idiotic and bungling and the most costly....... I guess it probably has to do with media attention and the fact that both AI and APJ are British publications so they may focus more heavily on British bungles but still.....what the deal???

martinexsquaddie
04-07-2004, 04:48 AM

Mark Sman
04-07-2004, 05:14 AM

Gringo
04-07-2004, 09:42 AM
Where did these Chinooks come from?

In any case, HANG HOON!!! HANG HOON!!! HANG HOON!!!

ShadowNeo
04-07-2004, 11:39 AM
You know over the last five years I have heard one bad story after another from England having to do with shoddy management of procurement.

That would be the United Kingdom, not England. How many times does someone have to be told :cantbeli: .

Also, aren't these the Chinooks that were, for some period of time, reserved for aquisition by the US DoD who then decided they didnt want them?

Vextra
04-07-2004, 11:48 AM
How do you call the procedure ? "Smart procurement", isn't it ?
:bash: Sorry, couldn't resist...

DeltaWhisky58
04-07-2004, 01:39 PM
Royal et al.....

Didn't we theorise on this one a couple of months back and come up with the same answer. Hoon & Co. are now lying through their teeth trying to blame their ****-ups on someone else, meantime we're down 8 Wokkas plus all the other Helos that are short on spares.

Has anyone heard much about the RAF Merlins - heard on the grapevine that they are not well liked - anyone got any more on this?

martinexsquaddie
04-07-2004, 02:59 PM
merlins have a prob with tailrotors apprantly
MOD decided to be cheap and instead of going for a Full digital cockpit
decided on you bodge job that even boeing thought was a bad idea.
as much as I hate to admit this the goon had nothing to do with this abortation as it was signed and sealed in 1995 :(
boeing were a bit crap delivering really crap chinnoks as well :(