Britain’s heavy lift capability will be bolstered with the purchase of 14 extended-range Chinooks (CH47-ER), say the Ministry of Defence.

The new Chinooks significantly enhance the UKā€™s strategic mobility with its ability to operate in challenging environments.

“From the desert to the arctic, the helicopter has double the range of a standard Chinook and is capable of air-to-air refuelling, with the ability to carry up to 55 personnel or 10,000 kg of cargo. With a top speed of 300 kilometres per hour, the new helicopters will have a range of new capabilities, including an advanced digital cockpit and a modernised airframe to increase stability and survivability.”

Defence Secretary Grant Shapps announced the decision to proceed with the contract after meeting crew members from one of the Chinooks in the Royal Air Forceā€™s existing fleet.

“Procuring these Chinook helicopters will mark a significant milestone in our efforts to modernise and enhance the agility of the UK Armed Forces, cementing our ability to respond at pace to situations and threats across the globe.

The Chinook is one of our most iconic aircraft, having been operated in every major conflict since the Falklands War. Delivering on this deal not only enhances our capability, but will boost UK industry and skills.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

103 COMMENTS

  1. Capable of air-air refueling, but since the C-130’s were retired prematurely, there is nothing qualified to refuel it. The A400 still has wake turbulence issues.

    • Our previous C130 could not do AAR. A400M has already worked through certification for a number of helicopters and fixed wing platforms for AAR.

      The A400M comes pre plumbed to operate as a tanker as well unlike the C130 where itā€™s a specialised tasking.

      Personally I think we should buy Airbus out of Air Tanker then use all of our A400M as an auxiliary AAR capability.

      • To your last point, you wouldn’t need to do anything with the air tanker contract; the limitation/penalties on using alternative services only apply to tasks that an Airtanker aircraft could perform. They can’t refuel helicopters, so an A400 tanking up our Chinooks is perfectly fine. In addition, as an auxiliary tanker, the presumption would be that the A400 is performing the action because Airtanker can’t- again perfectly fine in the contract.
        I say we get the fuel cells and the A400 aircrew trained to use them, and then work a joint certification programme for the Chinook with Germany.

      • In addition to the ability to refuel helicopters the ability to use 2 x A400 for maritime patrol & refuelling the Typhoon etc in the Falklands rather than 1 x Atlas & 1 x Voyager would give the RAF more flexibility & with only 1 x aircraft type to support would save money.

    • Same problem with Merlin.

      From 2008 test and defence aerospace website

      WASHINGTON — The Lockheed Martin and AgustaWestland HH-71 Team successfully conducted aerial refueling tests between an RAF AW101 Merlin Mk3 helicopter and an Italian Air Force KC-130J tanker, further demonstrating the aircraft’s superior capabilities and low-risk approach for the U.S. Air Force’s Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR-X) requirement.
      The successful fuel transfer occurred over the south of England on February 13, marking the first time a British helicopter demonstrated air-to-air refueling capability. The AW101 and RAF test pilots successfully plugged the helicopter’s refueling probe to each of the tanker’s two wing station drogues on the first attempt. The sorties were flown at 4,000 ft altitude, with both aircraft traveling at 127 knots. All trial objectives were completed with multiple in-flight refueling events successfully achieved up to the maximum Merlin Mk3 flying weight of 34,400 lbs. (…)

  3. I believe Wallace cancelled the order saying the price was too high. Shapps has negotiated a small reduction. I think these are the ER extended range model – and have 2x the range of our existing models – I guess the idea must be that A400 + Chinook ER are the SF and RM replacement the C130s.

    • Think itā€™s more he threatened to cancel it if the U.K. didnā€™t get a reduction, donā€™t think the actual termination had happened.

    • I guess that makes sense re the replacement for the C130s, although I’ll not comment on whether it’s a fair replacement- I don’t know.

      • It isn’t. We already use Chinook for insertion, 7 Sqn are the SF Sqn party of JSFAW.
        We also had another tool in the bag in Hercules, again several examples dedicated to SF use with the 47 Sqn SF Flight.

        Great these are ER, and I suggest they may also be useful off the QEC.

        The thought of using an Atlas or using a C17 for some of the work the Hercs did is disturbing!

      • Not identical for sure; not even sure its equivalent. But I naively assume someone has assessed the size and location of all the airfields A400 can use versus where we might want to insert heavy vehicles. Interestingly I think you can carry a Chinook inside an Atlas. How practical that would be in real life I don’t know.

        • Chinooks can be air transported by both the A400M and C17s in RAF service. Transporting of Chinooks is done all the time. Sadly, it is not a quick job to break a Chinook down for transportation, or rebuild it one, once it gets to the other end.

    • Yes, these are the extended “fat tank” versions. They have the same range as the current Mk5s. MK6 and Mk6As have the “skinny tanks”, so have a shorter range.

  4. The press release states that negotiations ā€œenshrine critical reforms into law that will benefit the UK and increase the speed and predictability of military procurement from the U.S.” What in the world does that mean? The US Executive Branch has no authority to legislate or amend laws. That’s the exclusive prerogative of the Congress.

      • šŸ¤žšŸ˜Š Why not formalise a new alliance based on the five eyes, thereby short circuiting many such barriers to closer seamless anglosphere military cooperation/integration?
        It makes perfect sense to me but what do I know?

          • Those problems are at least changing in nature. One of the few good things to come from the fight between two of the USSR stalwarts. With a potentially huge reversal in the US come years end. A change for the better.

          • Absolutely agree about junior and even when he gets the boot, potential replacements from both major parties arenā€™t much better!

          • No problem here in NZ Jim. We now have change of government, centre right. The Ardern days are over(mercifully).

    • It is to replace all the original HC1s bought in the 1980’s, that were upgraded to HC4s and then HC6s. Sadly it’s not a one for one replacement. So we’ll end up with a fleet of about 50 Chinooks instead of 60.

    • If it works don’t fix it Falkland war could have been shortened if the conveyor hadn’t been lost and there’s also a lot of veterans whose lives were saved thanks too the Chinnock in different theatres

    • Well to be honest you never see many of them flying anyway and the much smaller Army does no longer require the lift it once did.

      • Therein lies the problem. HM Gov has been permitted to shirk it’s primary role of defending the realm and our global interests. They seem to care more about the borders of a founding nation of the USSR than out own. No matter how they spin it, it’s treasonous. We seem to constantly haggle over the consequences rather than addressing the root cause.

      • But as soon as a war breaks out we’ll need more & be hamstrung until they’re delivered. Having a record tiny army in dangerous times helps nobody, deters nobody & tempts disaster.

    • I’ve heard various different stories about the future fleet size and would love to know the truth. Some sources say the fleet will be reduced from 60 (I’ve now seen the figure 51 mentioned twice). But other sources say that 9 old frames are being retired and replaced by these 14 new ones – which would take the fleet to 65.

      • No, I don’t think so. 60 are reducing or have already reduced to 55, older HC6s, 6As I believe, such as the legendary BN.
        I believe a further batch of older examples will go and these come in.
        This order was as much about sustaining the fleet we have as their usefulness to DSF.
        Whichever, I don’t believe the RAF have the crews in the 3 front line and 1 OCU Sqns to operate that many, so 51, 55, 60, in the wider scheme of things is OK.

        • Again, however thats constraining the ‘stratgegy’ by the numbers – are those numbers due to an inability to recruit/keep personel or just part of the agreed reduction?
          Not sure which is the ‘worse rationale ‘ tbh, but either way thats not the way we should be running the forces.
          We really shoud be addressing this from the ‘doctrine’ down – not the ‘troop’ numbers up.
          Decide what we need (want?) to do and ensure the troop ammounts faciliatate theat
          I’m not saying you disagree BTW far from it -I know you share that frustration – but I just fail to understand how, given the current global situation, we still havent had a serious rethink of what we want/need to deliver -well apart from the obvious reason..obviously….

          I

          • Mate. As you said, I agree. Our reviews are back to bloody front. They fit what they can into x amount, not address the threat and what’s needed.
            Our current generation of politicians, what can I say, we know why!

          • ‘Ah yes but the new ones have twice the range of the old ones so you see its a massive upgrade from 60 to 50; so in fact we have doubled the lift capacity’.
            Easy when you understand how they think. Amnesia about the can’t be in two different places bit.

        • No HC6As are being scrapped, only HC6s. These will be all the early HC1s we bought in the 1980’s that were subsequently upgraded to the HC6 standard.

      • There are some 38 old examples from the fleet still on our books, as you say 9 are going without replacement and we are getting these 14. This still leaves us with 15 old airframes that will need retiring/replacing.

        • There are 29 (now 24) chinooks in service that are between 38 and 44 years old. Of which 14 are being replaced and 9 will go without replacement including 5 that already have. That leaves only 6 that need replacing which are presumably the surviving 6 that are between 38 and 40 years old.

          • Hi mate. I see it slightly differently, not sure if I’ve got the right numbers. We have 60 Chinooks, of which 38:are V old and in need of replacement! The remaining 22 are newer models.
            Of the 38, 9 are being scrapped without replacement. That leaves 29, of which 14 are being replaced by these new ones. This leaves 15 in need of retiring/replacement.
            So, by my reckoning, we have 22 newish models I service, with 14 new ones on order which is 36 airframes, with a further 15 possibly being replaced – or not. At best we will have 51 airframes, at worst 36, either way it’s a cut.

          • The 22 presumably includes the 8 troubled HC3s (now HC5s I think). They were delivered in 2001. Your number of 38 includes 3 new build HC2s delivered in 1995 and 1996, and 6 new build HC2as delivered around 1998. Those are similar in age to the HC3s so should be counted alongside the newer airframes.

            Not so worried about this cut, if only they used the saved money to invest elsewhere (like the E7s), which of course they won’t.

          • Got to admit it’s rather interesting to say the least. The info that he posts is imo pretty good and reliable.
            Have to say that either way we are looking at a cut in numbers, even if they do eventually replace some of the remaining 15 older airframes. Time will of course tell, but we don’t really have a good track record replacing like vis like!

      • ā€˜Defence Newsā€™ was my source. The article mentioned the overall drop in numbers and that 14 oldest airframes were being replaced.

  11. Interesting, wasn’t expecting this- but good news.
    I had thought that the ones we were previously looking at were “special ops” versions with terrain following radar and other such stuff (although I may be a million miles off on that). These don’t seem to be that model, although the extra range is certainly nice. Hopefully they’re still fit for purpose though.

  12. Hi folks hope all is well.
    Great news for once. These great craft will no doubt be fine to operate from the carriers when required as long as space would allow as they can carry a bigger payload.

    As side issue I see the media is saying Shapps is wanting to increase the defence budget to 3 percent of GDP. Hopefully with other members giving support such as Penny Mordant will shift in favour of the uplift.
    Cheers
    George

    • Shapps is saying that as he knows the Tories wonā€™t be in power to actually make the next budget and therefore he can claim anything he wants, and then use it to berate Labour for not doing it, even though the Tories have already pencilled cutsā€¦ sorry ā€œefficienciesā€ after the next election anyway.

  14. What is happening with the heavy lift drone people are talking about, for the RAF and FAA?
    Will they be able to act as tankers for other heavy lift drones and Chinook?
    What is the chance we will see them in service any time soon?

    • The chinook is not ideal, the C130 was the platform of choice. But, this is a decent capability, much more to do with interoperability with the USSF, when stationed in forward mounting bases on combined ops. The chinook does have a distinct noise but quite hard to locate the direction until quite close. But your concerns are very valid for sure šŸ‘

      • 1 small problem, and the RAF C-130J were worn out for being worked very hard and their wing boxes would have needed replacing which wasn’t worth the cost

        • In 2017 Marshalls were contracted by the MoD to replace the 14 x Hercules wing boxes. Allegedly 11 x nations want to buy some of the retired RAF Hercules so they must still have some usefulness.

      • For quite a few years there has been a problem in Joint Helicopter Command. The Chinook has been too good. In that it has been doing both heavy lift and medium lift roles. Specifically a lot of the insertion roles that Puma was supposed to do. One of the issues with Puma is its pretty short legged, whereas a Chinook is not only faster but can carry a full load for 4 hours, plus it has a wide easy access ramp. It also operates just as well in the cold as it does hot and high. Something that plagued Puma until it got the uprated engines.

        Within the service there has been calls for better interoperability with the 160th SOAR in particular. Particularly as UKSF also operate with them a lot.

  17. Hardly news. Until they actually place the order and stop just constantly announcing their plans to buy, will be news.

  18. Just read that the 14 Ch-47s deal cost Ā£2Bn. Part of that was due to inflation it was reported but no wonder Ben Wallace was going to scrap the deal due to cost!!

    That works out to be Ā£143Mio/pc! Seriously??? Bloody hell!! Even the F-35B doesnā€™t cost that!!

    I donā€™t care how much support, training and parts is included, that is a seriously stupid price for any helicopter!!!!

    If that wasnā€™t bad enough, we just scrapped 14 perfectly good C-130s for special forces use and then spent Ā£2Bn replacing them with 14 helicopters????

    Why didnā€™t we just keep the Hercs – which the SF guys were very happy with already – and spend the Ā£2Bn elsewhere – especially given how very, very tight the defence budget has become these days!

    Absolute lunacy!!

    • Yep. The Herc cut was the most demented I’ve yet seen and pissed me off more than any other for what they provided.

    • Umm you are forgetting 1 about the C-130J that the RAF had retired, they were worn out and would need their wing boxes replacing so it was easier to retire them and replace them with A400s which was designed to replace the C-130

      • No expert (on anything tbh) but the impression I got on here at the time was that the A400’s were nowhere near the capability of the C-130- esp. where specical forces were concerned?
        I’m sure there are many on here that can provide a far more detailed rebuttal than I.

      • a couple of points, the A400s are not replacements for the c130j, they are being retired without replacements. This is a decline in numbers. Secondly, the wing box replacement is not as expensive as acquiring a new aircraft.

        • No Klonkie the Airbus A400M was designed as a C-130J replacement as the C-130J is nothing more than a 1950 era design with new systems slapped on to a decades old design

          • But it’s twice as big. That’s like buying a replacement for your 7 seat family car and choosing a mini bus.

            A real C130J replacement would be about the same MTOW but with less empty weight and better performance of fuel economy, take of distance, range, speed and flight hours per maintenance hour etc.

          • Hi Knight. My understanding was the A400 were to replace the H model C130s, to serve alongside the newer J models. In summary, the plan was circa 24 A400 & 24 C130 J models across 4 squadrons .

            Post the 2010 defence cuts, the H models were retired and the J model fleet reduced to14 airframes as the A400 came on stream.

            Now, the additional retirement of the remaining 14 J moles is a capability cut.

  19. Wise (eventual) contract however still a bit of spin, these are, I do believe, replacing 14 older models, not an addition to the numbers! This lot of Tory clowns, like their Labour counterparts just cannot stop the spin, be it direct lies and misinformation or a lack of info to ensure they are shown in the best light possible. But, even so, glad itā€™s being moved forward even though the recent deletion of the C130 creates gaps in capability which some can see, most cannot. Cheers.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here