The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has responded to parliamentary questions from James Cartlidge, Conservative MP for South Suffolk, concerning the planned retirement of 14 older Chinook helicopters.
The MOD assured that the phased retirement will not impact the delivery of defence outputs or air assault operations, as it coincides with the introduction of advanced Chinook H-47 (Extended Range) helicopters starting in 2027.
Luke Pollard, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, outlined the MOD’s approach, stating:
“The phased retirement of the 14 oldest Chinook helicopters will not negatively impact the delivery of current Defence operational outputs, as these retirements will be synchronised with the delivery of replacement state-of-the-art Chinook H-47 (Extended Range) from 2027 onwards, maintaining our fleet number.”
Pollard further highlighted that the transition is carefully planned to retire helicopters as they approach costly maintenance cycles, ensuring the availability of aircraft for operational commitments and smooth integration of new platforms.
He added:
“This decision will allow greater efficiency within the maintenance cycles and better enable the transition process to the new aircraft.”
In response to concerns regarding the potential impact on specific units, including Joint Helicopter Command, the Global Response Force, and the 16 Air Assault Brigade Combat Team, Pollard emphasised that the MOD’s strategy will maintain operational capabilities:
“Engineers and pilots are available to transition onto the new H-47(ER) aircraft, ensuring that operational commitments are met without disruption.”
The modernised Chinook H-47(ER) is described as a game-changing capability, designed to improve efficiency and enhance collaboration with partner nations, particularly the United States.
Pollard said:
“H-47(ER) is a modern capability that will allow us to operate even closer with partner nations, including the US.”
Are these aircraft knackered or are they being put out to pasture early or is it a case of having too few airframes and they are overworked?
Also although more Chinook’s are going to replace them surely we need to increase the number of heavy lift helicopters ( along with every other class ) not tread water or am I wrong?
The Chinooks that are being retired are the first two batches of Chinooks, So what were the HC1s, that then became HC2s, then HC4s and then lastly HC6s. This includes the famous Bravo November (ZA718). This was original purchased from Boeing as a Model C version in 1978 and delivered in 1982. BN was the final aircraft of the batch 1 order and has now retired and been given to RAF Cosford museum. The aircraft have been constantly upgraded to the latest standard, with DECU controlled engines, composite rotor blades and new avionics. Throughout the 40 odd years they have been constantly used for both exercises and supporting operations. This included operating them from ships, which the aircraft were not really designed for. This required more modifications including covering the insides especially the back end with corrosion protection. The aircraft do suffer from corrosion in this area and requires regular maintenance when aboard a ship.
Chinooks as per most other helicopters do not have a fatigue life that fixed wing aircraft have. This is because they supposedly don’t suffer the same G-loadings, which then defines the maximum number of flying hours an aircraft can fly.. However, unlike US Army Chinooks, the RAF fly them like they stole them. Only the US SOC fly their Chinooks at low level. It is part of our pilots standard operating procedures to enter and exfil a site at the lowest level, as that gives the potential enemy less time to respond. However, that means the aircraft is essentially hedgehopping and has to do an aerobrake manoeuvre to stop and land. This places a shed load of stress on the airframe. To make matters worse our pilots also regular conduct fighter evasion training. Which means the aircraft is literally thrown around the sky trying to evade Typhoons.
The early batch of Chinooks are what are called flexible airframes. In that the internal frames are made up from pieces riveted together. This means that over time, the holes in the frames elongate and the rivets move. Also due to the constant twisting motion around the centre of the airframe, the skin stretches and contorts. Where loads can travels along the main frames and weaker materials develop cracks. This was partially fixed with the Model D purchases that initially became HC2As, then the new purchase of the HC6s, which were Model Fs Block 1. The Model D had some frames milled from one piece billets, whilst the Model Fs had pretty much the whole of the rear end frames milled from one piece billets. This made the aircraft less flexible. But did means that cracks were now appearing in new areas due to the stiffness. The Chinooks have very good maintenance, perhaps almost over-maintained. But the RAF along with Fleetlands who do all the Depth maintenance, have become very good at managing and repairing the fleet
What I can tell you is that Boeing got wind of how the RAF flew the Chinook and were not impressed. As they believed the RAF were flying past their structural limits. The RAF were told to tone it down, I do know a number of flight trials were conducted, which validated Boeing’s concerns. This can be seen when comparing flight displays from the 1990’s and early 2000’s to those flown today.
So to answer your answer, are the Chinooks knackered? Yes, but they are constantly maintained. However, there comes a point, much like the Type 23 frigates, or an old land rover. They become money pits, as you are constantly fixing them. Meaning there is less overall Chinook availability (still better than the Merlins though!). Where it makes more sense to replace them with a newer model. I am pretty certain that they won’t be scrapped, but sold to another country, as they only had one previous careful owner and they have a good service record!
Very informative 👍
One of the best responses I have read on this site, thank you!
Much appreciated.
I’m guessing ZA704 will also go, that aircraft certainly has a story of its own!
I do know quite a few stories about Chinooks from both Iraq and Afghan. There are a number of cabs with stories that should be recorded. I remember talking to a Chinook pilot in Iraq, who said his cab tried to kill him, when he was flying 100ft over Baghdad. He had a flight control failure and had to fly it manually. This was during a mission on the way to do a troop drop off. After doing the drop off he circled the area waiting for the pick up, collected the troops and flew back to base. Pretty certain none of the troops knew what had happened.
The Chinook’s design and the way its flight controls work aren’t like a “normal” helicopter. Due to its tandem rotor layout. The rear rotor always wants to overtake the front one. But it means that when you push the cyclic forward to gain more airspeed. At a certain speed you have to pull back to gain more speed. Which is counter intuitive to a normal helicopter. As part of the flight controls, there’s a system that does this automatically and is controlled by the flight computer. It automatically adjusts the flight controls, so that the pilot can maintain flight speeds by pushing the cyclic forward, thereby making it intuitive.
Apparently it was this system that failed whilst flying at 150knots at 100ft. So there must have been an oh shit moment. But the pilot waved it off as no big deal and said it was all part of the job. I had massive respect for him after this. Being brought up on tales of the RAF checks in and not digs in etc.
Remember the spectacular procurement cockup when 6 or 8 brand new Chinooks were left unused over some software issue when Boeing refused access to the source code (never in the contract) and then UK spent milliions converting them back to clockwork avionics? No MOD official ever got fired.
I could add that those 8 fat tank Chinooks, then called HC3s were then later modified to become the HC5s. They did prove their worth in Mali though. As it meant they could carry a full pax load. Whereas, the skinny tank Chinooks have to carry a large internal ferry tank to make the range. That then cuts down on the number of pax you can carry.
Because much of the fleet is in storage.
No it is not.
What Luke Pollard, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence stated is technically true. It does gloss over some certain facts. Namely that these new Chinooks are being bought directly from the US Army and not Boeing. So does the current through life service contract we currently have with Boeing work with these new Chinooks? As spares are part of the contract, can these be used on the new Chinooks and vice versa? Another problem is the flight crew training. The new Chinooks do not use the same cockpit avionics as the extant fleet, which if I remember correctly is a bespoke cockpit provided by Thales. Whereas these new Chinooks use the one the US Army uses. Which means that a pilot can convert to the new Chinook, but when they do they are no longer qualified on the extant fleet. It will be interesting to see how this is managed, otherwise it could turn into a right cluster!
Oh of course they won’t. The navy gets away with shouting bang because it’s cheaper than firing a real shell so the army can run 100miles into battle waving their hands around d their heads yelling whop whop whop… While our tank lads yel Brum Brum as they run to the russian soldiers… I guess the top brass hope the enemy die laughing
I’m guessing ZA704 will also go, that aircraft certainly has a story of its own!
Ah yes, the old “the retirements wont affect operational deployments because we are getting better ones”. A bit like Nimrod MRA4 (something like a 10 year wait for Posideon), or how about the carriers? 8 year wait i think. Yes doesnt affect requirements because we just expect other countries to step up and cover our gaps.