Government rejected the offer of 60 Blackhawk helicopters.

[Squirrel]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/19/mod-reject-black-hawk-helicopters

So, the offer of 60 Blackhawk helicopters was turned down in favour of an upgrade to an ageing fleet of Pumas!!!!!!
I cant' find the link online, but the actual hard copy of the newspaper quotes the cost of the selected upgrade as being between 350 and 400 million for THIRTY THREE aircraft, wheras Sikorsky offered us sixty airframes for 500 million.....that's a bloody good deal if you ask me. Now I'm all for British jobs and all that, but not if the price is our guys getting inferior kit for an inflated price, and doubtlessly behind schedule.

smart procurement? I think not!
Some fcuker needs their nuts roasting, not that that will happen of course.

 

[Montigny_La_Palisse]

Re: Government rejected the offer of 60 Blackhawk helicopter

But you also have to consider the housing of them, support package, training the engineers and aircrew.

It's not as cut and dry. (Not that I'm defending the MOD).

 

[Squirrel]

Fair comment, but as I read it, training was part of the package.
I just think that there is a stupid [imho] blinkered culture in the MOD of 'buy British at ALL costs'....even if that cost means inferior equipment.
Another example is the SA80 A2 upgrade.....granted, the A2 is a decent weapon, now. But I read (can't find reference, sorry but will search harder if required) that instead of spending a fortune on the A1-A2 upgrade, we could have bought brand spankers M16A3's as used by the Danes, Cloggies and many British units who have a choice of weapon to use, for a cheaper price, weapon for weapon.
Other than have to admit that we'd been issued with a bag of **** prior to that, where was the sense in it?

 

[R077]

Fair comment, but as I read it, training was part of the package.
I just think that there is a stupid [imho] blinkered culture in the MOD of 'buy British at ALL costs'....even if that cost means inferior equipment.
Another example is the SA80 A2 upgrade.....granted, the A2 is a decent weapon, now. But I read (can't find reference, sorry but will search harder if required) that instead of spending a fortune on the A1-A2 upgrade, we could have bought brand spankers M16A3's as used by the Danes, Cloggies and many British units who have a choice of weapon to use, for a cheaper price, weapon for weapon.
Other than have to admit that we'd been issued with a bag of **** prior to that, where was the sense in it?

Here's the link mate: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/19/mod-reject-black-hawk-helicopters

 

[Montigny_La_Palisse]

Re: Government rejected the offer of 60 Blackhawk helicopter

The A2 is a far superior weapon to the yank boomstick. But that's a different thread. The Merlin is also better than the Blackhawk, so why buy that? We just need MORE MONEY. Not foreign kit.

 

[WhizzbangDai]

I can still see Squirrels point, if indeed training etc WAS part of the package... Merlin is a bigger aircraft than Puma, more on par with Sea King and Chinook - Blackhawks are about the same size as the Puma, capability wise anyway... so they would have made a good replacement by getting more, new airframes for slightly less money (slightly less in the gran scheme of things anyway, esp bearing in mind the £1.4bn cut the heli budget took)

MLP is right though, there's a whole load of other issues involved in adding a new airframe not least the training of new crews. More money all round would probably be the best option, but if we ARE strapped for cash, then maybe its time to look elsewhere, bite the bullet and start looking in the bargain basement, Global equivalent of the Pound shop.


Oh, and on something I actually have experience in... SA80A2 blows M16 out the water, I much prefer it.

 

[Montigny_La_Palisse]

Re: Government rejected the offer of 60 Blackhawk helicopter

Oh, and on something I actually have experience in... SA80A2 blows M16 out the water, I much prefer it.

And if it's covered in sand and sh1t, with terry coming at you looking all riled, I know which one I'd rather have to hand. With British rounds too.

 

[Passed-over_Loggie]

Re: Government rejected the offer of 60 Blackhawk helicopter

Ah the Blackhawk. It only seems like yesterday (and not 35 years ago) that display pilots were exceeding its performance envelope at Farnborough.

I have to agree with Montigny_La_Palisse on the Logs of operating an additional Type. Even if the training is free, you still need gash (Air Force sense) bodies to attend it and the time to assimilate it.

Something that we need to remember is that the machines have to be paid for. Although its not much help to the MoD where money is just money, it does matter to the Treasury. Even at bargain basement prices, they still need hard Dollars to change hands. We import more than we export and have done for over 10 years. If you don’t earn it, you can’t spend it; well, not forever. Yer man Dyson seems to have a good grasp of that http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2838444/Business-profile-Cyclone-Dyson.html

 

[Oil_Slick]

Re: Government rejected the offer of 60 Blackhawk helicopter

Got to keep the voters in Yeovilshire on side you know…

 

[Standby1936Range]

Re: Government rejected the offer of 60 Blackhawk helicopter

Got to keep the voters in Yeovilshire on side you know…

Not that I'm sticking up for Labour here, but Yeovil is a Lib Dem constituency and has been for a while now

 

[shipsnthat]

Re: Government rejected the offer of 60 Blackhawk helicopter

Got to keep the voters in Yeovilshire on side you know…

Not that I'm sticking up for Labour here, but Yeovil is a Lib Dem constituency and has been for a while now

Yep - 26 years and counting. Formerly represented by an alumnus of the naval service, too.

 

[daffy1]

Are you taling about the M16S or M4s, my personal thoughts are we should of got the M4s as they are much lighter and more of a balanced weapon when fitted with the 40mm also much better attachments and used my most SF units and USMC.
But the A2 is a vast improvment, and anyway it seems to be steering towards American hardware anyway such as using ACOG sights which is much better than the SUSAT, its a shame they did not send it to H&K in the first place, it would of saved so much money.

 

[Oil_Slick]

Re: Government rejected the offer of 60 Blackhawk helicopter

Fair comment, but as I read it, training was part of the package.
I just think that there is a stupid [imho] blinkered culture in the MOD of 'buy British at ALL costs'....even if that cost means inferior equipment.
Another example is the SA80 A2 upgrade.....granted, the A2 is a decent weapon, now. But I read (can't find reference, sorry but will search harder if required) that instead of spending a fortune on the A1-A2 upgrade, we could have bought brand spankers M16A3's as used by the Danes, Cloggies and many British units who have a choice of weapon to use, for a cheaper price, weapon for weapon.
Other than have to admit that we'd been issued with a bag of **** prior to that, where was the sense in it?

Brand new M4's and M16's cost @ $1,300 a go retail. Purchases in the 10's of thousands bring the unit price down dramatically, the US DoD pays $550 a go for theirs. The Cloggies, Danes and our blokes that don't shave use Diemaco's (now Colt Canada), which are a bit better than the regular M16's/M4's.


And yes… we could have bought brand new rifles for less than it cost to upgrade each SA80 to A2 spec. If you add up the original unit cost plus all the mods over the years to get it to work, each SA80-A2 works out at a rather eye watering £2,300 a go.

And after all the dicking about with the SA80 it's going to have to start being replaced soon as they are wearing out and there are no spares such as recievers to rebuild them so we'll probably end up buying 200,000 Diemacos anyways like many in the Amy recommended in 2000.

 

[Backpacker1uk]

Re: Government rejected the offer of 60 Blackhawk helicopter

Murky Tale of a Crash in Afghanistan

There was one more helicopter available to deliver supplies than Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth was admitting. The additional machine was leased via NATO, operated by a Moldovan charter company, Pecotox Air, which has been banned from EU airspace for safety reasons and which has been implicated in arms trafficking.

These details would not have emerged but for the unfortunate incident yesterday when it was reported the helicopter, a giant Mi-26T, registration ER-MCV, was shot down by the Taleban a mile from the British military base in Sangin.

The Moldovan operator claimed the aircraft had been "ferrying humanitarian aid" when the crash took place, but Western forces confirmed that the helicopter had been "bringing supplies to a British base at Sangin." It was contracted specifically to supply British forces.

The aircraft was reported as being leased by NATO as a means of relieving the chronic shortage of helicopter lift in theatre. However, it is obvious why Pecotox Air would want to mislead, as it would not want it widely known that it was delivering military supplies to British bases.

The fact that "unsafe" gun runners should end up supplying "Our Boys" is a story in itself. For several years, critics advocated that the Government should charter civilian helicopters directly, having been made aware of a number of reputable companies who could supply Russian-built helicopters - including the Mi-26 - upgraded with European avionics and flown by security-cleared ex-military crews.

However, such were the objections raised within MoD - and especially by the RAF, which argued on safety, operational and security grounds against permitting civilian aircraft into military airspace - that, although the Government relented briefly, it turned down a long-term arrangement. Instead, it chose to throw its lot in with NATO and charter an aircraft through this source.

In taking this option, however, the Government lost control over the selection of the contractor, which was managed by NATO in Brussels on a lowest-bidder-wins basis. As a result, British taxpayers ended up paying for a helicopter operated by a company banned from the airspace of EU member states on safety grounds, with a record of gun-running, the machine flown by a Ukrainian crew, possibly of uncertain loyalty.

Whether a better-equipped machine would have evaded the Taleban attack is moot, but this machine is unlikely to have been equipped with the latest defensive aids, which have proved extraordinarily successful. How many supplies have been lost - and the cost - has not been disclosed, and probably never will.

 

[WhizzbangDai]

Are you taling about the M16S or M4s, my personal thoughts are we should of got the M4s as they are much lighter and more of a balanced weapon when fitted with the 40mm also much better attachments and used my most SF units and USMC.
But the A2 is a vast improvment, and anyway it seems to be steering towards American hardware anyway such as using ACOG sights which is much better than the SUSAT, its a shame they did not send it to H&K in the first place, it would of saved so much money.

Better balanced with a 40mm are you on crack? I don't know if you've used one, if you have and thats what you thought then fine (you're wrong but it's you're opnion) but I have and the A2 was heavier, sure but far better balanced, and the weight helped by absorbing the fcuk off recoil of the UGL, plus the fact its a bullpup means its far better weighted, especially with a magazine.


M4's have many issues. They use direct gas impingement action, with the gas being blown back down the barrel - as opposed to the piston in the A2 which keeps it out the way. In a 'dust test' in 2007 the M4 had 882 stoppages compared to its competitors - the nearest other one was the HK416 with 233!! Not only that, but it has a short barrel - so the 5.56 round, which is fairly lethal when fired from a nice long SA80 barrel, loses a lot of range and performance - check out the ballistic gel tests, the M16 with a slightly shorter barrel than an SA80 (despite being 200mm longer)has the same shattering effect at 300m as the M4 does at 100m.

The ONLY reason the US military still use them, is the same reason that we still use the f*cking Lynx and are going to buy the FLynx, that it's made by Colt, and buying American as opposed to GErman or Belgian saves lives.

SF don't use SA80 because it can't fire around left hand corners, and before we got the new grip it didn't have a Picatinnyrail. It does now, but their all caught up in being 'special' so there you go. If you must decide on a different weapon, get something like the G36 (handguard heats up V V fast) or the HK416 which, although it suffers the same problem with round velocity as the M4, it at least has a decent gas action.

Or, and heres a thought, just keep our very reliable, very accurate slightly too heavy weapon we have now. Sorry if this post seems rather on edge but i've recently had this exact same argument with a few others who get all caught up in how cool a weapon looks as opposed to its actual useability and effectiveness

Edited to add link to this ARRSE thread, and also for people to note the SFSG using SA80A2's...
http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=128696/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=20.html

 

[lukep]

Are you taling about the M16S or M4s, my personal thoughts are we should of got the M4s as they are much lighter and more of a balanced weapon when fitted with the 40mm also much better attachments and used my most SF units and USMC.
But the A2 is a vast improvment, and anyway it seems to be steering towards American hardware anyway such as using ACOG sights which is much better than the SUSAT, its a shame they did not send it to H&K in the first place, it would of saved so much money.

Thats your opinion mate,
There aint much difference between the two the Susat is x4 whilst the Acog is x3.75, The tritium appature within the susat in my opinion is better than the red circle within the Acog, and the Susat is as tough as old boots you could drop a fukcing great house on top of it and it would still be fine.
I own an Acog sight and i would trade it in for the Susat anyday.
The old SA80A2 argumant we could be here all day, The A2 is a fantastic rifle, a fukcing world beater at that. It'll take the pepsi challenge with the M4 anyday.
Funny hows its only former members of the services who complain about it. Most lads still in are more than happy with it.

 

[Montigny_La_Palisse]

Thats your opinion mate,
There aint much difference between the two the Susat is x4 whilst the Acog is x3.75, The tritium appature within the susat in my opinion is better than the red circle within the Acog, and the Susat is as tough as old boots you could drop a fukcing great house on top of it and it would still be fine.
I own an Acog sight and i would trade it in for the Susat anyday.
The old SA80A2 argumant we could be here all day, The A2 is a fantastic rifle, a fukcing world beater at that. It'll take the pepsi challenge with the M4 anyday.
Funny hows its only former members of the services who complain about it. Most lads still in are more than happy with it.[/quote]

That's because they've probably never relied on one to shoot some angry fella in the face whilst he's hairing toward you with an AK.

 

[X.R.D]

Are you taling about the M16S or M4s, my personal thoughts are we should of got the M4s as they are much lighter and more of a balanced weapon when fitted with the 40mm also much better attachments and used my most SF units and USMC.
But the A2 is a vast improvment, and anyway it seems to be steering towards American hardware anyway such as using ACOG sights which is much better than the SUSAT, its a shame they did not send it to H&K in the first place, it would of saved so much money.

Better balanced with a 40mm are you on crack? I don't know if you've used one, if you have and thats what you thought then fine (you're wrong but it's you're opnion) but I have and the A2 was heavier, sure but far better balanced, and the weight helped by absorbing the fcuk off recoil of the UGL, plus the fact its a bullpup means its far better weighted, especially with a magazine.


M4's have many issues. They use direct gas impingement action, with the gas being blown back down the barrel - as opposed to the piston in the A2 which keeps it out the way. In a 'dust test' in 2007 the M4 had 882 stoppages compared to its competitors - the nearest other one was the HK416 with 233!! Not only that, but it has a short barrel - so the 5.56 round, which is fairly lethal when fired from a nice long SA80 barrel, loses a lot of range and performance - check out the ballistic gel tests, the M16 with a slightly shorter barrel than an SA80 (despite being 200mm longer)has the same shattering effect at 300m as the M4 does at 100m.

The ONLY reason the US military still use them, is the same reason that we still use the f*cking Lynx and are going to buy the FLynx, that it's made by Colt, and buying American as opposed to GErman or Belgian saves lives.

SF don't use SA80 because it can't fire around left hand corners, and before we got the new grip it didn't have a Picatinnyrail. It does now, but their all caught up in being 'special' so there you go. If you must decide on a different weapon, get something like the G36 (handguard heats up V V fast) or the HK416 which, although it suffers the same problem with round velocity as the M4, it at least has a decent gas action.

Or, and heres a thought, just keep our very reliable, very accurate slightly too heavy weapon we have now. Sorry if this post seems rather on edge but i've recently had this exact same argument with a few others who get all caught up in how cool a weapon looks as opposed to its actual useability and effectiveness

Edited to add link to this ARRSE thread, and also for people to note the SFSG using SA80A2's...
http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=128696/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=20.html

Whilst accusing others of being on crack i would like to ask you if you have looked in an armoury of a SF unit recently?? If you have then you wouldn't have written that which i have highlighted. It isn't all charging around with C7/C8's and i know for a fact that 21 SAS were using SA80A1's 2-3 years prior to the green army being issued them!!!

 

[cornishgolfer]

I've heard there are a few Wasps in storage...............

 

[WhizzbangDai]

Didn't say they didn't XRD, didn't say they didn't.

Well I did, but I didn't mean it like that because i'm a tit

As far as I was informed by a few I were chatting too, they use whatever rifle fits the roles their working under, so if they need to use SA80 they will. I was speaking about general issue, most of the time.