Junglie Merlins [Archive]

DCNO10

13th Jan 2011, 17:34

There has been a letter from the PM, in answer to a PMQ session pre Christmas, confirming that the RAF Merlins will indeed be going to CHF and the FAA.

Perhaps I can be of some assistance....(I always keep copies!)

Transcript of letter to Mr Edward Leigh MP dated 21 Dec 2010:

Dear Edward

At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday 15 December I said that I would look into the point you raised about the transfer of Merlin Helicopters from the Royal Air Force to the Royal Navy.

I can confirm that it remains our intention to transfer 25 Merlin Mk 3/3a helicopters from the RAF to the Navy over the next few years. They will replace the Sea King Mk 4 helicopters which presently form part of the Royal Navy’s Commando Helicopter Force. They will be based at RNAS Yeovilton.

It is planned that these helicopters will be replaced in their present role with the Royal Air Force by new Chinook helicopters.

Yours David

Take care.

Tallsar

13th Jan 2011, 18:55

Comparison with MCSP is simply not relevant here. MCSP is not High Risk otherwise it would not be happening.....its a prolonged programme due to lack of immediate and sufficient MoD funding. and involves little to do with changing the airframe build..particularly as the Mk1 already has all the foldy bits and in-built anti-corrosion measures...the latter being the key...No the Mk2 MCSP is all about reducing cost of ownership by replacing ancient electronics with those based on interoprable open architecture...a bit of plug and play if you like - but the designer if I met him would "smack" me for saying that!.

The Mk3s will need not only the foldy bits (remember it has a different tail design to the Mk1), and significantly it has no anti-corrosion measures. Sorting them will mean fundamental strip down...not a cheap process...and not neccessarily achievable in all present components.

The addition of the foldy bits will also add weight to what is already a relative poor payload performer. This implies further MAUM extensions which may apparently be made available but will come with greater major component life reduction penalties. It may not be as achievable as wished for given that the Mk3 build will not have some of the essential fuselage component strengthenings as provided in later and new build 101s for operating at the latest MAUMs. The cost of ownership of Merlin 3 is not cheap by any standards...so how does that square with saving cash and making MoD efficient?? It doesn't.

There was indeed an official MoD study a few years ago...and as result both the Merlin IPT, MoD Capability and the JHC know full well that the recommendation from that study was that it was more cost effective to buy new rather than rebuild the Mk3s......yet another procurement cock-up in the offing I fear.

TwoStep

13th Jan 2011, 20:01

Why is the Mk3 a poor peformer payload-wise, are the engines limited, has it not been cleared to higher weights, or is it just heavy?

blandy1

13th Jan 2011, 22:20

How did the RAF manage to De-marinise a marinised airframe in the first place? Surely the things could have been bought as per the HM1 but with a rear ramp and the heavy bits of the tail folding mechanism removed in favour of bolts and some buttstraps.

... A simplistic comment I know but I cant help but think there was a certain degree of "these are our toys so we're going to spec them so the Navy cant use them" mentality going on.

Compressorstall

13th Jan 2011, 22:27

The Mk3 Merlin has a reinforced floor, which adds about a tonne to the AUM.

Tallsar

13th Jan 2011, 22:58

The essential reason that the Mk3 is different is because it was designed by the Agusta side of the partnership (in the 1980s don't forget) as a basic and cost effective civil utility ac with a ramp, not a multi-capable battlefied helo, never mind one that could operate in all environments.

The Mk1 maritme ASW version on the other hand was designed specifically by Westland for the maritime battle environment to a very comprehensive (and eventually) a very very expensive RN spec. The integral marinisation was a natural consequence of that. (BTW it cost over £4.5Bn to develop and buy those 44 Mk1s!! Where as we spent about £750M on the original 22 Mk3s ..and that sum included about £100M to make them as good as possible at being compatible with the UK SH role rather than a civ Utility ac).

The Mk3 was never intended to go near the salty water when it was bought in 1995...but a few years later the Labour SDR98 created the JHC and also set in train the "go anywhere" policy that lead to all SH potentially being used at sea as well as on land.- even if thew were not marinised. More (UOR) money has now been spent on the Mk3 to make it a more capable SH (which wasn't available in 1995 when we purchased them) for Afghanistan but it still has not (and probably should not) had any cash spent on marinisation.

As to performance, the Mk3 has more powerful engines than the Mk1, but with full role equipment and heavier floor and armour (and despite no foldy bits) it struggles to have a good payload when enough fuel is added too. There has been a heavier take off clearance in recent times but this is by no means without its penalities in terms of cost of ownership..and thats before we consider tail rotor performance. Don't forget that the Mk1 performance was also a compromise against the original ASW spec as the basic design has a poor (for a modern helo design) payload to basic weight ratio. This was one of reasons the programme was almost cancelled in 1990 when the true performance was made apparent after flight testing - the poor ASW mission system performance being the other main issue at the time. The more modern 101 can be a capable and effective choice...but probably only in certain roles where its attributes can be efficiently employed...long range SAR or special ops being some of them

Many believe the Merlin should never have been purchased for SH...and in 1995 every study by MoD showed that the CH47 was always the most cost effective option given its similar price...the then Tory government went against all that advice and bought them anyway.....for every Chinook you need 21/2 Merlin Mk3s to carry the same payload equivalents for an aircraft that isn't much smaller ..although of course the Chinook can always carry much larger volumes and physically large sized loads or very heavy single ones...so which is the better investment, particualry when you consider the costs of running 2 ac types rather than one?

Given that understanding....there was much effort put in to getting any new CH47 purchase marinised so that they could replace some if not all the SK Mk4s in due course...but that proved too expensive and technically riisky with a possible set of folding tandem heads etc, and was binned as an option a while ago. In the absence of any such dedicated "CHF" Chinooks, and the lack of any money under SDSR to replace the Mk4 Sea Kings with a new order for "proper" CHF Merlins---we now face the prospect of the Mk3s being used, swapped or whatever to do the job instead...any port in a storm springs to mind I think....

Cheers :ugh::{

Compressorstall

13th Jan 2011, 23:12

The Merlin Mk3 does show the long-term effects of short-term Deefence thinking. When originally coming into service, the Mk3 was planned to equip 28 Sqn, a flight on 72 Sqn in NI and possibly 84 Sqn in Cyprus. The Mk3 is a compromise in some ways, but it also pays the weight penalty of incorporating 1980s thinking in triplex redundancy. However, it does a brilliant job within the design constraints and has strengths. We could revisit the concept that we should have gone with more Chinooks and the WS-70 Blackhawks, but that is now ancient history.

Tallsar

13th Jan 2011, 23:36

CS ---yes indeed..we have to live with what we have got..and these days within our limited means....so a complete rethink is out of the question.

The Mk3 was never originally intended to go to 84 Sqn....and the 72 Sqn Flight was a "make do" plan given that the cash (after buying the 14 additonal CH47 Mk2s (and the Mk3s - lets not go there!!!)) only allowed 22 to be purchased in 95- more than 1 Sqn's worth but not enough for 2!

With the downsizing of the NI helo force in 2003, sense was seen and all Mk3s were put on one Sqn (28) to ensure best cost efficiency..particularly as in the early few years of service every Mk3 had to go back for post production modification to fit most of the SH goodies specified in the original contract.

The 84 possibility was a passing draft option during SDR98 when the buying a large number of additional CH47 was a distinct possibility and a thought emerged to replace the yellow RAF SKs and 84 Wessex with the 22 Mk3s (plus perhaps a few more from the RN fleet) modified for UK SAR. Given the budgetary limits in Cyprus it rapidly became clear that any Mk3s in Cyprus would be too expensive and not operationally justifiable, and a PFI style option was gone for...hence the Griffins Mk2s on 84 now.

The triple redundancy was a sensible thought process for 1980s regulatory thinking, particularly for civ ops T/Os from proper HLSs, but see how few have been sold for tha role..none...and the RN specified the idea because of the great number of ASW SKs that had ditched or been lost due to poor single engine performance. The reality is that the design carries at least 1500kg of dead weight and extra fuel usage too. A twin engine version (given that the engines are more than able to produce much more power if required) would be ideal for many roles..and more cost effective...but who is going to pay the mega bucks to design and clear it...no one....and of course it would need a new MRGB..the present one being of the old sun/planetary design (used because of workshare considerations) a la SK....and has too low limits on its input shaft and gearwheels to take all the power the 322 could be made to offer in a twin engine configuration. C'est la vie as they say....If you know anything about the WG34 (the original UK only design to meet the RN ASW requirment) you will have noted yet another opportunity missed.....

Cheers

NUFC1892

14th Jan 2011, 06:44

Transcript of letter to Mr Edward Leigh MP dated 21 Dec 2010:

Quote:
Dear Edward

At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday 15 December I said that I would look into the point you raised about the transfer of Merlin Helicopters from the Royal Air Force to the Royal Navy.

I can confirm that it remains our intention to transfer 25 Merlin Mk 3/3a helicopters from the RAF to the Navy over the next few years. They will replace the Sea King Mk 4 helicopters which presently form part of the Royal Navy’s Commando Helicopter Force. They will be based at RNAS Yeovilton.

It is planned that these helicopters will be replaced in their present role with the Royal Air Force by new Chinook helicopters.

Yours David

Late last year I secured a posting to the SK IPT for my last tour, starting this summer. Given this letter and the ongoing SAR discussions perhaps I should put my house-hunting in Somerset on hold - bugger!:ugh:

Yozzer

14th Jan 2011, 08:27

From the Training Pipeline thread:
IMMEDIATE MEASURES

RW Pilot. Army pilot courses will continue with no change. There will be a small reduction in RN cse sizes however, all new RAF RW courses will be halved in size with students not in trg placed in a hold, pending the decision on how to rebalance the pipeline.

Which gives some gravitas to theories concerning the air force losing a fleet whilst Navy SK pilots retrain on a new toy. It also explains why RAF Merlin OCF dates are sliding right with some conviction. However as the future of green Merlin appears to change on a daily basis, this does nothing for a feeling of job security or stability in life for anybody.

dangermouse

14th Jan 2011, 11:31

The design of the Utility 101 was LED by Agusta but it was not an Agusta only product, the 101 was a true 50/50 design indeed Merlin Mk3 design leadership was WHL only, actually the proper designation of the aircraft should be Westland Merlin Mk3, compared to Lockheed Martin Merlin Mk1 (due to the Prime contracts placed).

The EH101 was designed from the start to be a multirole aircraft, Civil pax, Naval ASW and Utility variants being the big 3. A Mk3 is a UK specific utility aircraft, the Mk3A is a (now) UK modded Danish specific utility aircraft for comaprison.

The spec for Mk3 always stated that operation from RN ships was a requirement for the SH role and the aircraft was designed and built with that role in mind.

A folding capability for the Mk3 was costed for the MoD as an option prior to contract award but was not adopted on cost grounds. Fitting a folding system would not be difficult as all the bits would be 'off the shelf', albeit involving some MGB and head rework. A tail fold would be more involved but eminently do-able. (Actually do you need to fold the tail at all?)

The 'poor' payload capability of the design is caused in part to the inherent crashworthiness capability mandated in the design which is singularly absent in the Puma and Ch47 (which use 1960s rules). The strengthened floor was due to a RAF specific requirement to carry vehuicle inside the cabin which results in very high localised floor loadings, other users have not this requirement and the normal floor is a lot lighter. The floor also allows use of an integral hook (to react the loads into the structure) which was another unique RAF requirement as well. With hindsight it may have been a better bet for the RAF to have specified a role fittable hook and not lose a fuel tank, but I guess the Chinook influenec on having a 'hell hole' to see the load held sway. Other 101 utility users have gone that way.

Remember the USAF retired the C141 due to its lack of volume not its lack of payload, sometimes mass isn't everything.

Tallsar is correct in that MAYBE a twin engine variant would have been a better bet, however my guess is that a twin engined aircarft would have used a slimmer fuselage and that would have reduced the Merlin biggest asset of volume rather than true payload. A different engine to the RTM322 or CT7 would be needed however to cope with the engine out case.

Is triple redundancy 1980s thinking?, isnt the new CH53K a triple engined aircraft as well?

Anyway we are we are now and I cannot see new build Merlin aircraft for the RM being purchased however much those of us in the west country would love to see that happen!

DM

Tallsar

14th Jan 2011, 11:59

DM - thanks for your input re the Mk3...you have elaborated even more than I was intially prepared to go. While you are correct that the original spec called for operation from ships...in terms of permanent operation from ships, as would be required by a "proper" CHF variant, and of course, the Mk1/2 variants, then no substantial measures were taken at build to enable this. As you rightly state we had run out of the cash - in 98 there was a further (fleeting) possibility we could have integrated folding heads in the last 2/3rds of the build at a "discount" price during SDR98.....but this was also rejected at the time given the aircraft's already limited payload capability against that very Mk3 spec to which you refer and no substanial support from the relvant MoD offices who were more focussed on delivering other major issues within that SDR, and it was pre-formation of the JHC. It still leaves the dilema that the Mk3 is not suitable for prolonged operations from ships, and without substantial improvement work...which in itself will prove costly, there will be long term cost of ownership issues, if and when the Mk3s are employed within the CHF role.

Cheers

Tourist

14th Jan 2011, 13:41

I have tried, but failed, to resist the temptation to post a link to the "ha ha the RAF has won the RN has lost" thread from last year. I know it makes me a bad person, but hay ho.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431233-future-faa.html

Quite frankly, stick it up your arse Crab early gloaters

Tourist

14th Jan 2011, 13:43

Having said that, I wouldn't trust polititians to piss standing up, so who knows...........:uhoh:

dangermouse

14th Jan 2011, 14:18

Agreed that the Mk3 does not have the full suite of mods required for prolonged ship ops however the baiscs (including corrosion reisstance) are there, it is built into the basic design, manufacturing methods and choice of materials.

The Mk1 requirement was operating off 'small' ships in serious sea states hence its specialised deck handling gear and undercarriage (including sprag brakes etc) and automatic folding system.

The necessary ship op requirements for a CHF variant would likely be MRH folding and probably Tail fold, and not much else. Some changes to oleo characteristsics MAY be necessary but unless operations on FFG/DD is required probably not, likewise a decklock wouldn't be necessary. So the actual changes to baseline Mk3 standard are small.

It would seem sensible to me to have the Mk3/3A fleet retained by the RAF but with mods for ship deployment and with suitably trained air/ground crew (i.e make 28 and 78 'maritime SH' sqns with a primary role of shore ops but with the skills and kit necessary for ship deployment IF AND WHEN needed).

As we will soon only have Ocean and Argus left now we really need a dedicated CHF force with all the overheads that entails?, after all AH is still an Army asset but goes shipborne (as do the Chinooks)

DM

FireAxe

14th Jan 2011, 15:01

DM
Careful with that common sense you seem to be displaying, it may catch on! Why can't we continue as we are, cheaper in the short term and just bring the Junglie aircrew to Benson?

Aynayda Pizaqvick

14th Jan 2011, 15:09

With all the talk of carrying out expensive mods and retraining RN pilots to fly the 26 Merlin Mk3s I've often wondered if it would actually be easier to integrate an SH mod into the Mk1s when they get their planned Mk2 upgrade. Admittedly it may be a bit awkward retro fitting a ramp but the Sea Kings have lasted the last 30+ years without a ramp. We have 40 odd Mk1s, RN crews are already trained to fly them (you will soon have to retrain them to Mk2 anyway so start filtering in the Junglie guys), they have blade and tail folding fitted and oh, did I mention we have LOADS of them?!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to lessen the job that the Mk1 guys do (especially now without Nimrod) but we simply won't have as many ships as we used to. Do we need all of them for the ASW role? Would it be possible to have a role fit sensor suite for the guys in the back and strip it out for Amphibious Ops? Would it be worth having say a dozen of them permanently stripped down for trooping just in case we do one day need to carry out amphibious ops again?

cyrilranch

14th Jan 2011, 15:59

Taken from the Shephard site for Rotorhub
A leaner, meaner Merlin | Shephard Group (http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/rotorhub/a-leaner-meaner-merlin/8088/)

it looks as the Mk2 are gear up for extra toops carrying when not used for ASW

"The changes mean that the Mk2 is a leaner machine than its predecessor. When weighed, the aircraft came in around 200 kg (440 lbs) lighter than a Mk1 even with test instrumentation onboard. The rear mission console, designed to be operated by two air warfare officers, has the option to be split in half if the aircraft is required for non anti-submarine warfare missions. With half the console removed, the aircraft can carry 12 patients in the CASEVAC role, over the Mk1s eight, or up to 16 combat troops, with the area previously occupied by the console being used for 'bergen' or backpack storage.
Other changes to the aircraft include a new environmental control system, fast roping equipment and the option of fitting a M3M 0.50 calibre machine gun for use out of the cabin door."

MaroonMan4

15th Jan 2011, 20:10

Tourist,

Although I would recommend that you are cautious ahead of any announcement on this year's Planning Round, I am willing to accept that a Prime Minister's letter and the associated mood music appears to be that the remainder of the dark blue Fisheads have actually realised how close they are to losing the Fleet Air Arm and done something about it (too late for their Harrier mates sadly).

Probably assisted by a bit of China, North Korea and now Tunisia all conveniently in the media that could all possibly be spun to show a requirement for boats and helicopters.

I wish them good luck as I certainly wouldn't want to be in the Freak Force at the moment (certainly one that is about to spend long periods at sea in order to be something on the new carriers!) - but if nothing else can we please, please stop fighting amongst ourselves, arguing quite rudely and looking at each other in a funny way over the briefing tables now and accept that things have to change and just move on. :ugh:

We do have a real enemy to fight you know :eek:

If not we will just eat each other up - and lose the mutual trust and respect that has been hard earned over the years where we (all 3 services) have all been in some very sticky situations to support the guys on the ground.

Yozzer

15th Jan 2011, 21:00

June 2010:

However, one piece of good news expected in the (SDSR) review is that the SAS is to get ten new helicopters worth £100 million.
The order for the twin-engined European-built NH90s will boost operations in Afghanistan, where commanders have long demanded more capability to airlift troops. But the Special Forces would have preferred the more expensive US-built Black Hawks, which are seen as tougher and more reliable.

I would not start the gloating process just yet. These things change often and the NH90 order was confirmed in Parliament, but as we know is now dead in the water. Possesion is 10/10 of the Law and the green Merlins are yet to have Royal Navy written on the side. We may yet get an RAF that flies and a Navy that sails. The Navy got to keep their Carriers of that they can be pleased however I suspect that at best there will be a Sqn manned by both shades of blue in the seats. We may even get to see a common 'con' (VM) in the near future. SDSR has few winners and much compromise, a trend that I can see this thread concluding with.

SL Hardly-Worthitt

15th Jan 2011, 21:17

MM4 is absolutely correct.

I, amongst many here in this HQ, would heartily agree with the plea to stop the current unseemly arguments and disparaging remarks not only taking place on forums such as this, but witnessed daily within Air and Navy Cmds and, of course, at JHC.

Nevertheless it must be highlighted that although it has been nearly 3 months since the SDSR announcements, the senior RAF leadership have done very little to prevent or discourage the line (spin?) that the MOD-agreed and government-endorsed Rotary Wing Strategy no longer applied and, as repeated (somewhat childishly) again in this thread and others, that CAS would no longer allow the transfer of the Merlins to the RN.

Perhaps now with the unequivocal reply from the PM to Edward Leigh's PMQ, asked specifically to help end the unhelpful speculation that has percolated throughout JHQ (and was, reportedly, having a direct affect upon the morale of frontline personnel from both services), it is time for a similar unequivocal message by CAS (perhaps even alongside his opposite number 1SL) which, following on from the Prime Minister's words, lays out how and when the transition of these helicopters and the required training of the crews will take place. Although the detail is likely not yet in place (perhaps due to the ongoing 'sniping') a clear statement of intent with the high-level strategy and initial timeline might be a good start.

With such a statement, it may be that the some of the current broken strands of professional trust and respect that MM4 (and many other link-minded individuals in all services) wish to re-establish as soon as possible can start to be healed. Further public "gloating" (which I have witnessed from several colleagues - some pretty senior) on several occasions since Oct must now stop and positive steps taken to mend fractured relationships with the other 2 services (the Senior service in particular!)

In summary - CAS, now is the time to display real professional leadership and do the right thing. As MM4 so succinctly put it - "We do have a real enemy to fight you know!" - and it ain't your sister services!

H-W

minigundiplomat

15th Jan 2011, 23:05

They are crap anyway!

Norfolk Inchance

16th Jan 2011, 11:23

Thanks for all the info . As the this thread has developed and grown, it is interesting to note how the tone changes. Obviously inter-service rivalary is alive and well, but at this time where/when we are all being shafted would a bit of co-operation not be more advisable IOT secure a future for us all. Bar room banter is great, but come on chaps, we are supposed to be on the same side. BTW what is MCSP?
Oh and from a grav's pov, when I was on the ground in South Armagh in the 80's and 90's with typical Norn Irish weather it would only be the junglie Wessex and latterly SK4 that would pick us up, our hearts sank if we heard a RAF cab was being sent; we then had to look forward to our yomp back into XMG or Forkhill.

minigundiplomat

16th Jan 2011, 11:58

but come on chaps, we are supposed to be on the same side.

our hearts sank if we heard a RAF cab was being sent

WTF???????????????????

TheWizard

16th Jan 2011, 12:05

Did you think you had the monopoly on childish inflammatory statements MGD?!
Of course you didn't.....

m+m

16th Jan 2011, 12:24

"Oh and from a grav's pov, when I was on the ground in South Armagh in the 80's and 90's with typical Norn Irish weather it would only be the junglie Wessex and latterly SK4 that would pick us up, our hearts sank if we heard a RAF cab was being sent; we then had to look forward to our yomp back into XMG or Forkhill"

If we'd known that at the time we'd have let you yomp back you ungrateful b@@s£rd. What did you do when your precious Junglies weren't there? The vast majority of the humpin' and dumpin' in Norn Ireland was done by the boys on permanent posting to the emerald isle and they were Army and RAF!!

minigundiplomat

16th Jan 2011, 13:12

Did you think you had the monopoly on childish inflammatory statements MGD?!

Of course not. Looking forward to seeing you on your Chinook course. :ok:

And the Merlins are still crap.

TheWizard

16th Jan 2011, 13:51

Of course not. Looking forward to seeing you on your Chinook course.
You coming back as a civvy instructor then?? :}
You won't be seeing me anytime soon!!:ok:

MaroonMan4

16th Jan 2011, 13:58

Guided Weapons,

At this stage (pre-Planning Round) I think I will put my slice on hold if it is ok with you - and please remember that I have only watched with interest at how the hierarchy of all 3 services have gone for the jugular as the treasury have taken a step back rubbing their hands with glee as we fight amongst ourselves.

My personal stance on this has always been that our light blue staff officers have always seemed to be one step ahead of your dark blue bretheren - just look at the actually amazement how Harrier and the carrier removal from service caused such draw dropping shock. You have to admit it was a very bold and risky move by CAS to make a land grab for Merlin only the day after SDSR, that again you must admit looked as though it would pay off for us.

I actually respond to strong leadership (even if bad news) and where it has been distinctly lacking with our own CAS, and I suppose judging by the Fishead posts, also 1SL - I do accept (and respect) a Prime Minister that actually grips a situation and makes a decision.

MGD

I know it is going to be emotional for us (and to be straight I think the Fisheads may come to regret their enthusiasm for taking over the Freaks - by all accounts it is not a happy place to be at the moment)......but....

Lets stop it, certainly at our level....lets move on. You and I can rest assured that we actually operate the aircraft that guys on the ground really want and also in the fact that hopefully now that the Fisheads do have a new toy that the likes of you and I do not have to waste months of our lives on that morale vacuum known as the O Boat (or any other Fishead floaty thing).

We have some work to do (together) if we are going to get anywhere in the future (and I think about that Afghan crocodile that is still very much the closest to our canoe) and start to put all of this negative rubbish behind us now.

minigundiplomat

16th Jan 2011, 14:35

You won't be seeing me anytime soon!!

I'll live. Enjoy the Navy.

high spirits

16th Jan 2011, 17:40

Latest rumour I have is no new CH-47, other than 2 x attritional spares and a bitter pill for both light and dark blue. Losing one Sqn each and Joint Force Merlin. With the current availability of training airframes the dark blue will just about be able to muster a Sqn by 2018.....and I'm not joking.

Yozzer

16th Jan 2011, 19:02

If the additional CH47 are cancelled (and that would not surprise me an iota) and the associated funding for modernisation of Odiham is withdrawn, then they are in deep quano regarding accomodation and real estate. It could get very ugly, very quickly and could epitomise an implosion within the RAF. I have heard too often folk talk about returning to OMQ/FMQ if home to duty is reduced or removed, and fuel prices being out of control will inflame that particular furnace. It is rapidly getting to the point were you would not want to be part of the aftermath of 2015. Worst still, these are the thoughts of a serviceman; whereas the citizens of the UK have no idea how insecure the defence of the country is becoming.

Countdown to UK Defence Force Plc has begun.

minigundiplomat

16th Jan 2011, 19:37

Latest rumour I have is no new CH-47,

Wouldn't surprise me either, but this is , at best, as the poster describes it - a rumour.

MaroonMan4

16th Jan 2011, 19:40

High Spirits,

Are you sure about your info - I agree with everyone that nothing would surprise me, but even the most dim witted bean counter, scrutineer and politician recognise that this will place us back to where we were at the beginning when Brown withdrew funding for FMH and other rotary projects that then prompted the NAO report of 2003 - and delaying spending on projects now cost significantly more in the future - significantly more as airframes drop off the perch.

If there is to be this reduction of helicopters - Sea King in the next 6-8 years and Puma in 10 or so, then that leaves a very very small rotary wing fleet indeed.

A decision like that would be political suicide wouldn't it? How could any politician stand up in front of the country for the next war after Afghanistan and apologise for repeating the same lessons learned (i.e. not enough helicopters).

If we do not get the CH47 buy, then that is it - the game is over and we really are adopting an isolationist policy and withdrawing from the world stage.

That will be it and heaven forbid if this country does have floods on the scale that the rest of the world seems to be having, or a requirement to lift stranded tourists from countries around the globe that have rapidly defied all strategic reviews and suddenly tumbled into instability - let alone do any of the air mobility/manoeuvre that the pongos want in order to bounce them around the battle fields of tomorrow so they dont have to get blown up by roadside bombs, or bogged down in unsuitable terrain etc - madness

Admin_Guru

16th Jan 2011, 20:41

No money in the pot and no overdraft available. An easy sell to any taxpayer when told the only way to get more helicopters is for the taxpayer, NHS, Schools etc etc to pay for it.

The Armed Forces; it like all at MoD is sucking its thumb in the corner and licking its wounds. We must leave the world stage for we cannot afford it. China is the leader in the economic world with massive investment in African natural rescources. They are not peacekeeping and do not give two hoots what the western world thing about human rights issues. I cannot help but think that China has its priorities right including the defence of the nation. The UK is bankrupt; and it is not alone. The buzzword for 2011/12 will become "moratorium" I am sure of it.

Once free of the Afghan burden, I suspect Govt will be very selective at what world affairs it chooses to see. The US special relationship will die a death if it hasnt already. If the Germans bin the Euro currency I can potentialy see the EU collapsing and where will that leave any Anglo-French pact?

Still not convinced that Puma will see another 10 years out. I agree that Joint Force Merlin is likely and an RAF Sqn likely to disband and replaced in situ by a CHF Sqn No.

ralphmalph

17th Jan 2011, 04:07

I had heard that alot of this was down to tgw planned OSD of Merlin and the projected cost of a Mid life upgrade.

The penny pinchers could wrap the two ideas together....and the Junglies get a new aircraft!

Ralph

SL Hardly-Worthitt

17th Jan 2011, 04:32

Perhaps High Spirit's latest unfounded conjecture (...pretty easy to stir this debate with rumour not backed up by fact...) strengthens my case at post 36 for an early response by CAS to the PM's written answer to the pre- Christmas PMQ (his office will have been consulted to provide said answer) which could quash many of the single-service "kite-flying" exercises being witnessed on a daily basis.
Some strong leadership required!
H-W

high spirits

17th Jan 2011, 06:41

SL H-W,
May I have the honour to apologise unreservedly for posting a rumour on a......'rumour network'. Given where you post from, you are probably some Melchett who is far more in the know about what goes on on the 5th floor of 'town' than a lowly minion like moi.
However the option is on the table. Why? Massive cost of marinisation versus an MOD who don't have a pot to p*ss in and can't afford a window to throw it out of. Delay or cancel the buy until after PR11, save yourselves a packet to put towards a blade fold/tail fold programme. Bean counting butt munchers will love it as an option. Why should CAS reply now - the PR negotiations have not finished?

Spanish Waltzer

17th Jan 2011, 17:16

Well, as I understood it the money for the chinook buy was the offset for shelving the mil involvement in UK SAR. But the SAR-H project now appears in tatters (see other thread on rotorheads for that gossip) so the cancellation of the chinook buy is because HMG needs to purchase shiny new helicopters (cheap S92s from cancellation of SAR-H contract) to replace the ageing Sea Kings. Protecting ones own shores & people from floods etc. will win more votes in the long run.:oh:

With UK forces out of the sand by 2015 any more heavy lift is a waste of money anyway as it wont be available in time :E :E and when has any govt really concerned itself about what might be next around the corner :*

Whats left of Merlin/Chinook will stay RAF & the RN will be re-branded coastal command & will take on UK SAR in the S92 because it doesn't have any ships to go to sea on.

This defence review stuff is easy really :D :D

Tallsar

17th Jan 2011, 18:13

SW - great stuff...now thats what I call really good policy making on the hoof.......step aside CAS (and all his minions) - get on in there SW ...Your Country Needs you...Now please!:rolleyes::)

and no doubt the RN Coastal command could have a secondary role as the CHF to occaisionally deploy a few cabs on our one and only amphib boat:}.........how cost-effective is that!

PS can you also find a bit of cash to buy a few leather arm chairs to keep the crew rooms going too please!

Cheers
:ugh:

Norfolk Inchance

18th Jan 2011, 11:46

Oh and from a grav's pov, when I was on the ground in South Armagh in the 80's and 90's with typical Norn Irish weather it would only be the junglie Wessex and latterly SK4 that would pick us up, our hearts sank if we heard a RAF cab was being sent; we then had to look forward to our yomp back into XMG or Forkhill"

If we'd known that at the time we'd have let you yomp back you ungrateful b@@s£rd. What did you do when your precious Junglies weren't there? The vast majority of the humpin' and dumpin' in Norn Ireland was done by the boys on permanent posting to the emerald isle and they were Army and RAF!!
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif That is my point. When the Junglies weren't there and the weather was poor, then we would walk. Not all, but many RAF crews couldn't be bothered to push the limits a little to go and get the troops on the ground. On the other hand, most Junglies would always give it a go. I also noticed this attitude whilst in Buzzard Ops. Recently when waiting in the departure lounge @ BZN to fly to KAF, the Tri-Star went u/s, and all assembled were told to report back 24 hrs later. No announcement from the crew as to why. A senior Air Force officer with whom I was travelling asked the Loadmaster/ Flight Attendant, whether they would advise the pax. He was astounded when his reply was along the lines of...' they don't need to know, they're just troops....'. After said Senior Off picked himself off the floor and rebriefed the MALM, the Captain grudgingly made an announcement over the tannoy. Is this attitude to 'troops' prevalent through all the RAF???

Winchweight

18th Jan 2011, 12:00

NI....

I don't believe a word of that.:=

As an ex-MALM and a former SHFNI crewman I can assure you that there was no institutional "can't be arsed / let 'em walk" attitude on the RAF Sqns. This is simply single service jingoism.

We pushed the limits on a daily basis. Now if you said we wouldn't break the limits to stop you walking, that's different. And if your measure of a quality crew is their willingness to break the rules for non urgent / life threatening situations, then that speaks volumes of your lack of professionalism as an aviator.

And as for a MALM telling a VSO that the troops don´t need to know... whilst he might have thought that or been bloody minded enough to think that, I doubt he would be stupid enough to leave himself and his crew wide open by admitting it to a VSO.

I have been delayed getting to KAF as well, and on every occasion when we were on board the a/c the crew kept us informed.

Now in the terminal with Brize movs.... that´s a different story. :ugh:

And finally, nice inflammatory language here -"Loadmaster/ Flight Attendant". Which was it? One is a WO and the other an SAC. Bit different. Oh you scoundrel, you're trying to wind us up with a bit bit more playground banter :oh:

Trim Stab

18th Jan 2011, 12:21

There has always been an urban legend in the army that the junglies will come and get you whatever the weather, even on Xmas day, and the lazy crabs won't leave their five-star hotels if it is the weekend, after 4pm, or raining. I've never seen any evidence to support the legend.

D O Guerrero

18th Jan 2011, 12:27

I have.
Operationally critical part (something do with a gearbox) to be delivered to NIPV at anchor on a Saturday morning by RAF Wessex. Phone call taken - direct quote - "we're having a dining out [friday], could we bring it on Monday instead?".
That's not intended to knock the Crabs - they did a fine job on the whole, but to say they were as efficient and flexible as the Junglies is not the case in my experience.

Vie sans frontieres

18th Jan 2011, 12:28

Perhaps this apparent willingness to bust the limits is because the Junglies have always felt the need to prove their worth against their bigger brother, the SH force.

Winchweight

18th Jan 2011, 12:36

There will always be "jack" individuals regardless of service.

And D O G, I bet the rest of the story went "....we (NIPV) said, sorry mate we need the part asap", and the crew said "ok" and flew it out. not such as good story though is it? Don't use sound bites to make a story, tell the whole story.

My point is you shouldn't tar us all with the same brush, There was no policy of making soldiers walk and certainly any crew I worked on worked up to the limits and sometimes beyond, provided the task justified the risk.

I have equally come very close to being killed for bone Army tasks. Notably on one occasion being sent out on a Priority 1 task late at night in foul weather to one of the towers to recover a video with "vital int" on it. Turned out to be an overdue video from the NAAFI.:mad:

And back to the original thread..

If the CHF really want them that badly, and the Army can take the loss of capability for 2 to 3 years, let them go. They really have no idea what a mire they are getting into and will regret the decision for years to come.

high spirits

18th Jan 2011, 15:45

Please don't let this degenerate into a 'whose better at the job' nob waving fest. Ireland/Bosnia are sooo last war! Agreed, it may well happen. However when the booties find that it can only just wobble airborne with half a navs lunchbox post marinisation they will drop it like a stone and utilise the chinook to get their boots on the ground anyway.

Post blade spread and tail fold fit, it will struggle with the booties gun underslung, big style, esp if the conflict is further inland. And if it can lift the gun, then it will have to return for the gun crew. The RN and the booties will finally then see the enormous penny falling from the sky...............which will hopefully sink that deathtrap known as Ocean!

minigundiplomat

18th Jan 2011, 17:09

Considering its so gash, you seem pretty keen to keep it.

Valid point, but I think what we are seeing is a turf war, not a capability war!

Tallsar

18th Jan 2011, 17:22

The ability of any upgrade to achieve sufficent payload to meet the key lift requirements for 3 Cdo Bde is clearly essential to the credibility of the Merlin in achieving the task...as several of the previous messages have stated.

There are significant limits to how much extra power/lift can be provided in the present design - and these too are not going to be without some signifcant cost of ownership issues being raised..We have discussed the "dead" weight of the 3rd engine before, but more critically in this context are the limitations associated with the MRGB design, and the tail rotor stresses and authority.

In short, in the earliest designs of 101 as originally conceived by Westland alone, it was to have an advanced composite MRGB design which would have provided more than ample power capacity, and for "future proofing" given the accepted wisdom that op lift demand suffers annual inflation particulary if real ops are a regular part of the equation. The final MRGB design chosen was a result of Agusta having to have it as their part of the 50/50 workshare balance required and to cap programme costs...and a very conventional design was chosen with more limited capacity for development and torque/power capacity increases.
In the end the whole Advanced Engineering Gearbox (AEG) design was binned by Westland (also as a result of MoD's cancellation of the concurent W30-404 programme which was conceived to use it too) as the money and sponsorship dried up...great shame for them and UK plc.

Tail rotor stress and power issues have been with the 101 from Day 1, and despite cost efficient enhancements to deliver both safe and effective performance, and fatigue control, this issue also remains to inhibit just how much can be done to increase MAUW and associated performance and maneouverability. The Mk2 will gain in the short term as its APS weight is about to reduce following the MCSP misson system and cockpit integration, but the Mk3 (Mk4?) is going the other way particularly when you translate this into the more demanding wind over deck/SHOL issues associated with regular maritime ops (at the higher AUMs)...and one can see that achieving an effective release will be at the very least, demanding, relatively expensive, and may in the end not meet all the Cdo Bde's lift expectations.

The alternative, if really substantial development and performance improvement is to be made, is a return to the AEG and a new tail rotor design (actually an old one but never incorporated due to previous budget limits)...Will this ever happen given the very large cost associated with these modifcations..certainly not in the present financial environment....so here we go.

high spirits

18th Jan 2011, 17:26

Gash, no. Fundamentally underpowered... yes. Designed to hover safe twin engine in the dip for the RN when one engine goes bang. Adapted to the best of a bad deal by the RAF, who never wanted it in the first place for heavy lift utility role. My point is that marinisation of Merlin Mk3 represents extremely poor value for the taxpayer, and will leave the junglies with an even more underpowered helicopter than the RAF presently has, if the marinisation programme goes ahead.

I have never said that I would like to see CHF fold and I would much rather see them get something more suited to their role. They should have got CH-47 under SABR (or something capable of littoral ops). I would have no problem with the new buy of CH-47 (if it happens in sufficient numbers, which I doubt) going to the RN. Merlin Mk3 is not the answer - simply because it is regarded as the only option available, ........which it isn't.

dangermouse

18th Jan 2011, 23:26

after over 40 years we still don't have a foldable CH47 which makes me think it's impossible, if it could be done it would have been done by now, so the counter Merlin argument is a bit moot.

A marinised Ch47 is never going to happen, if you want big lift then buy CH53, at least that has a naval pedigree.

Oh they might be flying in formation with swine, coz both scenarios are about as likely.

If you want a large volume foldable, maritime helo, there's only one out there, it's in service with the UK, it's in an amphibious role already with the MMI and all the work will be done in the UK with a UK workforce to modern design standards (not from the 60's).

No other scenario is credible, the big question is who owns them in the long run, and my view on that is posted above

DM

Winchweight

19th Jan 2011, 06:32

GW - yes the RAF is fighting to hold on to it. We've put 10 years of effort into getting this aircraft fit for ops and the crews trained. To hand it over to the CHF at this point would be a real kick in the teeth, and frankly the "you can all move to Yeovilton and live on board" argument just doesn't cut it either.

Let's not forget the RAF has just lost a load of capability, so to lose yet more to the RN is bound to be resisted, regardless of how big a PITA the airframe is.

In the same way the CHF is now fighting for survival, so is the whole of the RAF!

Aside from serviceability issues, spares and the lack of airframes for training etc, the airframe cannot afford to lose any more payload for extraneous modifications to fit a role it will struggle to achieve post modification.

Believe me, CHF will rue the day if they take it, especially the engineers.

Bledlow

19th Jan 2011, 09:14

Maroonman -

"I wish them good luck as I certainly wouldn't want to be in the Freak Force at the moment (certainly one that is about to spend long periods at sea in order to be something on the new carriers!) - but if nothing else can we please, please stop fighting amongst ourselves, arguing quite rudely and looking at each other in a funny way over the briefing tables now and accept that things have to change and just move on. :ugh:

We do have a real enemy to fight you know http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif"
The Treasury?

dangermouse

19th Jan 2011, 11:37

I was not aware that the Ch47 has any kind of blade folding capability, it's a bit of a surprise....

Was it designed for ship ops or for transport etc and is there some kind of blade restraint system used?

DM

ORAC

19th Jan 2011, 12:19

SOF CH-47E has folding blades.

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc239/writchie_2007/CH-47/dnsc9501589ov5.jpg

oldgrubber

19th Jan 2011, 13:25

The RN engineers are more than capable of getting up to speed quickly. Don’t forget that Culdrose has the Merlin Training Facility and that is the best you’ll find anywhere, manned in the most part by guys who have operated the aircraft in the real world. There is also the Westland Customer Training facility in Yeovil, which means guys can be trained there as well as Culdrose. Where are the Junglies based? Oh that’s right, Yeovilton.
With the untimely demise of the Harrier there are numbers of personnel who are being redistributed to Culdrose and Yeovilton, so it wouldn’t be a work of great genius to relocate Merlin trained supervisors and lads with the Junglies at Yeovilton to bring the newly converted Seaking guys up to speed. So after one “out of preference area” draft the Culdrose guy returns to his preferred area and all is well.
Even with the dodgy (don’t get me started) AET set up that the RN now use, the “multi-purpose” maintainer ethos still persists, unlike the RAF who are quite “trade constrained”, there’s no place for “trade prima donnas” on the back of a type 23. What this means in the real world is that it is not unusual to find guys in the Navy who have worked on every aircraft type (fixed and rotary) in the inventory at that time (and then some), and helped every other trade when they needed to. (i.e. type flexible)
Don’t forget that the MK3 aircraft are flown in the “RAF way” at the moment, with emphasis on decanting the major dross work back to base (Benson, although usually Culdrose), while the guys at the front fly/fight the cab ( if it works for you etc etc). Culdrose already does all the “depth” MK3 work at workshops and MDMF, so to actually operate the aircraft is not a big jump in capability, “knowledge” wise, we do know the aircraft.
The training issue is mostly about getting a MK4 Seaking guy trained to work on a MK3 Merlin whilst keeping the ability to deploy, that’s easy too, just break the swap into flight/sqdn sized chunks, so 845 are still Seaking, while 846 convert and train and so on. This leaves you able to deploy a joint RAF and Navy helicopter force should it be needed during the transition.
As for the conversion of the MK3 to a marinised a/c, well someone has already mentioned manual folding on the Chinook um... (that’s how we did the Wessex but those Merlin blades are big), the folding head is actually a simple fit and the electronics should be easy to retrofit, which means that the folding tail is the only major structural mod required. All of a sudden the marinisation doesn’t seem so difficult (don’t mention MK3 corrosion resistance compared to MK1, it’s a red herring), which leaves the weight issue.
You have to ask yourselves if we are talking about a lift capability equal to the Chinook or the Seaking or are we actually filling a role somewhere in between. When we need heavy lift, we call on the Yanks with their CH53 (you know what I’m talking about) or the Russian Mil, so we are actually talking “medium” lift. The fact is that the MK3, even with the mods embodied will be able to fill the troop seats and do its job, add to all of this speculation and guess work the fact that you don’t actually know how much the mods will weigh and therefore what effect that will have, means that to say, “it won’t be able to do task A” is just meaningless speculation.
Don’t forget the contribution the Carson modded Seakings have made in theatre and if the Seaking is that bad why are the Yanks re-engineering over a 100 S61T variants (Carson fit standard) to fill the worldwide “medium” lift hole in their capability. We all know the Merlin is more capable than the Seaking and Puma (lift wise), and it certainly wees all over the NH90 and the H92, so that must mean that we have, when all’s said and done, a pretty good medium lift aircraft.

That’s that sorted, now the England football team………(laugh)

Cheers

high spirits

19th Jan 2011, 14:19

O-G,
Nice one. Which portion of the gargantuan, and ever increasing defence budget do we spunk on that lot then? You haven't even mentioned the relocation of the simulator and its civvie staff needed to train and maintain 845 and 846. You also paint an extremely rose tinted view of performance post mod. This rose tintedness also takes no account of 'Call me Dave's' timescale of a handover in just a few years. What part of 2 ac shared between 2 Sqns(including the OCF) is a good day for ac availability do you not understand?

Stick to the England Football team idea.

Tallsar

19th Jan 2011, 17:02

OG -in making my comments about prospective CHF Merlin performance and payload...I have drawn on my understanding of the Mk3 and its performance detail...by no means was it speculation. What I cannot comment in depth is the detail of indivisible loads or specific CHF tasks that might tax the Mk4? beyond its present lift capabilities, and that before the additional weight associated with marinisation - should that happen.
Do not kid yourself that somehow the Mk3 is broadly like a Mk4 Sea King as compared to a Mk5/6 Sea King.....not so.....with a modicum of fuel and the "standard" role and defensive aid equipment installed...the term medium lift becomes very debatable if not inapplicable to many peoples thinking.
Like always in these circumstances I am sure the CHF team will make do and mend, and adapt the use of the ac as best possible...but no one should kid themselves that a modifed Mk3 will be the efficient workhorse the CHF task deserves - Shame the Puma Mk2 will not have the wider u/c track...now there would be a thought!:rolleyes::)

Tourist

19th Jan 2011, 17:47

Will the marinised Mk3 lift more than a SK4?
Will it lift it farther?
Will it lift it faster?

If so, then great. We manage with a SK4 therefore a Mk3 will be better.

If not then something is badly wrong.

Tallsar

19th Jan 2011, 19:48

Now there's a thought....comparison of a Carson SK Mk4 (with full carson blade release not the limited one so far available) vs Merlin Mk3 (Afghan release)....kitted out for ops, and each with fuel for 3 hours......would be fascinating:8:uhoh::)

oldgrubber

20th Jan 2011, 07:32

High Spirits,
Easy Tiger! Crew room defence planning remember, not real! As someone who was involved in the aircraft and training from before they entered service I can tell you, it’s a piece of cake to work on, you could almost take a maintainer straight from conversion training and let him loose on it. As for aircrew training, well not my area of expertise as you’ve pointed out, but all the ex Seaking pilots who I helped train all said one thing, it’s easy to fly, and the hardest part of the course was learning all the systems and black boxes.
I personally can't see the navy ever getting these aircraft, lets face it the RAF brass have played a blinder leading up to, during, and since the SDSR, whilst the navy brass have failed to impress. So have faith in your leaders they play a better game of "uckers" and we’re "mixy blobbed" to death right now.

Tallsar,
Apologies for suggesting that your comments had no basis in fact, you know what it’s like when you’re trying to make a point. I do think that the MK3 will still be significantly better (lift wise) than the MK4 Seaking, even after marinisation but Tourist makes a good point.

Tourist,
That’s the aircraft question, pretty much in a nutshell.

Cheers

Norfolk Inchance

20th Jan 2011, 10:05

As an ex-MALM and a former SHFNI crewman I can assure you that there was no institutional "can't be arsed / let 'em walk" attitude on the RAF Sqns. This is simply single service jingoism.

We pushed the limits on a daily basis. Now if you said we wouldn't break the limits to stop you walking, that's different. And if your measure of a quality crew is their willingness to break the rules for non urgent / life threatening situations, then that speaks volumes of your lack of professionalism as an aviator.

And as for a MALM telling a VSO that the troops don´t need to know... whilst he might have thought that or been bloody minded enough to think that, I doubt he would be stupid enough to leave himself and his crew wide open by admitting it to a VSO.

I have been delayed getting to KAF as well, and on every occasion when we were on board the a/c the crew kept us informed.

Now in the terminal with Brize movs.... that´s a different story. :ugh:

And finally, nice inflammatory language here -"Loadmaster/ Flight Attendant". Which was it? One is a WO and the other an SAC. Bit different. Oh you scoundrel, you're trying to wind us up with a bit bit more playground banter

Winch Weight.

I think you have alluded to the differences between the two services which I was attempting, from a reasonably neutral position, to highlight.
I remember on one occasion getting into the back of a SK4 in S. Armagh after the requested RAF helo had turned us down due to the weather. The crewman put me on headset and I was informed by the pilot that the fault wasn't necessarily with the pilot/aircrew. Apparently prior to the formation of JHC, the RAF Flight rules and limitations were quite restrictive, whereas those employed by the Junglies were more pragmatic and common-sense biased. This in turn allowed them to press on when perhaps others could only watch from the comfort of the Mill at BBK.

WRT the Loadmaster/ Flight Attendant - well I'm not sure really. He was definitely a WO, but was quite happy dishing out the paper cups of OJ and bagrats. Is this where old MALM's end up when they are nearing their sell- by dates??

high spirits

20th Jan 2011, 10:23

O-G
Apologies for a slightly over the top rant, just trying to make a point on finance. You, or Tourist might be able to answer a question though. We bought 40 Mk1 Merlin. To my (scant) knowledge 2 were written off in accidents leaving 38. I read an article, 'Shephard Group' I think. The article stated that we were converting 30 Mk1 s to Mk2 standard at a cost of 850 million. It stated that the Mk2 would be able to carry 16 troops or 12 stretchers and be effectively able to swing role from ASW.

Sounds like a good use of taxpayer dosh by the RN to me. My question though - what is happening to the other 8 airframes? Are they Christmas treed or simply too expensive to convert?

dangermouse

20th Jan 2011, 11:35

The RN bought 44 Merlin Mk1s, the RAF 22 Mk3s and 6 Mk3As

2x Mk1shave been written off in accidents, and the first airframe was last seen at WHL as a test asset.

So that leaves 41 for conversion, only 30 of which have been slated to go to Mk2 standard.

which leaves 11 cabs for conversion to ASAC platforms (maybe)?

DM

andyy

20th Jan 2011, 11:53

DM, I really hope that you are right about ASAC conversion but I have seen nothing about it so far.

oldgrubber

20th Jan 2011, 12:17

HS,
No probs,
The original buy was 44 but as you said, two have been lost while in service, one PP crashed from altitude (you might remember all the crew survived by using parachutes!) and I believe they “nicked” a production aircraft to fill the slot. The Italians lost a crew and PP cab during the experimental phase and I know of at least one MK1 that missed the Canadian ship’s flight deck and got bent (a bit). There is one PP at the Dummy Deck at Culdrose and one of my workmates who’s been there recently says there’s one at Sultan. There’s the Boscombe cab as well, and now I’ve lost count! (just read DM's post, I'll go with his figure)
We haven’t heard anything concrete yet but if you look at one of the suggested configurations for an AEW (Asac) Merlin shows the fit being the same as the Seaking 7. The advantage of this is that you won’t need to have a ramp hole to allow the dome to deploy. The disadvantage as far as I can see is the proximity of the sponson (not an issue with the Seaking). This would be the obvious choice for the spare airframes to be used for and I understand that it was purely a cost thing that limited the MCSP contract to 30 a/c.

Cheers

TwoStep

20th Jan 2011, 12:22

There are 38 Merlin Mk1s, and 30 are to be converted to Mk2 which leaves eight to be possibly converted to ASaC.

Hilife

20th Jan 2011, 13:05

The 2009 Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Defence to the Defence Select Committee noted 42 Merlin Mk1’s and I'm not aware of any Mk1 losses since then.

As follows:

Merlin Mk 1 Qty 42 (see note 3) MoD is currently preparing to upgrade 30 (see note 4) of these aircraft through the Merlin Mk1 Capability Sustainment Programme.

Note 3: Four of these aircraft are in storage and have been cannibalised heavily; one has been extensively modified as part of a joint MoD/Industry technology demonstrator programme. Recovery to a fully serviceable condition would take significant time and investment. These aircraft are, under today's definitions, classified as effective until such time that a decision is taken to dispose of them.

Note 4: The Department reviewed its investment plans across a number of capability areas during 2008; this review was known as The Equipment Examination. As a result, the Department has determined that, given current defence priorities, it would not take up an option to modify an additional eight Merlin Mk1 aircraft and that its contractual commitment would remain at 30 aircraft. The Department is currently exploring whether the Department has further use for those aircraft not being modified under the Merlin Capability Sustainment Programme, they will otherwise be disposed of in the most cost effective way (including consideration of sales opportunities.)

Of the 8 remaining, surely the smart money is on them replacing the 13 aging Mk7 ASaC's, I mean why would the MoD add another airframe type and waste 8 unused cabs already in inventory.

With no competition likely as a result, this should be a nice little earner for AW/WHL. ;)

TorqueOfTheDevil

20th Jan 2011, 13:44

All this talk of ASAC Merlins is very jolly, but it's more pie-in-the-sky than eye-in-the-sky...

1. With SDSR being reopened, in a bid to make further savings, getting funding for this looks rather unlikely
2. What use is there for this when there is no fleet to protect (no carriers and no jets)?
3. Even if there was a demonstrable role, please remember that our current Government is happy to do without an MPA, so capability sabbaticals (rather than mere holidays) are all the rage at the moment.

Sorry to wee on your bonfire, but...

andyy

20th Jan 2011, 14:11

I agree that ASaC Merlins do not appear to be funded at the moment but the ASaC system has proven its value as a surface search & control asset as well as in its AEW role. Sure, with the Carrier gap there will be no FJ to control from carriers but they are extremely valuable in protecting our very scarce surface assets by extending sensor range massively over what can be provided from the top of a mast. The system has also proved its value in littoral & continental control roles.

I would suggest that ASaC Merlin is essential, not a nice to have. Unless those nice chaps from Waddington are going to be able to permanently station an E3-D over our deployed assets, whether we are deploying a Task Group or individual (but valuable) assets hunting boghammers?

high spirits

20th Jan 2011, 15:11

Thanks for the info. So from what I can gather, 4 entire MK1 airframes will never fly again due to extensive cannibalisation? 8 are currently about to be left to wither on the vine, converted to ASAC or sold off by MOD.

Hypothetically if some money were to appear - Out of the remaining 8 (that are already fully marinised) - what would be more important to UK Defence in the PPrune court of opinion, Jungly or ASAC?

andyy

20th Jan 2011, 15:28

ASaC - that is a unique capability which cannot be easily replicated by anything else, indeed nothing else that is deployable to sea.

8 Junglie Merlin MK1 conversions are not enough to sustain a full capability &, as the light blue continually tell us we have other SH that can go to sea. (albeit without full marinisation)

helimarshaller

20th Jan 2011, 16:12

With no competition likely as a result, this should be a nice little earner for AW/WHL.

Remember the Prime Contractor for the Merlin Mk1 was and may still be Lockheed Martin not AW, so not sure their would be much money or work in it for AW/WHL.
More likely to be more money/work for Thales or whoever get to develop a radar to fit into the Merlin.

high spirits

20th Jan 2011, 16:49

AndyY,
8 is not enough to sustain a sqn, but 12 is (ie if we revisited the idea of resurrecting the cannibalised ones).

It would be extremely ironic, however if ASAC does not happen. Imagine the situation. RAF hand Mk3 to the RN and have to put their own aircrew out of work as a result after 10 years of hard graft making Mk3 work. MOD pay for marinisation of 25 Mk3/3a airframes. Down the line there is no funding for ASAC. The 8 perfectly serviceable and already marinised RN Mk1 airframes(whose age and cockpits are v similar to Mk3) get sold off to Johnny Foreigner for small beer along with the 4 that will never fly again. CAS will be crying into his Dubonnet - and with good reason.

Think I might write a book - now what was that title?, 'Lionesses, asses and prehistoric reptiles'.........

dangermouse

20th Jan 2011, 17:42

ref tallsars proposal, lets compare a SK4 to a Mk3

so exactly what range/altitude/endurance has the SK got with 24 equipped troops onboard loaded up the ramp, plus a digimap, DIRCM, 10000lb cargo hook, crashworthy seats, self sealing fuel tanks and ANR headsets. I know lets not carry the troops, instead lets put 3 pallets of 105 ammo in the cabin and move it at 150 kts.... Sorry forget the ammo, just stick a vehicle (loandrover)inside (provided you can get it through the SK cargo door of course)

Merelin brings more to the table than just lift.

The Merlin ASAC proposal (mocked up an Yeovilton airshow last year) uses a ramp aperture to deploy the ex Mk7 radar, no obscuration due to the fuselage and no sponson conflict. I guess the idea is to unzip the aft end and stick a ramp one on the Mk1 fuselage. Seems like a sensible use of assets to me

DM

Trim Stab

20th Jan 2011, 18:06

so exactly what range/altitude/endurance has the SK got with 24 equipped troops onboard loaded up the ramp, plus a digimap, DIRCM, 10000lb cargo hook, crashworthy seats, self sealing fuel tanks and ANR headsets. I know lets not carry the troops, instead lets put 3 pallets of 105 ammo in the cabin and move it at 150 kts.... Sorry forget the ammo, just stick a vehicle (loandrover)inside (provided you can get it through the SK cargo door of course)

Merelin brings more to the table than just lift.

The Merlin ASAC proposal (mocked up an Yeovilton airshow last year) uses a ramp aperture to deploy the ex Mk7 radar, no obscuration due to the fuselage and no sponson conflict. I guess the idea is to unzip the aft end and stick a ramp one on the Mk1 fuselage. Seems like a sensible use of assets to me

DM - not arguing - just asking - but how do they compare landing in mountain/snow conditions? Is the Merlin's higher disc-loading and higher CG a disadvantage?

minigundiplomat

20th Jan 2011, 18:45

Sorry forget the ammo, just stick a vehicle (loandrover)inside (provided you can get it through the SK cargo door of course)

When you have a (full size) landrover inside the Merlin, and without stripping the cabin bare, please post the pics on here.
I believe the landrover in the AW publicity was scaled down. I may be wrong, and that may be an urban myth.

TheWizard

20th Jan 2011, 19:09

Oh god, right on cue .......:ugh:

Tonnage anyone?? :)

Keep waving it and it might fall off!! :ok:

FireAxe

20th Jan 2011, 19:34

MGD, yes you can get one in, no you don't strip the cabin out( just fold the seats) yes the roof of the LR has to be folded down and yes it takes some time so no we don't do it for real. Happy?

high spirits

20th Jan 2011, 19:43

And as we don't really operate foldie roof landrovers anymore sausage side, MGD is technically correct(inspite of his small weiner complex). 3 Pallets of ammo? How do you quickly on and offload them? Yes a CH-47 can with CHICS, but a Merlin can't due to ramp cable snagging issues and the proximity of the tail rotor to the ground. How is it in the snow and the mountains? Poor slope limits especially nose down. A high CG due to the topdeck weight, and a pig to land in snow due to heavy downwash and a tricycle undercarriage.
Speed(without a load) and range are significant advantages though. But start trading fuel for payload in high DAs and it is not much better than the newly uprated Lynx in the summer.

ramp_up

20th Jan 2011, 20:47

Just to put the record straight. Internal vehicles are almost a thing of the past for even the mighty hook. This is because of the BOWMEN project which made the majority of the helicopter airportable vehicles un-airportable. Further to this as most vehicles that are driven on the battle field are now armoured they either exceed the floor loading limits or the available ac payload. I believe the vehicle in question pictured in the original EHI 01 was not a landrover but an Italian utility vehicle. The only wheeled vehicle I have seen in a Mk 3 is a John Deere GATOR. ;)

minigundiplomat

20th Jan 2011, 21:08

MGD is technically correct(inspite of his small weiner complex)

May be small, but at least Ive still got one.:ok:

TheWizard

20th Jan 2011, 21:18

Viking (BvS10) Amphibious Armoured All-Terrain Vehicle - Army Technology (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/viking/)

The vehicle can be deployed from all Royal Marines landing craft and transported to the area of operations by C-130 Hercules and C-17 Globemaster. The unladen Viking can be underslung and airlifted by an RAF Chinook helicopter. The Viking can be split into two sections in just 20 minutes to be carried by the Merlin helicopter.

or even

http://www.4x4news.co.uk/n/140904-3.jpg

and a strip down UK 110 Load Raver has been loaded in practice many times by virtually every OCF course for the first few years.:)

minigundiplomat

20th Jan 2011, 21:33

Just the one?

high spirits

21st Jan 2011, 06:14

MGD,
You know the age old argument about putting all of your eggs in one basket and then dropping it? What we have at the moment is the correct mix of helos in terms of size to task. At the risk of getting back towards the thread (after your crewman-off with Wizard) the junglies would get a viable cab, after a lot of hard work by the light blue.

True it does suffer in the high DAs but it still adds to the party. Better than the seaking mk4, but then most things are. Do the RN understand enough about what it can and can't do? Not judging by some of the wild ideas being chucked about on this forum. Would it be a good use of taxpayer dollar to modify it for ship use? Not when there are 8-12 unused RN Mk1s in the system, which we may well sell on at cut price if the funding for ASAC dries up. Will it cost a lot to marinise, and then train and maintain the aircrew and maintainers over the long term - almost certainly.

What about this for a DS solution? Junglies get the 8-12 ready marinised Mk1s from Fleet and slim down a bit. This is based on one carrier/Ocean at sea at any one time. If and when ASAC is funded, the RAF cough up the 6 Danish Mk3a and they get marinised. This is based on the small number of ASAC in a typical CAG (2-3?) We maintain AFG Ops as is and don't have to pay for a whole fleet to be marinised and re-trained. Austere solutions for austere times.....

The question is - can we afford it?

Aynayda Pizaqvick

21st Jan 2011, 12:49

Gets my vote. Most sensible solution I've heard to date.

Junglydaz

21st Jan 2011, 13:10

So we are replacing 36 Sea King HC4's with 8-12 Merlin Mk1's? Slight capability drop when you consider that 2/3 of those Mk1's will be in Depth at (probably) the same time. And what about IRR a/c?

No go-er as far as I can see wrt replacing a capability.

Evalu8ter

21st Jan 2011, 16:15

No need for ASAC any more; the new Entente Cordiale with the French means we'll embark their far more capable E2. Pas de problem!

Merlin to CHF? Machinations abound. It will be nothing to do with capability and all to do with command positions and perceived "slice of the pie".

Aynayda Pizaqvick

21st Jan 2011, 16:34

If you are able to look outside the Jungly force for a moment you will see that High Spirits solution at least provides an overall increase in SH capability when compared to either leaving the Mk3s where they are or simply just moving them over to the Jungly Force.
If we are gonna have marinised Merlins lying about then lets use them!

draken55

21st Jan 2011, 16:51

Daft question from a non-rotorhead but as Merlin started off as a Naval design, did the RAF de-marinise their aircraft? As the Danish and Japanese cabs are as likely to be flown over the oggin as land, what parts have they changed and why. Please ignore the folding tail and beefed up floor in replies:confused:

Tallsar

21st Jan 2011, 20:01

DM - Bit late getting back to you...real world interevened - soz!

The points re some of the avantages of the MK3 design are indeed desirable attributes ....but that wasn't the point of my post.

That said, in SH, lift capacity is the name of the game in whatever form it appears.....outload capacity and the times associated can be critical to success, even more so if there are a limited number of deck spots, and therefore a limited number of aircraft available within the sort of littoral scenarios that the CHF is primarily there for. Furthermore, the reliability and availability of those cabs becomes a very significant factor too.

For the very strapped for cash UK.....the wisest options should never be dismissed for the sake of pursuing shiney new technology that does not neccessarily bring any substantial operational improvements against the essential spec, or cost effective improvements to the game. Is this the case for the Mk3/3a fleet.....on balance, I don't think there are any other practical options or choices, and clearly as a much more modern design it has many attributes that appeal......

The point of my post was merely to set people thinking and see what might be within the art of the possible and what might result. A fully Carson capable SK4 would be an impressive beast for the costs involved - and hence the major US investment in the S61T - and including the costs of ownership if the right processes are employed...and the Merlin 3 has its attributes too for sure. Sadly one of them is not a high payload margin when prepared for combat and with adeqaute fuel ...and its present reputation for low availability and high maintainance leaves a lot to be desired...its an expensive ac to operate at the moment..and this needs sorting above all else - particularly for the UK.

Given the UK SH fleet is to be reduced significantly by the withdrawal of the SK4s and a reduced CH47 buy, along with smaller Puma and Lynx fleets..there are no winners in this game and there will always be argument over how best to spend the money we do have. Given a different universe...many of us would not buy Merlin as a first choice to provide general SH capablity given the other options available. To me, in these circumstances, arguing over who should fly the Mk3s and which colour scheme they should have is tantamount to fiddling while Rome burns.

Cheers

the funky munky

21st Jan 2011, 20:06

From what I have gathered after chatting to the CHF boys n girls and various Merloids, the Mk3 came non-wet built so they fizz when at sea or even on land. They also don't have lashing points to stop them rolling over on board, there are also issues with maintenance at Eagle bases as the plastic pigs will not have staging to climb up.

The one thing that really worries me and always has is the fact they are composite, I recall attending the ASIC where the MASU repair office gave a lecture about the repair carried out to the Mk3 in Iraq. That is all I will say on that matter.

Yes the original 101 was a Naval design, but the MoD faffed about so much with the requirement that essentially the Mk3 is not a 101 anymore. The Japanese cabs are fully marinised so no problems. As for the Danish ones no freaking idea!
As for ignoring the folding tail and beefed up floor it's more fundamental than that. The Mk3 head doen't fold so along with the non-folding tail it means the cab can't be struck. Also the BERP4 heads can't fold and that is what the Merlin really, really needs.

RTM

21st Jan 2011, 23:10

funky munky,
The composite issue has not really been an 'issue' in practice. Or to be more accurate, like most airframes, it depends on where the damage occurs - despite the composite elements the Merlin is not all that unconventional in the way it is put together. MASU may have had a little more experience on the aircraft since...

I agree that if we were starting from scratch we probably wouldn't start with Merlin (either SH or possible CHF variety) but remember that there are still many aircrew and engineers from Course 1 still on the fleet - it is only human nature that they try to defend both the aircraft and the work they have done in the preceding 10 years and not relinquish them without even a whimper. Not of course that anything any of us on here say will make any difference either way!

Whoever ends up operating the aircraft and in whatever mod state, the basics are that: It is fundamentally a good helicopter, It has an already high APS, serviceability poor at home due to support issues, serviceability in theatre better than most. Excellent survivability, could do with more power. Now no realistic upgrade (in RAF or CHF format) is going to address this, so the status quo will remain.

And if the answer to all our SH woes is pure life, isn't the answer Mi-26?;)

MaroonMan4

22nd Jan 2011, 08:04

I think I can see which posts on this thread have Wastelands input written all over them in a desperate bid to get some business.

Huge big assumptions and big holes if you scratch the surface on this suggestion ultimately benfitting only one party, Wastelands. But I am not surprised after being propped up by the MoD for many years and now being forced to be more competitive and realistic in their costings.

Back to the thread - if we do lose our new CH47s then the only way forward is a Joint Helicopter Force - CH47, Merlin and AH. We will go beyond the point of 3 single service viability.

We have been too busy fighting each other to realise what has happened, too little too late, and because we have been too busy trying to stop the Fisheads from getting their grubby mits on the Freaks, we have assumed that our sacred CH47s were a signed and sealed contract.

high spirits

22nd Jan 2011, 08:49

JunglyDaz,
If IRR is MCT then consider that roping is currently off limits and you virtually have no capability any way.....
12 ac not enough to sustain one Sqns worth of amphibious capability? The current CHF plan divides the 25 Merlin Mk3 by 3 Sqns - 8-9 ac per Sqn...... Your figures, not mine. 2/3rds in depth, no, about 1/3 actually. 1/3 of the Mk3 Fleet or maybe slightly less is 'S' to fly on any given day(I include the Herrick Stats in that). CHF will shortly only have one platform to fly off, so why the need for more than one Sqn? That Sqn will as likely as not deploy onto the ship with a backup heavylift of CH-47 anyway, as Sierra Leone and GW2 proved.

Finally, at roughly £10,000 an hour to operate, and assuming 100 hours per crew to get you converted and competent on the ac - it's going to cost the taxpayer £42 million worth of flying hours. This is bought and paid for under AFT. However, it does not include travel and accommodation, simulator time, and I haven't even begun on a similar calculation to train the 35 Merlin crews on CH-47, if we get it(which I doubt). And it doesn't include re-training of maintainers or marinisation. Why the plan for the remaining ready marinised Mk1 airframes has not been looked at is staggering to me
Expensive eh?

engineer(retard)

22nd Jan 2011, 10:12

If it is correct that the Mk3 is not wet build then it would be cheaper to build a new cab. To my simple mind, to achieve the required level of environmental protection while maintaining the bonding paths around the aircraft on an aircraft that was not designed for that purpose looks like a bag of frogs.

draken55

22nd Jan 2011, 10:16

"the original 101 was a Naval design, but the MoD faffed about so much with the requirement that essentially the Mk3 is not a 101 anymore. The Japanese cabs are fully marinised so no problems"

"after chatting to the CHF boys n girls and various Merloids, the Mk3 came non-wet built so they fizz when at sea or even on land. They also don't have lashing points to stop them rolling over on board"

Question then is why the MOD faffed even more by choosing to de-marinise the MK3. Is this yet another problem of our own making? The Italians and Japanese have a versatile platform for both land and sea ops. We have a cab that can do the former but now needs to be re-marinised to work at sea:confused:

engineer(retard)

22nd Jan 2011, 10:20

draken

Possibly a trade off. E3 protection is much easier to achieve with dry assembly. Shackle points and folding mechanisms all add weight and structural complexity.

I'm not taking sides on this but if I was CHF, I would not expect to see the cabs for years due to re-work.

regards

retard

tucumseh

22nd Jan 2011, 12:43

Question then is why the MOD faffed even more by choosing to de-marinise the MK3. Is this yet another problem of our own making?

When debating this point, always bear in mind the original endorsement was for 100+ Dual Role Merlins - ASW and HC; the latter to augment the SK4 fleet, not replace it. (An implicit acknowledgment in 1984-ish that we lacked troop lift). Memory fades, but it was at least 103, maybe 108; formally announced and equipment contracts let early (practice of the day and why the Mk1 needed a partial avionics upgrade before ISD - which I'm not sure it got).

The HC buy was cancelled by Tories and the RN only got the ASWs. Then they turned down Merlin for the AEW upgrade.

The RAF requirement was entirely separate and it was presumably they who did not include marinisation; which may have been deliberate or just a case of the SOIU just not including it. The subject would almost certainly have been raised by Westland for clarification.

Norfolk Inchance

22nd Jan 2011, 20:57

If IRR is MCT then consider that roping is currently off limits and you virtually have no capability any way.....
12 ac not enough to sustain one Sqns worth of amphibious capability? The current CHF plan divides the 25 Merlin Mk3 by 3 Sqns - 8-9 ac per Sqn...... Your figures, not mine. 2/3rds in depth, no, about 1/3 actually. 1/3 of the Mk3 Fleet or maybe slightly less is 'S' to fly on any given day(I include the Herrick Stats in that). CHF will shortly only have one platform to fly off, so why the need for more than one Sqn? That Sqn will as likely as not deploy onto the ship with a backup heavylift of CH-47 anyway, as Sierra Leone and GW2 proved.

Finally, at roughly £10,000 an hour to operate, and assuming 100 hours per crew to get you converted and competent on the ac - it's going to cost the taxpayer £42 million worth of flying hours. This is bought and paid for under AFT. However, it does not include travel and accommodation, simulator time, and I haven't even begun on a similar calculation to train the 35 Merlin crews on CH-47, if we get it(which I doubt). And it doesn't include re-training of maintainers or marinisation. Why the plan for the remaining ready marinised Mk1 airframes has not been looked at is staggering to me
Expensive eh?
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=6195278)http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/reply_small.gif (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6195278&noquote=1)

High Spirits,
your point seems logical. Would it not therefore also be logical to:

Leave the Mk3 Merlin with 28 Sqdn
Scrap the Mk4 SK
Enlargen the lifts on Ocean to enable chinny to be hangared
Give CHF new CH47You would save money by:

Having to train a smaller amount of personnel
Not throw money at an unproven conversion plan i.e Marinising Merlin
Buying off-the -shelf will always be the cheapest option when dealing in relatively small amounts
Might even be able to flog off the Mk4's to some dodgy developing country:)

Footnote

23rd Jan 2011, 00:27

'Finally, at roughly £10,000 an hour to operate, and assuming 100 hours per crew to get you converted and competent on the ac - it's going to cost the taxpayer £42 million worth of flying hours.'

I appreciate that this is a rumour network, but if you make statements like that they need to be supported by fact. As an ex SK4 driver who has completed a Merlin 3 conversion course (8 hrs sim, 5 hrs flying) I can categorically state that 100hrs is absolute tosh. We are not talking about ab initio pilots, they have the all the skills of a (operational) SH pilot already. Conversion from one RW type to another is not an expensive or complicated process, particularly when it is the same role.

I believe that closer to 20 hrs per crew is more realistic.

high spirits

23rd Jan 2011, 07:32

Norfolk,
Yep, agreed but I think that the CH47 buy may be under threat by the beancounters now aswell. It still does not excuse potentially scrapping or selling 8-12 airframes that are ready marinised though. The junglies should have got something akin to CH-47, or 53 in the first place.

Junglydaz - sorry, to clarify a point. Roping is currently off limits to Merlin Mk3 due to the frame. I didn't make that very clear.

Footnote,
You misread. I said to get converted AND competent. Conversion could be as much or as little as you suggest. Flying and fighting the ac is different. Corporate knowledge will stop you going down the wrong line of the monster FRC wiring diagram when the weather is sh*t, and its very dark and you are grobbling around below the icing cloud. It will enable you to make sensible captaincy decisions. You will have a good knowledge of the management computers and their menu structure. It will stop you going into an unusual attitude as you launch off the O-Boat into the inky black. 50 hours in the handling role and 50 hours as a non-handler is not unreasonable for full warfighting competency - even for a second or third tourist, trust me I've been there. The Merlin Mk3 has a lot of quirks, and going out to Helmand during the summer with your 8 hours of conversion flying would not stand you in great stead, believe me....

Hilife

23rd Jan 2011, 07:32

So, we have a dry built, non-marinised platform, without a folding head or tail, which the CHF does not currently operate, but wants to take from the RAF - who has all the on-type trained flight crews and engineers – to replace their ageing Sea King Mk4 fleet.

The platform in question has since day one been plagued with very high un-serviceability rates and requires huge amounts of maintenance costs (reputedly more than twice that of the CH47) and yet only able to carry half the amount of external load at sea level (let’s not look at high density altitudes) or fully equipped troops.

As has been noted, it is already lacking in performance and offers a poor useful load – particularly at H&H OPS – yet in marinising it; the beast will get even heavier still. To regain these losses would likely require more powerful engines, which in turn would likely require a main transmission redesign and procurement........when does the good news come.

Let’s face facts. We purchased the wrong cab for the right reasons (UK jobs), but now the joke is over.

Terminate the Mk3 to Mk4 upgrade and look to sell the Mk3’s to a third party or remove from service when the LEP is due and run a competition to buy a battle proven, off-the-shelf, marinized utility platform that is NOT a bespoke solution for the Royal Navy, the RAF or the AAC even, but does 90% of what you want, as it is the last 10% that is always the killer cost wise.

When you have identified the off-the-shelf and combat proven solution, nail the manufacturer down to a through-life support program with high margin availability guarantees (anywhere in the world) and have them share the risk (say 50/50 in the per flight hour cost over-runs) if they are so confident in their product.

As I see it, the Mk3 for the Royal Navy just does not make financial or operational sense (nor for the RAF in the long term) and although noting the lack of funds in the kitty in these austere times, a mixture of ingenious financing (even for a military platform), termination of the Merlin Mk3 LEP and through life cost savings should offset a major part (if not even save money) of a new platform buy and with the Sea King leaving and transition of the Mk3 to the RN the plan, much of the new to type and additional crew/engineer training argument can be countered.

Let’s face it guys, the Merlin has been a bad buy and we are just throwing good money after bad, so less of the problem and more of the solution for an armed forces that needs to identify major cost savings - not just for today, but for its very future.

And all this before my Sunday bacon sarnie........just think what I could propose after a bottle of Pusser’s. :ok:

Vie sans frontieres

23rd Jan 2011, 07:39

Footnote

Converted and competent. 8 hours sim, 5 hours flying. You may be awesome but mere mortals need a bit more than that chum.

Finnpog

23rd Jan 2011, 08:25

This thread has got me a tad confused - and that is before either a Full English breakfast or a tot of rum.

There seems to be wide agreement that the CH47 is broadly the right answer, unfortunately no one is asking the right question.

I don't necessarily agree that the CHF would choose the have the green Merlins from the light blue element of UK Defense Forces, I think that they are just seeking a decent upgrade from the SK4s.

The Italians seem to have specced an appropriate amphibious 101. The crime is that we clearly had no one with the mental capacity at senior level to have drawn up one specification hocoplicter that could work easily across all SH environments.

It seems a common sense idea (it will never happen) to re-role any spare grey Merlins to the CHF, but that doesn't address the capacity issues even if it may seem better than going through the pain of taking the 3s from the air force or 'asking' a chunk of the RAF crews to travel across with them, perhaps pulling in an All Arms Commando Course on the way, just for the craic.

I do foresee another cunning, money saving and deeply scoped option from the MOD to attempt to "pluck low hanging fruit" ... Why not re-role the Pumas? :E:ok:

Alternatively the best of Joint Force Rivet Joint could be adopted and have Hornblower RN send some crews Tiltrotor-side (rather than just F/A-18) :sad:

dangermouse

23rd Jan 2011, 09:25

Hilife et al

please explain why the Mk3 isn't marinised?

The Merlins are all wet built, along with every other 101 as that is the default construction method, foldable MRH is available off the shelf, MGB has folding provisions blanked off, flotation gear is role fit, as are picketing points, MRB are foldable...what else do you need? (remember the shipborne requirement written for the aircraft?)

I know its flogging a dead horse to some posters here but 1990s survivbility costs weight, the SK doesn't have it, neither does the Lynx, Puma (Mk1 or Mk2) or Ch47, only one utility aircaft in UK service does, but I guess 'duty of care' isnt really that importnat

In theatre isnt the Merlin giving as good reliability as the CH47? in terms of mission readiness, or is that urban myth as well (like the 'mini' landrover 80ll0x spread earlier).

Draken, in a way you are correct in that the very original requirement was naval driven (RN and MMI SK replacement), however the design as built is a multirole aircraft that has naval usage as one string to its bow, the statement 'the original 101 was a Naval design, but the MoD faffed about so much with the requirement that essentially the Mk3 is not a 101 anymore. The Japanese cabs are fully marinised so no problems' is incorrect.

The basis of the 101 design concept (uniquely) is that you have a core airframe with packages fitted to it to change the variant, hence most of the bits on all 101 are common and changes can be made by installing other parts ( as mentioned above, MRH for instance)

Of course any changes to Merlin for CHF work will bring work to Yeovil, thats better than sending money abroad isnt it?

DM

Tourist

23rd Jan 2011, 09:54

Plus everyone that talks on here about re-roling a Mk1 to an SH as if that is a cheap option is just demonstrating their total ignorance of the airframe

MaroonMan4

23rd Jan 2011, 09:58

Am I being dull here, but it seems that people are just posting random facts and statements about the marinisation and capability of the Merlin that go well beyond the usual PPrune rumour.

Either some are are just misinformed, others may be dramatising other aspects and clearly there are some from all camps just trying to ensure that their 'cause' is furthered at all cost to truth and rational argument.

As a hook driver that is more than happy with his capability lot, know that he delivers exactly what the guys on the ground want I remain impartial to this Freak show.

It remains simple, does the UK plc want a dedicated amphibious capability ready to employ the amphibious skill sets (and not just the pure flying ones) at a moments notice (i.e. No time for a PDT or sea survival, firefighting courses etc).

If it does then either we in the RAF will need a dedicated amphibious wing or we accept that CHF should continue to deliver this capability for defence.And if we in the RAF are going to do this amphib stuff then we have got to seriously get amongst it as it is not a secondary role and we will only end breaking aircraft/ships or worst case killing people. IF UK plc only want a virtual amphibious capability at about 6 weeks notice to do anything then we in the light blue can easily absorb this task after a bit of a dedicated and properly resourced training package and work up period.

Once UK plc have decided what kind amphib capability they want then we can start to talk airframes. If it is a proper amphib force they want then the question should be what airframe is best suited to delivering for CHF? We then can establish whether in the interests of Defence the new buy CH47 should actually go ahead, but for CHF not us. If the new buy CH47 is not affordable but we still want a dedicated amphibious capability then the only other airframe is Merlin, whether Mk3 or a marinised version - immaterial, they will just have to make it work (take on risk) until funding becomes available for any future upgrades.

But if the dedicated, short notice amphibious requirement is not there, sorry I do not see a requirement for CHF and the Junglies either and they should be absorbed slowly into the RAF over the years to ensure that when we do have to deliver a amphibious capability that we have some Fisheads that will help with the training, speak the lingo and do the embarked staff jobs (that I know none of us light blue want).

TheWizard

23rd Jan 2011, 12:47

As a hook driver that is more than happy with his capability lot, know that he delivers exactly what the guys on the ground want I remain impartial to this Freak show.

Why do you keep posting 'your' thoughts on it then?! Hardly impartial are they?:rolleyes:
We all know your world revolves around the CH47 so why not leave it at that?!

high spirits

23rd Jan 2011, 12:47

Tourist,
You obviously know AW well then - nothing comes cheap. What is more expensive? Fitting a strengthened floor and extra rear undercarriage wheels to a Mk1. Ramp aswell maybe - but the SK 4 never had one and the one on the Mk3 is debateable as to its utility v cost. I can't think of much else - but you probably can.
Or do you cut up the tail section of a Mk3, plus fitting a Blade Fold Head and motor? I'm not going to comment on whether the Mk3 construction is marinised or not cos I don't know. In fact, I don't know the answer to any of this... any engineer types out there? What would be cheaper?

MM4 - We still need a dedicated (perhaps scaled back CHF). With a suitable ac......

MaroonMan4

23rd Jan 2011, 17:37

Oh dear Wizard,

I fear I may have offended you somewhat-I am sorry.

My thoughts are purely that on this blogging website, but trust me have nothing to do with a blinkered solutionising that the CH47 is the only answer.

Far from it.

My thoughts revolve around the requirement, for Defence plc and not which service owns, flys or operates which airframe. I know that the CH47 is not the solution in all cases, I also know that we are not going to get NH90 or Blackhawks for the smaller lift requirements.

So trust me I do recognise the value and utility of both Merlin and Puma-remember I look across the same briefing table as you.

But if there is no requirement for a dedicated amphibious capability (on call to both HMG and British people at the drop of a hat, what I believe is in under approximately 6-8 weeks, then the whole Junglie Merlin thread is superfluous as any light blue SH driver will be able to deliver something very similar providing that we have a dedicated beat up training package.

And therefore in the current (financially broke) climate CHF is not required, let alone discussing Merlin ownership.

But if HMG and the British people expect an amphibious capability then we can discuss the best ( and sadly cheapest) way to deliver this capability. I do not see any light blue volunteering to go to sea or keeping current in all those extra sea going currencies, or volunteering for all those Fisheads staff jobs. Regardless of the CH47 new buy, it is all to do with delivery of the capability not single service parochialism or my airframe is better than yours.

Maybe too simplistic and too joint, but if there is a requirement for amphibious helicopter force then let's look at how best to support it, either with a CHF with CH47 or Merlin, quite frankly I do not care.

But if there is not the requirement then let's stop rafting around and make a massive saving by getting rid of CHF as quickly as possible (ideally by absorbing them into both CH47 and Merlin Forces) to ensure that we in the light blue can absorb some of the Fisheads corporate knowledge that is still floating around out there despite our little foray last decade into Iraq and Afghan.

Finally Wizard, I will stop referring to you as Freaks, that was a long time ago and much water has gone under the bridge- again I am sorry:ouch:

TheWizard

23rd Jan 2011, 18:02

MM4
No offence to me as it is a long time since I was one of your 'freaks' but thanks for the apology although not needed!
I was just pointing out that your posts (whilst making valid points), hardly came across as impartial!!
For someone who writes 'frankly I do not care' you post quite a lot on the subject! ;)

Whatever happens to the SH world I am sure it will be for the best.....:uhoh:

Tourist

23rd Jan 2011, 18:03

Ok, High spirits.

For starters, a NVG Cockpit would be nice perhaps. A DAS fit would also be nice, armoured seats, vast reduction in basic weight, ground clearance would be a win too...........

MaroonMan4

23rd Jan 2011, 18:13

Wizard,

We are in agreement-I post to try and gain greater understanding of the subject and as we both know there are some very informed unbiased posters.

I also post to attempt to prevent inter service bitching (not the good old banter) from taking place and as we both know this topic is causing many a slagfest that really really saddens me.

Whilst we all snipe away at each other the Treasury rub their hands with joy, and more importantly many a strong working relationship is put under strain by the hidden undercurrent of the whole UK helicopter force that appears to be either further back than the NAO report 10 years ago and the lessons learned through the loss of life within the last 5 year time frame.

That is why I post.

Misformonkey

23rd Jan 2011, 18:38

Merlin MK2, re-roleable to limited troop carry. Who would like to bet that SK4 stays for the next 10 years carrying out MCT, local duties and the Merlin MK2 takes on Jungly crews to add another bow to it's cap. The MK2 is numbered for 2 CVS and how many CVS will be left in the next couple of years. If the Navy ( and i am one) wishes to keep these airframes they will have to demonstrate actual worth otherwise they are just keeping up the numbers down Kerno. The Sea King support structure is based at VL so no additional funding to re-position these workshops, they could take on additional work to justify there positions. SKIOS is up and running, just keep it going. I am not an accountant but even i can see the cost of re-training SK crews to Merlin and Merlin crews To CH-47 are just not justifable in our times. Even buying a handfull of new airframes to work alongside the MK2's would work and allows CHF to continue in amphib warfare. CHF is will become a much smaller entity whether it is willing too or not.