Westcountry-based helicopter elite force in jeopardy

[RetiredSHRigger]

:ouch:Appeared in Cornwall News this morning. Is this the end of the FAA?
Cornwall News | An elite Westcountry-based helicopter force which has played a vital role in Afghanistan could be in jeopardy under plans to make further scything cuts to the defence budget. (http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/Helicopter-elite-force-jeopardy-amid-cuts/article-3218291-detail/article.html)

[SHfairy]

It makes sense. The cost of transfer is large. Training for 35+ crews, 150+ maintainers. Oxfordshire based Merlin specific workshops. Merlin simulator, which can’t move as its part of the multi platform sim’. Accommodation in Oxfordshire for visiting sim’ crews, Loss of 12 years of Merlin experience etc etc and so it goes on. My CHF mates can’t tell me the last time they embarked on a ship and when they did a Chinook was onboard proving that the crabs can cope with embarked Ops. ‘Bootys’ don’t care whose bus they get on as long as the bus turns up. The only thing that it will do is keep the CHF name alive. There is no tangible tactical or strategic benefit, especially as the MOD is broke in more ways than one. The best we can hope for is a joint Merlin Sqn as per 360 Sqn in the good old days combining CHF and Merlin SH.

[Clearedtoroll]

The future of CHF has been in doubt for a while, but I'd be cynical until an official decision is announced. Even if the CHF is scrapped I don't think it will be the end of the FAA as - even without CHF and Harriers - there is still a big chunk of important rotary assets with relatively specialist skills and roles. I am not sure the concept of a 'critical mass' is relevant when pretty much all training is joint anyway. There would be no real efficiencies to be made in scrapping the FAA in toto, and it would just piss of both dark and light blue types alike (said as a light blue).

Makes a good story though and it'll wind a few up...

[MG]

Who says that the sim can't move?
There certainly isn't much in the way of accommodation in Oxfordshire for visiting crews.

[Canadian WokkaDoctor]

Do you have any idea of how much money moving a sim would cost. Think of a really, really big number and then add at least 2 zeros.

CWD

[MG]

Yes, but it's a PFI. It wouldn't necessarily cost the MOD anything if it were in the company's interest. I'm not saying it would be zero cost but the company aren't stupid.

[Pontius Navigator]

Or like when the F3 OCU moved from Coningsby to Leuchars. Not only did the Sim stay put, so did the ground staff, civies all.

At least there would probably be sufficient instructor types available in the west country.

[Talk Split]

Sim location is an irrelevance anyhow...

CHF has been commuting to Culdrose to use the sim for the last 20 years.

[chinook240]

In my experience the sim is best used when its not colocated with the flying units, the crews aren't distracted by their sqns fly pro, aren't just popping home for lunch or cancelling at the last minute because its only the sim, etc.

[MG]

'CHF have been using Culdrose for years'. As a result a meagre 4% of their flying is done in the sim. 68% of the Merlin Mk3 OCF is synthetic.

[high spirits]

Mind you someone from Cornwall would probably think that having a set of round wheels on your car is fairly elite. Only joking........

Chinook 240,
Perhaps you ought to ask the old and bold from the plastic pig force (who used to go to Stavanger for sims) how many of them could fly a tail rotor failure to a successful landing whilst sober.
:yuk::yuk::yuk:

Sims away from base can bring their own distractions......

[chinook240]

High Spirits,

Agreed, our first sim was in Aberdeen and the Skean Dhu provided plenty of distractions - but we worked hard as well!

[althenick]

Just as a matter of interest is there a merlin sim at CU and if so how does it differ from the RAF Jobbie?

Also...

With the RAF Dropping a 1/4 of its trainee pilots will there be enough pilots in the system to fly the Merlin under RAF control in the forseeable?

[Father Jack Hackett]

1/4 of RAF trainee pilots? Current rumour suggests more like 40% across the rotary training system!

[Tiger_mate]

ask the old and bold from the plastic pig force (who used to go to Stavanger for sims) how many of them could fly a tail rotor failure to a successful landing whilst sober.


Harsh. Especially when between crews training and engineers introducing a default spring loading on said tail rotor and therefore making the symptoms (& actions) predictable, a flight profile previously considered a killer became manageable, and proven when put to the test.

That said, travelling Business Class, enjoying the perks that it brings and being in the Sim on the same day brought home a lesson I remember to this day. .......so not entirely unfair!

[teeteringhead]

But it was only business class from Norn Iron, cos it then exceeded the (whatever it was) magic figure for travelling time.

Made it even better to meet up with the 33 Sqn blokes on the same flight travelling cattle!!

[FB11]

It's like the red weed in War of the Worlds... First JFH and now JHC (with CHF being the focus.)

Defence is in somewhat of a downward spiral of resource versus requirement and the discussions about who/what/when a Force should be cut to save money isn't going away any time soon.

So (SH Fairey) you may be right that it would cost a fair chunk of coin to move a simulator to Yeovilton but some might say that it would cost considerably less over the medium term to look at the requirement for 3 services flying helicopters in support of the land and maritime domain. (Maybe few enough years that the big savings would happen in years 1-4 where this government wants to demonstrate savings prior to the big 'give away' pre-election softener?)

Instead of "why should the Navy operate helicopters in the CHF?" should the question not be: "With each service operating so few helicopters now and even less as we reconfigure to Future Force 2020, why are the 3 services all operating helicopters in support of the land battle from the sea and on the land?"

You can save some money by having 3 services fly single types (so only the RAF would fly green Merlin for example) but you save significantly more money if only 2 services fly helicopters at all and as a result are able to remove the manning structure from that service completely.

Assuming neither the Army or RAF want to spend their lives on frigates and destroyers with Merlin Mk1/2 and/or Wildcat, I'll assume the RN is one of them (but do let me know if anyone believes that not to be the case.)

The potential (objective) money saving in rough order of magnitude with the greatest saving at the top:

1. RN/RM flies all helicopters (RAF SH and AAC disbanded with pro-rata manning structures taken as savings.)
2. RN/RM flies all medium green and all grey, AAC flies AH and CH47 (RAF SH disbanded with pro-rata manning structures reduction in total RAF.)
3. RN/RM flies all grey, RAF flies all green (disband AAC with pro-rata manning structures reduction - less saving than RAF SH disbanding due to manning ratios.)
4. Defence helicopter command with 3 services still flying each type of helicopter.

If Defence wants to save serious money, chipping away at the edges is ignoring the (herd) of elephants in the room that is manning and service structures.

There are 2 domains - land and sea - connected by the air environment. An objective assessment might be that as all green helicopters are in support of the land environment (on land or from the sea to the land) and so they might reasonably be flown by the 2 services who currently have their genesis in those domain and each operate helicopters in them.

Defence is in a hole of quite staggering proportions. We can pretend that having 3 services in aviation (fixed and rotary) is OK but actually, it's not. We're broke. We need to do something about it.

An objective view might be that many decades of CH47 experience and a dozen years of Merlin experience wouldn't be thrown away if the personnel did the reciprocal of what they did nearly 93 years ago and throw away their surplus Russian uniform materiel and put back on the RFC and RNAS uniforms they carefully packed in their cases. (AAC and RN/RM ones are a little more modern now than those itchy RFC and RNAS ones.)

Anything that keeps 3 services in helicopters (in whatever sensible combination) is an opportunity missed assuming we remain broke.

[snaggletooth]

or,

b. Navy drive boats, Army drive tanks, RAF drive aircraft

Simples! N'est ce que pas? :ok:

[draken55]

Snaggletooth

One is true second is just about history with the the heavy armour of the future as likely to be heli-borne. The third is the real problem as few RAF aircrew want to spend half the year at sea for the wholly practical reason that they didn't join the Navy!

You seem awfully keen to disband the RAF Regiment:ooh:

[MaroonMan4]

Guys,

This subject has been thrashed out and bitterly (and in cases) arrogantly and ignorantly argued on previous threads.

I suggest that we all tread very carefully indeed, to the light blue we know too well that our new shiney wokkas may soon be history and that allegedly both ACAS and CAS have apparently been recently put firmly put back in their boxes over being too single service.

Equally Fisheads should sound off with caution, PR11 is not finalised, we are broke beyond unbelievable proportions for many years to come and therefore absolutely no option is beyond reproach.

Trenchard Phase 4 is certainly a Defence Helicopter Force that goes our (the light blue) way, but we should be careful as it is entirely feasible that this new potential Defence Helicopter Force may not include RAF in any major (command) role.

Therefore, when the stakes are this large, MOD this broke and the scope for change so large, arguing about where simulators go is being very very short sighted and believing that it is the key to the ownership or operation of helicopters is even more so.

Defence is changing to such a degree that we will probably never be able to recover, with a belief that capability 'holidays' and gapping can be rapidly re-generated (as we did at the outbreak of World War II). But what those that are taking these decisions and risks do not appreciate is that where a War Office may have been able to fight Spitfire pilots after as little 9 hours, today's technology will never see 'rapid re-generation' faced with conflict.

[FB11]

MaroonMan4

If we can't talk about the reality (or potential reality) of what may or may not happen, surely we become as head in the sand as our leaders, within whom I include the civil servants?

Nothing that's been written thus far has been unpleasant or rude and nobody is crowing about anything thus far.

We're just talking.

FB11

[MaroonMan4]

Ok FB11,

Not aimed you, but general observation.

And sorry, talk away-I was detecting incipient thread degeneration with a few snipes, but then again I could be becoming too sensitive to the poisonous atmosphere and negative single service comments.

Forgive me for intruding.

[Finnpog]

I thought that FB11's post was thoughtful and tactful, even if it didn't give options which everyone liked.

I would also suggest the following for any next phase of FJ procurement.

As we are but a small and broke nation, then it seems to me that any aircraft should be amphibious and flat-top capable and then regardless of who is driving it (if indeed anyone is actually in the cockpit and not sat elsewhere) then it could be deployed from carriers (ours or someone else's) as well as working from tarmac.

I would also distance the whole MoD from anything which is "shiny and not yet available" and go for off the shelf options which are upgradable.

Unfortunately there are more than enough snake-oil addicts who belivee that the next 'new' thing is snake-oil and will make everything all right.

[high spirits]

A recent visit to a secret airbase in oxon by a man of rank with a large protruberance eminating from his boat-race would suggest that things are about to get a whole lot more joint than they have been, ie more RN on RAF/Army Sqns as posted from DHFS, and vice versa. Likewise joint OEUs and standards units. This may have merit in that it will stop single service bickering and destroy the 'I didn't join the RAF to fly off boats' ego trip. Sadly though, I think it is being done to save the more senior 4* leadership the embarassment of making a whole fleet of single service aircrew redundant - especially given how the Daily Mail and its ilk would react to helicopter cutbacks in the wake of all the negative publicity that befell Gordon Brown.

Oh, and I agree with MM4 - the who should get what arguments have all been done on at least 2 other threads.

[NURSE]

How much is the Royal marines being reduced?
I seam to remember it was something like 750 people equiv to one infantry Bn.

David Cameron has given a written reply confirming the transfare of Merlin HC fleet to the FAA so another U turn by the government?

to an outsider It would make sense for the Merlin fleet to have 1 operator and support chain.

except the government now has other plans for the Merlin HC fleet maybe going Yellow?

[MaroonMan4]

High Spirits,

You and I may have been listening to the same individual- but hence my caution, although he alluded to more RN joining RAF and AAC Sqns,he did place a big caveat in that we could easily be joining RN and Army Sqns to save us (and the Prime Minister who has written this letter confirming that Merlin is destined to the RN and that in Parliament during SDSR where the PM said that we would procure 14 new CH47) from having the embarrassment of laying off even more Service pilots having only just returned from this war in Afghan and knowing all to well that he will need the helicopters for any....absolutely any!Defence scenario in the future (less all out nuclear war).

I am acutely aware that our very senior officers have been conducting a morale boosting PR campaign to keep us all happy as they recognise how low our morale is and how low we feel on the shop floor....

So I am taking everything that any of our 'stars' say with a pinch of salt......would you believe anything that anyone says anymore.....look how much we are chopping and changing, with little direction, decision making or leadership.

[high spirits]

MM4,
Thats what I suggested when I said 'and vice versa'. My Big Fat Greek Compromise. It will confuse the UK taxpayer and bury the inevitable pre and post Afg redundancies in the fog of war. The politicians have done it again, reduced us to parochialism and divided and conquered. I just hope that they reduce the numbers of Staff Officers and HQs accordingly.

BTW, have the 'rockstar helicopters' survived PR11 - any rumours?

[tramps]

Into the firing line...as one who used to have a connection:) (and no disrespect or offence intended to the excellent work of the civilian SAR/MRT), but how about the Government/MOD, do the following:
Keep a military SAR/ MRT presence, which would give the UK:
a. An excellent service to the FJ mates, over land and sea.
b. Excellent SAR training for military crews later adapting to possibly undertake such challenges in a war zone.
c. Excellent turnaround for crews, especially for SH/SF mates. They are, I would imagine, presently serving 1 or 2 tours (3 to 6 years) in and out of conflict zones so a stability tour or two may come as a welcome relief.
d. Military monitoring of the UK coast-line.
e. Excellent PR.
f. Even more Capable Agile and Adaptable Helicopter crews.

Possible ways to help achieve this:
1. Buy enough of the Sikorsky H-92 helicopters for both the SH, SAR, SF and the RN, thus replacing both the Puma, Sea King and the RN ‘junglies’, which would give:
a. The RAF and the RN continuity of training.
b. A Drastic reduction in Role conversion costs.
c. An even more Capable Agile and Adaptable Helicopter.
2. Allow limited civilian advertising on the yellow SAR airframes, or allow companies to advertise their sponsorship of RAF SAR. It would surely pay dividends for companies who quite readily pay out fortunes to so called ‘celebs’ to advertise their wares, so why not to the military SAR? Every little helps!

Just a thought as I believe positive action is required and PDQ!

I’ll get me coat :ok:

[NURSE]

yes cracking ideas Give sikorsky the contract!

2 issues we've no money and 2. we've no money

If we had the money why not run a proper competitive tender balancing cost and capability and buying what comes out best with a tightly defined and realistic specification drawn up by people who know what they're talking about. Free from political/industrial pressure and wanting a mature product not a drawing.

[minigundiplomat]

and 3. we've no money!

[NURSE]

Oh yes forgot point 3

[Father Jack Hackett]

Slightly off topic but does anybody know how many grey Merlins are currently surplus to requirements and how much work would be required to re-role them to SAR? Might that not be the way ahead for future SAR, thus freeing up that £6 Billion that we were going to throw at Soteria to instead shore up the future requirements of SH and Junglie fleets?

[Clearedtoroll]

Although money is, in general, the major issue right now I am not sure it will entirely drive what happens with SAR. Funding was agreed for SARH - if the MoD can find a solution within that funding line then that solution will surely be taken. The fact that funding is currently presumably allocated through the DfT not the MoD surely doesn't matter to the Treasury - it's all one not-so-big pot. A solution that sorts out the CHF, new Chinook, and SAR mess vaguely along the lines that tramp suggests might not be so ridiculous.

[tramps]

Didn’t the MOD go through a tendering process from 2000 onwards as part of the PF initiative, isn’t that why the S92 was chosen?
Sikorsky gave a presentation of their S-92 helicopter to a SARF conference in, I think, 2003, at the same time as Wasteland gave their ‘Merlin’ presentation. My understanding of the event was that the entire audience were bowled over by the ingenuity of the S-92, especially:
1. The active vibration control system feature, which prolongs airframe life by reducing fatigue loads on the aircraft.
2. The number of safety features such as flaw tolerance, bird strike capability and engine burst containment incorporated into the design.
3. Adherence to FAA FAR part 29 that has led the FAA certification board to call the S-92 the "safest helicopter in the world"
4. The S-92 reportedly met the FAR part 29 "run dry" requirement by asserting the loss of oil pressure in the main gear box is "extremely remote"

Seems to me that they drew up a tightly defined and realistic specification and seemed know what they're talking about.;)

Yes the H92 is still has a year or so to go before entering production for the Canadians as the Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone. I would imagine that when it does, it will be hailed in the same way as the S92.

As for Wasteland, did they attempt to get the opinions of those on the coal face when they designed the ‘Merlin’.....no, they completely bloody ignored them.:ugh:

Winch placement, crash seating, ramp etc, etc, etc the list goes on and on!!

Ah...money!! Yes a challenge, but how much more of a challenge if the private company running SAR, when entrenched in its position, starts to hold HM Government to ransom. How messy it could get in negotiations and what of the implications should a new company take over the running the show every 6-years or so? It makes sense to me as the security of the Nation, in the medium to long term, is at stake; Speculate to accumulate.

So I stand by my comments: keep a Military SAR presence for the reasons given, buy a proven helicopter for use across the RAF/RN, thus massively reducing costs and giving them flexibility and adaptability; I would have thought that the Puma and the Junglies are approaching their sell by date anyway!
Oh, and steer clear of Wastelands:mad:!!

[Nicholas Howard]

I stand by my comments: keep a Military SAR presence for the reasons given, buy a proven helicopter for use across the RAF/RN, thus massively reducing costs and giving them flexibility and adaptability; I would have thought that the Puma and the Junglies are approaching their sell by date anyway

Tramps, where have you been for the last 15 years?

If only you could have got yourself posted to any one of the PE/DPA/DES PTs, or one of the many capability sponsors (DOR Sea/Air, DEC TM, DEC ALM, Cap ALM) or even a FLC (Fleet, NC, Strike, Air, Land, JHC) then you could have clearly solved this gordian knot of an enigma wrapped up in conundrum, disguised by a dilema and had the whole of UK helicopter acquisition and support sewed up in a neat, affordable package. Or...

b. its a little bit more complex than you think.

Still, at least the current SofS is going to fix the whole unholy mess...

Nick

[high spirits]

.......or maybe if we had less TLAs and reams of costly organisations who each put their oar in (you didn't even mention the Q-word from Boscombe), then we could buy decent kit, off the shelf for a fraction of what it has cost. Today's politician guff from Dr Fox was just anti-mil spin so that he can justify carving more chunks out of the military without too much opposition from the public.

Slagging off other peoples ideas because they are simple in concept does not mean that they are wrong.

[tramps]

Bloody computer:*
NH, I was a lot closer to what was going on than you think and have had experience at the sharper end! ;)
I never said it would be simple and look at the mess we are in because of how those, procuring in the past, dealt with such 'complex' issues:}

[oldgrubber]

tramps,
before you praise the S92/H92 too loudly, you might want to visit the rotorheads forum and read the S92 and Newfoundland crash threads. It ain't all they claim it is!

Cheers

[tramps]

oldgrubber
S92 and Newfoundland crash threads.
Thanks, looking at them now, sincerest condolences to all those involved.
Plenty of S92 pilots still singing it's praises though; Any BoE report out yet?

Also:
BERLIN, Feb. 25 (UPI) -- The German armed forces are testing 13 new NH90 helicopters and they are not amused.

An internal military report, leaked to German mass daily Bild, blasted the many shortcomings of the multi-purpose helicopter developed and built by Eurocopter daughter NHIndustries. The 103-page report goes as far as recommending using alternative aircraft in operational scenarios.

Germany has ordered 122 NH90 for the army and the air force for around $6.2 billion but the testing of the pre-serial model revealed several deficiencies.

1.Clearance is so limited that soldiers have trouble getting in and out of the helicopter
2. the rear ramp is too weak to support fully equipped soldiers
3. the plane's floor is so sensitive that it can be cracked by boots
4.the seats are unable to accommodate more than 240 pounds. The fact that modern infantry equipment weighs 55 pounds means that larger and more muscular soldiers will have to stay out.

If true, they didn't learn from the 'Merlin'; Wastelands, so unfunny:mad:

[oldgrubber]

tramps,
I personally like the idea that the Yanks have come up with (also mentioned on PPruNe somewhere), that is to take a 100 plus S-61T aircraft and re-engineer them to some sort of "Carson" build state. This is to address the shortfall in their medium lift capability worldwide. I seem to remember a whole load of Seaking airframes sat at Sultan!!

Cheers

[zalt]

tramps

In terms of being critical of an aircraft and its certification it would be difficult to find a more critical accident report than the TSB's report on the S-92.

Transportation Safety Board of Canada - AVIATION REPORTS - 2009 - A09A0016 (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2009/a09a0016/a09a0016.asp)

[tramps]

Thanks,,
It is a compelling, comprehensive and outstandingly professional report. Many lessons learnt from a dreadful, horrifying accident. RIP all

[NUFC1892]

From Hansard, 3 Mar 11:

Military Aircraft: Helicopters

Mr Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of the Commando helicopter force; and if he will make a statement. [42764]
Nick Harvey: The Strategic Defence and Security Review confirmed the continuing requirement for the Commando Helicopter Force, based at Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton, particularly in relation to the helicopter lift requirements for littoral manoeuvre.
It remains our intention to transfer the Merlin Mk 3/3a helicopters to the Commando Helicopter Force to replace the Sea King Mk 4 helicopters which go out of service by 2016 on current plans. The force's fleet of Lynx helicopters will be replaced by Wildcat attack helicopters.

[Si Clik]

I have a signed letter from SofS dated 1 Mar 11 which says:

'there is no suggestion that the Merlin Mk3/3A aircraft will not transfer to the CHF'.

Convolute but unequivocal.

If in doubt ask you MP and he/she will probably ask for you.

[TheWizard]

Well, that's it then. If you have a signed letter from a politician that guarantees it will happen.

Doesn't it??:hmm: