CHF - Merlin Mk 4

[Pongoglo]

Just spotted in Hansard - appears to confirm that CHF are to get Merlin after all. Is the Mk 4 then still on course??

22 JUNE 2011 Column 41 W

Merlin Helicopters

Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the RAF Merlin Mark 3 will be transferred to the Royal Navy. [60876]

Mr Robathan: We intend to upgrade and transfer our current fleet of Merlin Mk 3/3a helicopters to the Royal Navy: the first upgraded helicopters will enter service with the Commando Helicopter Force in time to replace the Sea King Mk 4 helicopters, which are planned to be withdrawn from service in 2016.
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/misc/progress.gif

[minigundiplomat]

I wonder if that means the Chinook buy has been given the green light?

[Nicholas Howard]

I think the key word in Mr Robathan's statement is "intend"...

[Pheasant]

I wonder if that means the Chinook buy has been given the green light?

Sorry, what is the connection? I am not aware that SDSR linked the 2 events. SDSR told the RAF to handover the Merlins to the CHF - I presume this is all going ahead and the Junglies are filling the conversion courses at Benson? If this is not the case the RAF need to explain why not.

Or is this all part of the Torpy/Anderson "One Air Force" campaign - grow up.

[TheWizard]

Er, there is the small matter of the 36 odd RAF (inc RN and AAC exchange) Merlin crews that will need employment ie, if the Chinook order goes ahead then they retrain and assimilate said crews.
If it doesn't, then where do they go?? (and don't say tough luck or make them redundant as that is not a grown up option)

[chinook240]

Pheasant,

At the risk of inviting a re-run of the of old arguements please read:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/439224-junglie-merlins.html

hopefully it will explain the comments.

[Unchecked]

SDSR did not tell the RAF to hand the Merlin to the navy, it stated quite clearly it's RAF SH requirements for Future Force 2020, which included 25 RAF operated Merlin helicopters along with puma 2, and the existing chinook strength, plus 14 extra.

It was FRWS (published prior to SDSR and a labour gvt strategy) that outlined the merlin transfer, along with a new buy of 24 (+2 attrition) chinooks to replace the Merlin. Since FRWS was binned some months ago, then I think that the door has still not closed on this issue.

[Pheasant]

Unchecked,

The statement in the RAF bit of the SDSR paper was incorrect and along with an incorrect statement by CAS shortly afterwards was corrected in the House of Commons. No linkage was made to the Chinook order. It is quite possible that RAF crews will be made redundant following the transfer of capability to the Junglies - life in a blue suit.

[Unchecked]

Let's just see what happens. I don't think it's over yet.

Ps, why is it down to the RAF to explain why junglies aren't filling the ocus?

[high spirits]

Pheasant,
Perhaps you ought to read the thread as Chinook240 suggests..... It might give you a more rounded view of what the issues are for both Services. Throbbing away on this forum will get you precisely nowhere. JHC have the word 'Joint' in the title, not Navy or RAF. It would be politically unacceptable for Fox to reveal helicopter redundancies in either Service. The redundancies are coming (because there will be physically less platforms to fly) but they will be hidden. Prepare for compromise..........

[Pheasant]

Hi Spirits,

I have read the thread and stand by my comments. Why you think it politically unacceptable for Fox to announce helicopter redundancies I do not know...he has happily announced 17,000 others in SDSR. The time-frame for transfer is 2015/16 ie post Afghanistan, so no issue there.

Unchecked,

Quote:
Ps, why is it down to the RAF to explain why junglies aren't filling the ocus?
Because the RAF are refusing to allow the Junglies to join the OCUs! What's that about following a direct order?


We all know the RAF are petrified of 2018....why else would Project Trenchard be up and running?

[Unchecked]

That's mischief-making bullcrap and you know it.

The navy are going on the offensive on pprune. This must mean theyre about to lose another capability. You grow up.

[Pheasant]

Unchecked,

I am not in the Navy, so am not aware of their game-plan. My views on the RAF come from their behaviour, the nature of recent PQs, their performance at HCDC hearings and utterances of senior officers at things like Air Power conferences (and the views of more junior air officers who are fed up with the attitude of their bosses).

I do find it intriguing that the one document not revealed to the NAO on the recent carrier strike investigation was the record of the meeting between the then CDS (RAF) and the PM in the final seconds of SDSR re Harrier and Ark Royal when this was not the recommendation (according to the NAO) of the Defence Board....but this is thread drift.

[minigundiplomat]

Peasant

I didn't realise I needed your permission to post. I am very sorry, but as others have pointed out, the two events are connected [least of which is they both involve helicopters].

Som of your earlier posts on this thread seem to suggest you either misunderstood my post, or are a huge stroker of the phallus. Perhaps it is not me that needs to grow up?

[Really annoyed]

or are a huge stroker of the phallus

Pot and kettle spring to mind there minidumb.

Nice insult though, but what does it say in the rules that I keep being reminded of? Oh yes that's it.

No offensive/abusive posts.
No swearing, sexually explicit or vulgar language.


Whoops, you broke both these rules. Perhaps a bit of editing is required.

[minigundiplomat]

Even before your post, I wondered whether you an Peasant were one in the same........

[high spirits]

Pheasant,
A misunderstanding. Liam Fox flamed Labour over the shortage of helicopters. It would be unacceptable for him (and to him) to have to announce redundancies on 'his watch'.
As for the RAF refusing the RN onto the OCF; that is incorrect. The OCF have been running a lighter programme of late for reasons best not discussed on this forum. Find out why before you post factually incorrect comments.

[Pheasant]

Hi Spirits,

Fox is now the Minister, not in opposition. What he said before is irrelevant.

Simple question - how many Junglies in the OCF right now? All new crews in the OCF should be RN now in order that a smooth transition occurs - lighter programme or not.

[Could be the last?]

Why does the CHF Junglies have to be replaced by the Merlin, can't they take the extra uplift of CH47?

They could be marinized at at the point of manufacture, would only need one crew conversion and would give the commando force the lift capability they have been looking for. Everyone's a winner.........

[high spirits]

Pheasant,
There are no 'new crews' on the OCF at the moment..... Accusing the RAF of refusing RN crews onto the course is utter tosh.

It may be irrelevant to you ref Fox in opposition, but it is not irrelevant to any future headlines and accusations of hypocrisy. My point was simply that any redundancies due to fewer cockpits will be hidden in natural wastage as the changeover happens, if indeed it goes ahead as planned.

[APO Dried Plum]

Could be the last? - Sensible, common sense suggestions like that clearly have no place on this particular thread.

Sure the new carrier could take CH47s easily.

Only one set of crews to retrain.

Merlin saved from extra weight penalty from folding head, tail etc....

Money saved all round.

Joint Force Chinook makes so much sense.... it will never happen.

[Pheasant]

Joint Force"***" would never work. In which Service would it reside? Who would get the command opportunities? How would career paths be managed? Would RAF or Army bods be prepared to follow a "Maritime Aviator" career path to 1/2* and vice versa?

If Joint Force Harrier hasn't killed off the concept of Joint Forces then something is seriously wrong with Defence senior strategists. Certainly for the new "Joint Forces Command" you can bet the Army interpret that as Army led, no discussion!

Perhaps all helos should be split between the Army and FAA, i.e. where the output lies. Someone explain why the RAF fly helos at all? Haven't I heard that somewhere before?

[Backwards PLT]

Pheasant - you are correct that JF Harrier was a bit of a disaster and most would admit that it was due to the RN's inability to keep up their end of the deal, in particualr supply half of the manpower. I think the RN have learnt their lesson - it almost led to the disappearance of the FAA and I don't think they will repeat it for JSF.

J Helicopter F, by contrast has worked out pretty well, despite the inevitable early frictions, with a Land focus but even some AAC types admitting that the RAF does some things pretty well!

Jointery really is the way ahead in many areas, although I agree that we have a hard job convincing the army that it isn't spelt A R M Y.

[alfred_the_great]

"supply half the Manpower"

Using who's Scheme of Complement - 800/801s or 3/IV Sqns? I was there for your first embarkation in CVS, many more people than we were used to for a Harrier Sqn; caused no end of problems for cabin allocation!

[Odigron]

Pheasant,
I agree with you that 'joint' doesn't work all the time. There has been intense rivalry between the 3 services, especially regarding ownership of rotary, for many years, ney decades - I think that even I can work out which side of that particular fence you sit on. But, I could just as easily pose the question 'why have 2 services (Army and Navy) operate rotary when it could be done by one?'. I am, of course playing devils advocate there. I think the crux of the matter for the current regime will be cost - will it cost more to keep the Merlin Mk3 under light blue or transfer it to the army, where the output lies, or transfer it to the FAA? The cheapest option is likely to win the day (again). 'Joint' is often painful, but it does work in some areas!
The final outcome will cause pain somewhere.

[Tourist]

B PLT

"and most would admit that it was due to the RN's inability to keep up their end of the deal, in particualr supply half of the manpower. I think the RN have learnt their lesson"


Wow.
What a statement.

Would the "most" referred to mean "those in light blue" by any chance?

[Talk Split]

Can I just say that as a Dark Blue aviator who may end up flying the Merlin4, I would like to completely dis-associate myself from the majority of comments suposedly supporting the Navy on this and similar threads.

The CHF knows exactly what it is like to feel under threat, and I am damn sure that many in the Merlin3 force are feeling the pain also at this moment. This whole Merlin debacle has been p**s poorly dealt with by senior officers, both light and dark blue, who have no idea what it is like to work in a truly joint environment.

It is the unfortunates in the CHF and Merlin force who are working side by side AT THIS VERY MOMENT on ops that have to deal with the uncertainty...

I can't read this drivel without commenting on those who make comment on 'joint this' or 'joint that blah'. The people who will be affected one way or another by the Merlin Transition (train smash?) are, ironically the very ones making jointery work now.

[Could be the last?]

If CHF take the Merlin, or CH 47, how do they intend to man the rear crew element?

Will they continue in house selection/trg or will they put their guys through Shawbury? My understanding is that they take RMs in the main, will they be able to recruit the extra manpower. Will this set a precedent with regards to how 'light blue' try their Cmn? With a potential crossover of the fleet in the next 3 years, and the reduced number of OCUs how do they intend to get a cadre of rear crew established to have a credible FOC this decade?

Or are they looking to coerce the light blue Cmn to transfer across? :confused:

[Neartheend]

Talk split - well said. Based on my experience with being an outsider in a dark blue environment is that there isn't much difference between us. We enjoy what we do, we are on the whole proud of our individual service and we want to get the job done. IMHO the poison lays somewhere above SO1 level on both sides. My advice re' the Merlin transfer is be very careful what you wish for. Merlin Mk3 and frustration are words that go together well. The 'minor' upgrades to make it Mk4, if it proves affordable and the cash can be found, will not make a silk purse out of a pigs ear.

[Justanopinion]

you are correct that JF Harrier was a bit of a disaster and most would admit that it was due to the RN's inability to keep up their end of the deal, in particualr supply half of the manpower.

In what way was it a "bit of a disaster"? In the way that both RAF and RN Squadrons were able to provide front line support to operations in Afghanistan while still remaining engaged in various shipborne and land based exersizes outside of operations? Not sure that this can be claimed a disaster. The main problem that the RN became sadly obsessed with was manning of QFI posts on the Front Line, something the RN, in the SHAR days at least, did not require.

I can't read this drivel without commenting on those who make comment on 'joint this' or 'joint that blah'. The people who will be affected one way or another by the Merlin Transition (train smash?) are, ironically the very ones making jointery work now.


Twas much the same in the Harrier Force. Those who were actually in the force seemed to get on just fine and get on with the job. Jointery can work.

[Unchecked]

Talk Split - absolutely legendary post, you don't get more spot on than that. Can we all please just wait and see how this pans out, then try our hardest not to rub it in the faces of those who are ultimately going to lose the job they love doing over it ?

That, is also jointery.

[Backwards PLT]

OK, clearly some here not familiar with JFH.

The RN couldn't provide the necessary number of crews that had been agreed (50/50 split) to man the OCU and the sqns. Hence the collapse into a "NSW". It isn't contentious, just straight fact. The reasons why may be contentious and it would be interesting to hear from those involved why it was the case (not random idiots who have no idea what they are talking about).

The perception, which may be totally incorrect, is that the RN marginalised this aspect of the FAA while they were desperately trying to defend the surface fleet. Essentially they took their eye off the ball which they now realise was a huge mistake and are trying to scramble back. Unfortunately their reputation in terms of joint orgs and fixed wing flying has taken a pretty bad bashing.

[Justanopinion]

OK, clearly some here not familiar with JFH.


I am not a harrier pilot, so I stand by to be corrected by someone who is,

Corrected as requested.

The Navy struggled to meet the manning component as traditionally on a SHAR Squadron there was a Boss, Senior Pilot and an AWI. In order to follow the RAF Squadron structure they now had to grow two extra Flight Commanders, have 1 - 2 QWIs (which take 2- 3 years to grow) and the obligatory QFI which again took a tour on the Harrier, a tour at Linton/Valley, and then 6 months to a year back on the Harrier before becoming C to I. That was per front line Squadron and then the OCU needed another 2 QWI and QFI. This is where the RN struggled to fill the posts as guess what, they hadn't been flying the GR for a long period of time. The RN focus on trying to make as many QFIs as possible led them to take their eye off the ball in terms of QWIs in my opinion.

[Unchecked]

And there it is.

Another perfectly good thread mutated into a harrier-war !

[Pheasant]

Talk Split,

Well said, sir. But in doing so you have hit the nail on the head. At Sqn level there isn't an issue (excepting the survival of the Junglies vs RAF equivs). At a more senior, policy level, the decision was made that the RAF Merlins would be passed to the RN and in the process, if affordable, converted to Mk 4 standard (effectively what the Italians have). It is the responsibility of those above Sqn level to enact that policy and it does not matter what the Sqns think and what their feelings are about their comrades in arms.

The deliverable required is embarked maritime effect (in this case primarily for the amphibious requirement delivered by the RMs) - a joint effect delivered by the RN. And before you say "what about the Apache?" - you may recall that the original intent was to have a maritime Sqn manned by the RN...I think the system is growing back that way through force majeure.

As with other aviation capabilities it is not just about the pilots (although the RAF tend to think in this way). It is also about growing maritime aviation experienced SO2s, SO1s and above to fill a variety of posts both at sea (Wings etc) and ashore in HQs and at TASs. This is as true for the RW side as it is for the FW (hence the RN's fixation with remaining in the FW game) - I honestly cannot see RAF officers and men volunteering to spend their career in the maritime domain (including the sea time for both flying and staff appointments).

It is not a one Service vs the other issue really, it is where the output and expertise growth is needed. If one wanted to be totally hard nosed (which I was in an earlier post) the RAF have no requirement to grow rotary wing aircrew as the expertise (at all levels) is needed for Army and RN outputs/effects. On the other hand in the FW world the RN do need to be involved as they need to deliver effect from the sea (Govt policy) and operate the host platforms (including maritime FW risk management) safely and at all levels - from Able Seaman to Admiral. The RAF do need to operate FW aircraft to deliver defence of the homeland, ISTAR etc and to grow air-minded battlestaff for joint HQs etc, but they do not need to own the whole show, which is what Project Trenchard is really about.

[high spirits]

Pheasant,
That's the trouble with making policy, without any idea about how it will be implemented, with totally unrealistic timescales; and most importantly no money.

Unlike you, I don't begrudge anyone else's Service their slice of rotary. We are all good at what we do and rightfully proud of it. Mk6 chinook buy of 22 was inextricably linked to the move of Merlin to the RN, I heard it from the mouth of the RN 2 star Commander of JHC.

I know the aircraft well, and I have also flown helicopters off several RN and RFA platforms. I agree with the silk purse comment made earlier. I would sooner see the junglies get a cab that will work for them and the booties... But this is not it. I still note that you are unwilling to back up your earlier accusation re the OCF with any evidence. Any apology forthcoming??

[Neartheend]

Merlin Mk3 is technically advanced however it has issues, ie high basic weight which adding blade fold will not help in the slightest. The ramp is far too steep and has caused knee injuries to pax bussing and debussing at anything above walking pace. The engines are not that robust, the gearboxes are made of cheese and the airframe fizzes and thats before Mk3 has been near the seaside. I've been told that the FAA doesn't want it as its not the right aircraft for them however as CHF are fighting for survival they will accept anything remotely RW. As Talk split said its a train crash in the making and its no-one but the senior managements fault. The new 2* at JHC said only 3 weeks ago, Ck Mk6, Pu Mk2 and Mn Mk3 are all linked and all are at risk due to funding.

[Pheasant]

Hi Spirits & Neartheend,

Unfortunately the 2* at JHC does not make policy re linkages between helicopter types. He might try but in the end it will be decided above his head and probably at 4* VCDS level if not by the Defence Board. With the way the Defence Board is now configured i.e. with SofS in the chair, if he states in Parliament that the CHF will get the Merlins then he will probably ask why it is not happening.

HS, I still don't know how many Junglies are in the Merlin training pipeline....you seem to?

[high spirits]

Pheseant,
I do, but am not willing to give numbers on a public forum. I do know who got priority to get through the course first. If you want to know, why don't you give the OCF a bell. At the same time ask how many instructors they have and how many aircraft they get to play with. Accuse away my friend, but find out the facts first. The facts might lead you to draw a very different conclusion as to how long this process will take...

[Neartheend]

Theres many reasons why you shouldn't put Junglies on the OCF yet? 1. Proposed Mk 4 cockpits will be different to the Mk3 so why train on what something thats different. 2. There are no spare 'cabin's at the Oxfordshire base and theres no T&S for hotels. Help yourselves to 12x12s if you wish. 3. Current ac availabilty isn't condusive to any type of training. 4. If Mk4 gets past intial and main gate, it will take 2 - 3 years from contract let before the first one gets to the MOD. Look at how long its taken to get Merlin Mk2 to flight trials and it still needs to go to QQ. 4. Why train now and suffer skill fade and the costs of associated re-training. As an alternative why not go to the South West where there is a far bigger fleet... oh yes they haven't got much in the way of ac availability either. Notice the theme forming?

Finally, no one said the 2* was making policy. His brief was on high level policy and command (political) intent which linked the CH47 and Pu Mk2's.

[Torque limited]

Hmm.

The new 2* head of JHC has a flagrant mis-understanding of the term Joint.

'Never in the field of jointery was so much ignored, by so few, to so many.

[Pheasant]

TL,

If joint is the mantra for the Tories do you think the 2* at JHC will last or will he be lifted?

[Could be the last?]

Who commands CHF, is it JHC or Fleet?

[ramp_up]

A Captain.

[ORAC]

Confirmation of funding for 14 Chinooks: Torygraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/8642576/Defence-shake-up-means-our-smallest-Army-since-the-Boer-War.html)

[high spirits]

...but no mention of a Merlin marinisation upgrade or an LEP. Without one it will just about lift pussers lunchbox. I'd also be interested to know when the mk3 is lifex. I have heard rumours of 2030.

[Unchecked]

Does anyone know, or has anyone ever heard bandied about, even a rough figure for the cost of 'markfourinising' the Mark 3/3A fleet ?

[MaroonMan4]

So if CHF is the supposed maritime and amphibious experts, why is it in the JHC in the first place? If they love the sea and bobbing around so much, why aren't they under a maritime HQ?

And Unchecked, as to the cost for 'markfourinisation' of the Merlin, I would tread carefully there as we all know it is not purely the marinisation of the airframe that will cost the money, but the essential LEP to remove obselence (maybe even improve the cheese gearbox that everyone talks about?). Therefore even if we end up with the Merlins we too will also need to spend money.

If we were really being honest with ourselves I personally do not think that despite the forward leaning pretense by senior officers that any of us in the wokka or freak fleets genuinely have the appetite for many months at sea (and it looks as though the Libya Op is providing a non-intervention power projection template that the current genre of politicians like). Especially if all Merlin are going to be based in the depths of Cornwall - I can see wives and girlfriends just loving that as we all depart for 6 months at a time!

If the Fisheads really want to take Merlin to sea then good luck to them.

[high spirits]

Maroon man,
You fail to notice the irony of your predicament. When the booties find out just how much it can lift, they will be on the horn to odiham requesting your presence at the next cocktail party....

[chinook240]

MM4,

Come, come, I must pick you up on the use of the term 'Freaks'. In http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/439224-junglie-merlins-7.html #130 you pledged:

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 sorryhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/shiner.gif

Remember some of us have to work with them.

I hate to correct you as you have brought so much commomsense to these debates. Just wish I could work out who you are?

[MaroonMan4]

Sorry, I will stop using the term Freaks - old habits die hard, but apologies and consider myself chastised :{

I too work with them and have the utmost respect.

[chinook240]

There, don't you feel better already? :ok: They have feelings too.

[high spirits]

MM4,
As for your withdrawn post about everybody flying each others helicopters- you were not in Bitburg with 6 others were you?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

MM4,
As for your withdrawn post about everybody flying each others helicopters- you were not in Bitburg with 6 others were you?

If he was then he and I have something in common :p

[Not_a_boffin]

So if CHF is the supposed maritime and amphibious experts, why is it in the JHC in the first place? If they love the sea and bobbing around so much, why aren't they under a maritime HQ?

I don't believe that CHF had a speaking part in the formation of JHC, which IIRC occurred prior to the arrival of Merlin 3 and during a time when pretty much all UK ops (Balkans, Telic etc) requiring RW lift called on Yeovilton (and Odiham) first.

[Bismark]

The CHF were told to move into JHC by VCDS.

There is a real question as to whether JHC represents value for money. It certainly didn't for the RN as it required a large uplift in HQ staff officers (something like from 2 up to 12). The main benefit is that it has given the Junglies a better career path than they had before, otherwise they would probably be better off in Fleet HQ.

More controversially one could make an argument that they have had to meet the lowest common denominator in terms of standards. I will not name the guilty Service but I think we know who I mean.

[Bismark]

Following Fox's announcements yesterday, is there any white smoke re CHF?

[Unchecked]

Haven't seen any, nor did I see any drawdown in the numbers of booties.

[high spirits]

As I said in a previous post. If the policy to send mk3 across to the RN goes ahead(and I think it will), it will not meet the timescale of those who are making it. Why? To make something happen it must be resourced properly, ie aircraft, instructors, accommodation and a realistic timescale. It must also not in any way compromise current operations...

As for mk4, still haven't seen any £s on the table??

[Mick Strigg]

I'ts gone very quiet on this thread!

Has an adverse (for the RAF) decision been made?

[Unchecked]

Dont think so. There's not much else to say though until it has. The Navy think they should have it so they can save CHF, the RAF think they should keep it because it's a ridiculously expensive option to marinise the airframes, relocate and retrain all the aircrew and that's just the financial aspect, before you even begin to mention the years of Merlin corporate operating experience that is going to be pissed away in a few years time, just to keep the navy happy.

I think that just about covers the story so far !

[Pheasant]

.....and because the PM told MoD to do it!

Barring the marinisation costs the rest shouldn't be too bad. Aircrew and engineers convert onto new types all of the time and it will be a question of osmosis rather than wholesale transfer (assuming that process starts now). Re-location of the hardware to Yeovilton should not take too much effort. The Junglies already know the role they will fulfil so no costs there. And presumably the sims will stay at Benson for the foreseeable future (the Junglies already go to Culdrose for Seaking sim time).

Sounds like a mountain out of a molehill.

[APO Dried Plum]

People seem to skip over the cost of the marinisation as a minor irrelevance. Have JHC just found a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow somewhere? It's just I can see the headlines now... 'Scandal of Navy Helicopters that cannot fly off Ships'.......

[Unchecked]

Bang on. It's so obvious to everyone for many reasons that it's the wrong decision, so there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that a modern day politician will make it and, along with CHF, rue the day.

[jamesdevice]

theres a god reason for sending the Merlins to Yeovilton

Next time the gearboxes (or something else major) break you can trundle the cabs down the A37 to Westlands and say "Right YOU built it. Now YOU fix the piece of ****". Nice straight Roman roads virtually door-to-door giving easy access.

[Neartheend]

Jamesdevice - Great idea. Problem is that AW have just been lent £22m by HMG to start a civil helicopter, AW 169, build line so they won't care about the MOD contract, especially as the MOD cash cow is empty. Cash for Mk4....... you have 2 hopes. Mr Cable said at Yeovil today, the government is short of money but they want to help Westlands convert from the military to civil market. Why do that if a big juicy MOD contract was in the pipeline?

[jamesdevice]

oooh thats interesting... looks like a plastic WG30. Lets hope the Itialians design the transmission this time AgustaWestland Unveils The AW169 | AgustaWestland (http://www.agustawestland.com/news/agustawestland-unveils-aw169)

from that press release "Giuseppi Orsi, CEO, AgustaWestland said “We are unveiling the AW169 hear at Farnborough because ..."
If they can't keep typos out of the press release, god help them when it comes to writing the software.

Two things come to mind though
1) just what is left at Yeovil? GKN kept all the profitable stuff like the aerostructures business, while the subsidiaries were all sold off. Presumably theres just the erecting shop left with Westland themselves?
2) the ONLY Westland designed helicopter to be a success was / is the Lynx. Everything else was designed by someone else (Bristol, Saunders-Roe, Sikorsky, Bell, Aerospatiale, McDonnell...) The things they've designed themselves have all been failures or f'ups: Westiminster, WG30, Merlin (basic design was more Westland than Agusta when the airframe basics were fixed in the 1980's, though every dog and his chicken have had a hand since)


PS - in years past cabs trundling between the two airfields was a common sight. Westland had a fleet of oversize artic trailers painted in West Ham / Aston Villa colours in which you could hide a Wessex or Whirlwind. They were parked for years at the closed Houndstone Army camp. Presumably now all scrapped...

[high spirits]

I'm guessing it will not be a blade fold, tail fold. They will just fit tie down rings to it and put it up and down the lifts of QE and PoW. Only problem is it will not fit in hangar on ocean. It will rot and get trashed in fairly short order.

[Neartheend]

The brief at the AEOs conference was along the lines of it must fold to allow the available spots on the QE/POW to be freed up for other users.

[Just This Once...]

Due to the landing gear the Merlin Mk3 cannot be lashed down in a manner suitable for ships, even if lashing points were added/reinstated. AWL suggest that the gear could be modified but I left the programme before the details / cost were provided. At the moment the Mk3 can 'visit' ships but not routinely operate from them.

Having seen what the 'coupon testing' material looked like when exposed to the simulated salt water environment I am not sure leaving them to rot is practical in any way. There has to be some protection added or the revised fleet life would not be long enough to convert all the CHF crews to type!

Please don't forget how tall the aircraft is before you try and park it downstairs!

[high spirits]

Like I said in an earlier post, if you make policy - it is worth having the wonga to back it up. What is the point of retraining 70 odd crews (where the hidden costs are enormous) just so the mk3 cannot go to sea??

[blandy1]

Apologies if this a stupid question but the Merlin started out as a maritme airframe. How the hell did the RAF manage to de-marinise it only to now have to re-marinise it. :confused::confused:

Bar the tail ramp, how does the HC version differ from an HM version?

[jamesdevice]

"It will rot and get trashed in fairly short order"

Well they seem happy to operate Lynx and Apaches off the deck of Albion / Bulwark for prolonged periods without any kind of hangar at all. Wonder how long they'll last. Memories of the Wessex that went to the Falklands "on top" of the merchant ships. When they got back to Yeovilton many of the airframes were so badly corroded they were scrapped on arrival. And they were built a damn sight stronger than the Merlins are

[Father Jack Hackett]

Blandy,


The RAF had very little input into the Mk3, indeed, we didn't really want it in the first place. Back in the nineties, the RAF was asked what equipment it wanted to recapitalise the SH fleet and the overwhelming response was a big buy of more Chinooks. Then SecDef, Michael Portillo, counselled the RAF on their misguided notions and persuaded them that a rehashed ASW helicopter, itself rehashed from a fanciful concept for a "heliliner", with a (fairly useless) ramp and some green paint was what they really wanted in the first place.

I don't like to get embroiled in politics and i've been pretty appalled by some of the short-term decisions made by the recent Labour administration, not to mention the latest SDSR. However, most of the long-term problems that today's forces have to contend with, stem from some far-reaching choices and policies of the Tory administrations of the 80s and 90s.

FJH

[high spirits]

I'm wondering whether the lords and masters have got themselves into a massive dilemma. Do we fund the second QE for big Dave's 'cat and trap' so we can operate it/flog it? Or: do we take the savings to marinise mk3, no ' cat and trap' and operate it as a LPH like Ocean.

There was a 'pot of gold' that they were hoping to use for the marinisation. The money saved from not buying Chinook Mk 6.......Now that we are buying Mk6, when and where will the Merlin upgrade dosh come from prior to 2020 to avoid the awful headline of 'Navy in helicopter that can't go to sea shocker...'

[andyy]

Can't comment on the marinisation issues for the Mk3 but if the re-training of aircrew is too expensive & the pot of gold is not actually available, why not just move the RAF's Merlin fleet in to CHF as a job lot & tell 'em to get on with it. I'm sure that with the help of a a few existing exchange officers used to the amphib environment they'll soon pick it up. As personnel leave in the natural course of events they will be replaced by RN/RM staff suitably trained through the existing system on a trickle drafting basis.:rolleyes:

No, I think I see a flaw in that plan.;)

[Neartheend]

Bar the tail ramp, how does the HC version differ from an HM version?

There is only 45% commonality between the 2. The HMs have got/are getting new torsion boxes coz the old ones fizzed away due to the salt laden atmosphere.

[Unchecked]

Andyy -

Or, why don't we send 14 new chinooks to CHF ?

Or, why don't we take a few navy bods on exchange to the RAF, have the 3 cleared for deck-ops and train the RAF in littoral move? It is only one half of the journey that's any different to what they've been doing for years anyway.

[diginagain]

1) just what is left at Yeovil?

Do they still make garage doors?

[Old-Duffer]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have just awakened from this horrible dream.

In it, Vince Cable decides that, with all the dosh AW are getting for their new 169, it would be a jolly good idea if they sold that type to the Maritime & Coastguard Agency and there you are - SAR requirement sorted!

Old Duffer

[Old-Duffer]

But then ................... George Osborne decides to make a PFI initiative out of it and the 25 year costs escalate by £15Bn and Liam Fox goes for a ride in one and decides it would be better than Puma and so he cancels the Puma upgrade (after the last cab is complete) and buys a shed load of 169s, which then need massive changes and the only way to pay for it is bin all the Chinooks!

:ugh::ugh:

Old Duffer

[Neartheend]

Do they still make garage doors?

No, thats become garador. Their products last far longer than AWs and seem to go up better.

[diginagain]

and seem to go up better.
Not only do they also come down under a greater degree of control, you can get spares quite easily too.

[blandy1]

So how can you take a helicopter designed with folding blades, folding tail and tie down points, remove these features and then make it expensive to put them back.

Afik. the Italians operate or have ordered a Naval tail ramp version - the design solutions for the requisite combination of features must exist.

I would have thought that after the Falklands it would have been sensible to specify all helicopters as marinised - to provide maximum flexibility in specific operations as well as major equipment reshuffles such as is being discussed.

[Not_a_boffin]

The Italian model Mk 410 and 413 with ramp, but folding bits total eight frames.

You would indeed have thought that post Corporate, aircraft should have been specified to be ship compatible. HOwever, on that basis, why is the Puma upgrade going ahead? "Surely" all future aircraft (inc f/w) should be deisgned to at least consider going to sea.......

[turboshaft]

1) just what is left at Yeovil?
Given that Yeovil was formally designated as AgustaWestland's military center of excellence by Sig. Orsi during the FLynx launch event in '06, presumably all 101s, all mil 109s, the 129 and the 149. Plus Wildcat and MCSP. Si?

[Neartheend]

Blandy 1 - in answer to your question re' taking blade fold off a design with it on. Simples it's weight. Mk1 carries little but mission kit plus limited external weapons such as torpedoes or with the Mission kit removed pax. Mk3 needs to carry troops and/or external loads. To get a resonable lift performance and range something had to come off the basic weight to get within the max all up weight. Blade and tail fold weighs a lot, fold management unit, several actuators, tail hinge frame etc. Removing it frees up weight for more load. Would you be surprised to hear that the internal paint finish was left off mk3 to help meet the weight requirement, a saving of a whole 6kg!!

[Engines]

Have to come in here. The RAF had a massive input to the Mk3. The RN Special Maintenance Party (SMP) at Yeovil looking after the Mk1 was 5 people. The RAF put 24 people in there for the Mk3.

There was practically no part of the airframe or systems that did not get reviewed and have its specification changed or uplifted. Very talented Westlands engineers were in private despair at the weight growth taking place all over the aircraft to add a seemingly unending list of 'must haves'. Don't get me wrong, some of them really were must haves. But quite a few weren't. Amazingly, blade fold wasn't, as there was no requirement to go to sea. Same for lashing points. (Joint? You're 'aving a larf....) We have ended up with one of the best protected, best equipped helicopters around - but its lift margin, already hit by the gearbox issue, was eroded by the process I described. And it can't go to sea.

Same guys then had to watch the same thing happen to the VH-71 programme, where the 'SMEs' from Pax river drew up their own list of 'must haves' and added tons to the weight.

Basic lesson - powered lift aircraft always have a weight challenge at some point in their lives. You always have to trade requirements for weight. In the Mk3's case, happened right at the start and was hampered by unchecked requirements creep. Getting these back to sea will take some tough decisions, but the Junglies can handle them.

Best regards as ever

Engines

[Odigron]

This is all very interesting, but why does the UK need the CHF and why don't we just make the AAC soely responsible for all RW? As already stated, AAC manages to operate off ships already.

[Neartheend]

Engines, as I remember it the RAF team wasn't just for Merlin but also Sea King Mk3a hence it's apparent size. If I try really hard I just about name all the Merlin Mk3 guys. Some of the SMP are still about.

[Tourist]

Odigron

Well done.
I thought this thread, despite Engines attempt to inject knowledge and sanity, was the epitomy of classic Pprune "talking out of the hoop".
I thought it could not sink to any lower depths.
I was wrong.
Well done.

[Odigron]

Tourist, a pleasure.
I am finding the stove piped debates a little boring. Maybe we should bin the whole lot (CHF, AAC & RAF SH) and start again.

[nice castle]

Engines, I think the more important point to address is why a helicopter with 3 engines delivers such poor performance?:rolleyes: It seems the margins were tight from the get-go, let alone accounting for any middle age spread that we all know seems to happen. (Just look at Mildcat)

[Neartheend]

Obviously you need 3 engines to lift the weight of 3 engines..... I think:)

[engineer(retard)]

Engines, marinising the Mk3 would have been requirements creep when there was no requirement to go to sea. The down side of the wet assembly is poor bonding paths and a struggle to hit the EMC spec, followed by weight growth.

regards

retard

[Engines]

Engineer,

The baseline common Merlin design was marinised. The Mk3 requirement was written to remove the marinised features, to save weight, to make room for other stuff. Not having to go to sea made sense from an RAF perspective, but was (IMHO) nonsense at the time - UK was already short of aircraft then.

Wet assembly is a standard, known and straightforward set of processes that have been around since the 1940s when the US started making aircraft from mag alloys and found they needed corrosion protection. EMC and bonding is not hard and doesn't add much weight. The big problem for newer aircraft is handling composites and other materials that don't conduct and don't provide the shielding metal does.

Best Regards as ever,

Engines

[snafu]

My understanding is that all of the talk about how expensive the marinisation of the Mk3 to Mk4 will be contains more than a little bit of smoke and mirrors....the cabs already need an upgrade programme that they're planned to recieve and the marinisation is a relatively minor part of it. The normal POV from those trying to keep the aircraft is to focus on the cost and claim that this is the cost of transferal. It's not, we're already planning to spend most of that money anyway, irrespective of whose cap badge is on the pilots!

[Unchecked]

But in this world of cuts and frugality, do we still believe that any money for a planned upgrade is still there? Do you not think that if it's recognised that the Mk3 in it's current form is getting along nicely, then the beancounters may decide that the money allegedly set-aside for an LEP may be better spent elsewhere?

[high spirits]

Snafu,
What is not 'smoke and mirrors' is that we, and I mean we, not RN and not Army or RAF, are currently £38 billion in the dwang...

Why, and how can we afford an x million marinisation programme plus the cost of re training 70 odd helicopter crews based in 2 different parts of England. Did I mention Merlin in Afghanistan, SK 4 in AFghanistan and Ellamy, no home resource to transfer from one service to another...Etc

Apart from that, things are rosy....

[MaroonMan4]

Oh deary me......

Is this what Jointery has really become? Is this is what purple looks and smells like after all these years?

A Secretary of State signs off on a decision, converted into a military order at 4* level and we still continue to vent our frustrations on the world wide web.

I view the Harrier thread with the same sadness - whether a right or wrong decision Navy, just get on with it.

And however much we perceive that the transfer of Merlin to the Fisheads is an injustice, we too must get on with it, otherwise this will result in many years ahead of bitterness and a painful transition (including to the new CH47), where only the troops in contact being supported will suffer.

Of course we are broke, and of course making the Merlin fit to go to sea will cost extra on top of its already required upgrade, but lets be realistic here in that over the next 10-20 years we are not just going to stop buying kit and doing 'stuff'.

As I have always maintained, if UK plc wants an amphibious capability, then the Fisheads are the best placed to deliver that capability, and money will have to be found to deliver that capability. If Defence does not want an amphibious capability, then lets take it on risk, keep the Merlins with us and we can work ourselves up to deliver a 'best effort' when and if required (I think we all recognise that in this world of Haddon-Cave that doing the full gambit of amphibious operations is a specialist task requiring a bit more than a few deck landings every now and again!).

It appears that the decision last week has meant that our lords and masters believe that they want an amphibious capability. Whether they can afford it who knows, but that is the politicians and the Cap boys/girls problem and I am pretty sure that it is not going to be a perfect solution and I do not envy the Fishead Merlin drivers in the years ahead.

I know that it is tough and for many of us it looks a crass decision, but as per the Harrier, the Army's 20,000 and the Navy's reductions in all of its small ships for its big Carrier, we have either got to get on with it or vote with our feet. If we do not, then I really do believe that we are in peril of having some of people sacked or quietly removed from their post.

Through DRR the politicians have displayed a strong desire for Joint , what they are seeing at the moment at all levels is the exact opposite.
:(

[high spirits]

MM4,
If you find it dreary, please feel free to take your supercilious attitude to another thread. The Mk 3 boys and girls are rightfully proud of what they have achieved in 2 theatres with a cab that was designed for a totally different purpose than SH. They dont necessarily want to fly the chinook and dont look on it with any envy at all. Some of the Merlin mk3 force may not see another RAF cockpit again as there are not enough to go round.

That doesn't sound very 'Joint' to them either....

[engineer(retard)]

"EMC and bonding is not hard and doesn't add much weight. The big problem for newer aircraft is handling composites and other materials that don't conduct and don't provide the shielding metal does."

Engines

Having been very involved with an aircraft design and build, I would disagree. Providing a current path for lightning strike does involve significant weight growth. As ever, there is a compromise to be made. In my view, better build new cabs than marinise Mk3.

regards

retard

[Pheasant]

MM4 reiterates what I and others have said. The politicians and senior military have given a lawful order the RAF and RN should obey it. If Cmd JHC and other senior RAF officers do not like it they should resign.

[high spirits]

Pheasant,
Keep barking out those 'orders' to your hearts content. But do make sure that you resource them properly and the timescale is realistic and achievable, does not prejudice people's careers or affect ops. When do they start working out the fine detail? I think that when they do, it will become clear that this plan on this timescale is hoop.

[MaroonMan4]

High Spirits,

I apologise if I come across to you as dreary, and don't I know that CH47 is not the answer for everything and is probably not the 'one size fits all' capability or career that everyone wants.

But.....

Lets look around us, the reduction in the Army is huge, the reduction in the Navy is significant (and judging by the threads on this blog including young, enthusiastic Harrier pilots that thought up until to a year ago that they too had a career in a joint environment).

It is not just the guys in Benson that we should feel sorry for, but across the whole of Defence.

You use the word dreary, I use the word sad as I have seen (and regularly take part in) the true effect and output of Jointery across the bird table at Bastion, including some very brave and capable Merlin crews. But if we are now at the stage of bickering and presenting obstacles to this ongoing change within the whole of Defence then there is only one person that is really going to suffer, and that is the boy/girl on operations (potentially in contact) that needs our (joined up) support.

If we are arguing (even amongst ourselves) then what hope do we really have?

[high spirits]

MM4,
The bickering is borne out of a lack of 'joint' at home. Across the big table in the tent at bsn it works well because it is truly joint.

Perhaps it is time to abolish individual Sqn numbers, RAF versus RNAS base names and make up 'wings' of different aircraft types that forms a capability and is not run by a single Service.

It is almost comparable to the decision to go into the Euro without a common set of financial and political regulations. The aspiration never matches the reality...and it fails.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

The politicians and senior military have given a lawful order the RAF and RN should obey it.

Until last week Lyneham was set to close it's gates in Dec 2012, things have been known to change now and then you know :rolleyes:

[Neartheend]

All very logical; however The powers that be have given their intent, and it is still quoted in government as an intent without first securing the funding from uncle George. LEP can be modelled to suit a budget as per Mk1 MCSP. Bearing in mind 3 cabs are being pulled from service in the next couple of years the surplus kit can be used to offset obsolescence. If George can find the £0.5 billion then great LEP plus marinisation is do-able but if only part of that is available then it's a toss up as to what gets done. No matter what, CHF will become smaller than it is now due to fewer airframes than they currently operate. One final thought, the RN knew a full 3 weeks (as told to me by a RN FAA 1*) before the SDSR announcement that the CAS was declaring the Merlin Mk3 was forming his 2020 fleet. So let's drop the 'it was a mistake in his post SDSR brief' stance as we all know the 1SL having been briefed by his staff, would have raised the point with the good Dr Fox before the CAS went public. So I would suggest everyone was more aware than we know. What will be will be but I don't think it's over yet.

[Unchecked]

3 being pulled from service? If you're referring to the 3 I yhink you are, 2 of them suffered catastrophic damage during accidents and the other sits at Boscombe as a test vehicle. This makes the fleet of 25 that was announced as part of SDSR's RAF SH force for Future Force 2020.

[Neartheend]

Un checked. Of the ones you mentioned one might be BER but the other one is not and like the Phoenix will rise again soon. The trials cab is still part of the overall fleet and will do LEP trials work. As I said the fleet reduction will bring the fleet down from 28 to 25.

[Unchecked]

I've heard rumours about one of the two. Still, I believe that my explanation of the fleet of 28 being reduced to 25 is correct in it's intent and that is why FF2020 states 25 Merlin Mk3. I have heard nothing of another 3 being pulled from the fleet.

[Neartheend]

Correct, my point is it reduces the impact of obsolescence because you now have an extra 3 sets of kit removed from the airframes. This could delay the need for LEP until the next SDSR in 2015.

[Unchecked]

Nicely clarified - my bad !

[4thright]

I have watched this thread develop, and I feel very dissapointed if not ashamed at the inter-service Narrow minded bitchiness....

There is also a great deal of half baked information vis the rationale behind how the Mk3 came to be.

The top level handling of this issue has clearly been appalling. One has to ask how such abysmal staff coordination has occurred from pre SDSR announcements to the present day. MoD, NCHQ, AC, and JHC should be ashamed of themselves that such an issue got loose in the first place...and now as far as I understand been finally sealed following a hats-on chat between the PM and the CAS. Where were JHC in this? Why is it that it is still SH issues that cause such disharmony in the corridors of power? All the people affected by this major change deseved better, particulary when it is set against such a large change in our Defence posture and such uncertain economic times...the handling of the Nimrod and Harrier axings were no doubt bad enough for those involved, but this has turned into a demoralising fiasco for
those serving bravely in the RAF Merlin force....Shame on those responsible for such failings of both leadership and management.

Now some facts:

Before SDSR, there was funding to replace the CHF SK4s and Pumas with a new buy...the exact type mix being subject of continuing studies (although to many that meant just more Merlins or CH47s). The possibility of buying marinised CH47s having been rejected. Meanwhile it was also understood that the Merlin 3s were due an LEP of some sort post 2017. There was also the aim to do it using innovative and value for money procurement and through life management processes. All this died in SDSR, laid to rest on the back of
the endorsed JHC Future Strategy which had seen the PU2 LEP to gap fill while the final new equipment plans were agreed, but also as a result of the announcement to buy 22 (24) new CH47. The money had run out and the major SDSR cost saving was taken by not planning to spend any cash on a CHF SK4 replacement. A sizeable sum which pales against the cost of any swapping of Mk3 ownership post 2015. Set against our future smaller max deployable capabilty of only 6500 soldiers rather 10000...it made some sense even if painful. The battle to secure at least 12 extra Mk6 CH47s continued given the need for that type for supportable capability reasons. So it became logical to transfer the Mk3 Merlins to the CHF as long as an Amphibious capability was still required...which SDSR has endorsed too. There was an appropriate assumption taken that post 2015, money would be available to bring them up to a Mk4 standard, including costs in principle to make them seaworthy based on Mk3 LEP provision.
Implicit in it all is an overall reduction in JHC SH lift capacity as a result of the reduced deployability decisons made in the SDSR. This means that both the CHF and RAF SHF will see reductions in their ac compliments and the manpower required to deliver it as the next 10 years unfold... so there is ultimate pain for all in this. The RAF's rearguard action to retain ownership is certainly understandable from a cost driven perpsective but was unlikley to succeed not least given the PM's parliamentary statement.

Now the Mk3 spec...I was there so probably have an accurate angle on many
aspects of it.
In 1996 there was no requirement to fully marinise the ac for permanent ship ops, nor should there have been although some measure for ship ops were included including some of the structural anti-corrision measures. However, these ac were being bought purely for non marinised battlefield ops alongside the extra 14 CH47 - also with no marinised spec. I along with my RN counterpart also had ensured sufficient cash was secured long term to replace the SK4 and Pu....both of which would be marinised under the then FASH programme. Note that this was sliced away in 2003 by a certain GB.
Remember too this was pre JHC days...so any joint service perspective was down to individuals in the staff chain. So I actually staffed upwards a confidence check on the full marinisation mods (espcially as Yeovil had offered us a lower price for the folding heads) and was directed from the very top not to include them on both overall project cost and performance grounds - as I anticipated.
Why? Because the Merlin Mk3 is in relative payload terms a low performance aircraft. Most modern helos can lift their own weight or even more (CH47!).
With its extra engine and associated drive installation adding dead weight, and with full equipment as required for combat and appropriate fuel, the Mk3 has one of the poorest load to weight ratios for a modern SH. This of course does not mean it is ineffective in most SH scenarios. The MRG is also an earlier basic design (workshare given to Agusta rather than use the Westland AEG as originally envisaged by Yeovil at concept) means that future power improvements available from the engines were unlikely to be fully exploitable. As it was the Mk3 engines were more powerful than the Mk1s leading to further changes in the rotables, but still only providing small increases in lift capacity. The Requirement was very clear on the trooping and load lifting capacity..so to achieve this weight had to be saved.....and the major savings were taken by deleting the folding head and tail boom. This was still not enough, and others were needed too, often to be balanced by improvements in the avionics and new undercarriage to meet the SH task. I also had to delete a moving map screen too to save weight. This was not in ignorance of future flexible uses of the aircraft, but a neccessary set of measures to get
the Mk3 to at least come close to meeting its primary role lift requirements. I have not addressed the tail rotor issues that also influenced what was within the art if the possible at the time. Furthermore, for those who think they are merely re-euipped Mk1s with ramps...you severely underestimate the realities of ac design and production, and more pertinently for Mk3, the fact that the ramp version had its own design standard created in Italy, whereas the Mk1 was a Yeovil design. Sorting our those nitty gritty issues of design authority between Milan and Yeovil was another issue, best not to be dealt with here but certainly why the RAF project team was at one stage bigger than that of the RN.
Given that the overall budget available from the 1995 decision to buy more MSH had to be split between 2 ac types, and some more found for the CH47 Mk3 upgrades too (No..not here!), there was always going to be a limited budget to get where we really wanted with the Merlin Mk3. If you had given me an extra £500M or so at the time...who knows....a twin engined version with a new tail rotor sign...now theres a thought:eek::) More probably I would have spent most of it on extra supportability to get to the availability targets we really wanted to see.....NB CHF
Subsequently, improvements in BERP blade performance and an additional MAUM clearance have improved the situation to some extent...but the Merlin with its 3rd engine will never be as an efficient load lifter as a similar sized ac with only 2. I wish the CHF well..they will do what they always do...operate the ac to the max, and in down avenues the RAF would never be required to
test. It is probably right too that its ownership rests as a single fleet operated by one owner in these efficiency driven cash strapped days. SH Merlin has some unique capabilities that would suit many customers especially in exploiting its large cabin and long range, but efficient high capacity load lifting
is not one.

[Old-Duffer]

Well summarised 4thright.

You will note in many Threads on this site that there is a surplus of knee jerk reaction and a dearth of calm analysis and objectivity. For all that, many interesting topics get aired and sometimes 'squared'.

Old Duffer

[engineer(retard)]

4thright. Good summary but a bit short on rumour and far too much objectivity :ok:

[xenolith]

4thright

WTF! Are you trying to ruin this thread?:ugh:

Because you are new we'll make allowances and we wont let the facts get in the way of a good story! But please be carefull in future. :O

[Pheasant]

Lots of guff above.

Getting back to the transfer to the RN (CHF). Assuming no mods for the moment:

Merlin remains RAF = RN redundancies
Merlin to RN = RAF redundancies (but with the prospect of some CH47 slots) i.e. 15-love

So, assuming transfer to RN:

costs = conversion of CHF aircrew and maintainers (by osmosis presumably ie RN replacing RAF on training courses etc) + cost of relocation of aircraft and gear to Yeovilton (but no personnel costs as CHF are already there).

The real bonus comes in personnel numbers as the RN operate a markedly better harmony regime than the RAF meaning less personnel are required to man a force of the same number of aircraft.

If an LEP is to occur this will help the transfer as there will be less aircraft to man during the LEP programme (as is happening with Merlin Mk1 CSP and Wildcat conversion).

Let's not get tied up with what is going on in Afgh. Operations can continue as normal even though the rank badges may change appearance. The role is the same for CHF and RAF SH in Afgh (ie lifting troops and materiel from A to B).

A Joint formation away from front line operations will not work due to the different ethos, career structures and training requirements of the different Services - Joint Force Harrier proved this time and again.

[4thright]

So when does the Pheasant shooting season begin? Just a few weeks i think! :ugh::). Guff...is that Pusser's language?:E

[engineer(retard)]

Stay with it Pheasant, ignoring reality will often help solve difficult problems.

[Pheasant]

ignoring reality will often help solve difficult problems

Which realty are you talking of? Is it the CAS/RAF reality of ostrich head in the sand or the reality of being told to get on with it?

"Off you go to war in Falklands/Bosnia/Kosovo/Sierra Leone/Gulf/Afghanistan/Libya"
"OK, Sir no problem. How many years for Sir? Lots of aircraft, Sir?"

or

"Transfer Merlin Mk 3 to the Junglies, old chap"
"Ooh. That's very difficult, Sir. Lots of problems with that one, Sir. Doesn't match our Trenchard policy, Sir. Is that a lawful order, Sir?"

"XXX!!!$$%%!"

[Neartheend]

There goes the neighbourhood, this thread has officially gone to pot so I'm going over to the 'bonkers harrier' thread, where theres far better class of bullshi*e and self gratification getting posted..... :*

4thright - We must have worked together in the early days of Merlin Mk3. I'm glad to say the DPA/DLO divide still exists despite name changes and the invent of IPTs. The words 'wall, over, throw and it' are still the DPA (DE&S) mantra when transferring support. Good news though, the moving map you lost, we got back in 2006 ish.

[engineer(retard)]

Not at all Pheasant. How about "Right we'll put together a business case but put the mods to one side because we cannot afford that and they'll render the capability near useless" reality.

Stay with it though because all of the best procurement programmes started with something similar.

[chinook240]

So why doesn't this work?

Merlin remains RAF = RN redundancies (but with the prospect of some CH47 slots)
Merlin to RN = RAF redundancies (but with the prospect of some CH47 slots)

i.e. 15 all

We've had many Junglies on the Chinook, indeed many have and still are jumping ship to join the light blue - ah, hold on a minute, I've just seen a flaw! :(

[Pheasant]

We've had many Junglies on the Chinook, indeed many have and still are jumping ship to join the light blue

Somewhat overstating the case, methinks.

Your proposal relies on the RN trusting the RAF with good and honest behaviour...please show me where history leads the RN to such acceptance? Certainly not with recent or current top of the shop.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

With all that's going on, according to various threads here on PRune it would seem the simple solution to all of this is as follows.

The RAF have a functioning aircraft in the Merlin so let them keep it.

The RAF also have more than enough folk cheesed off with their lot about to PVR so simply let them go.

The Navy have no helicopters to play with so let all those that really want to fly change the shade of blue they wear, take their experience etc and fill the Merlin, Puma and Chinook seats left empty by the dissatisfied RAF folk.

Tell the remaining Navy guys it's light blue or the highway and have a fully manned fully functional cross pollinated Rotary Force fit for SH/Naval purpose for years to come :ok::ok:

[andyy]

One of the problems with the Merlin is that it was a compromised design from the start & beset by the political imperative to have a 50:50 split in workshare on a MANHOURS basis between Italy & the UK. Thus, when the design work was done there was almost as much need to place the work with the appropriate country to even out the manhours as there was to deliver the best capability, hence the reason why Agusta got the MRGB when they had never designed one before whereas Westlands had. Every design change also had to be considered in the light of the manhours workshare, too. Barking but true.

The MRGB that was delivered was unable to handle all the power that the RTM 322 could deliver & they had to be down rated as a result. Also, the RTM322 Specific Fuel Consumption was not as good as forecast meaning that more fuel was required for a given range. So, a heavier aircraft with less power than expected = lower pay loads.

We also have to remember that the a/c was originally designed as an ASW aircraft & the original (RN) staff requirement called for an aircraft with 4 hours time on station, with the sonics capabilty of the Sea King (or better) & the agility of a Lynx so that it could operate from Type 23s in a sea state 6. 3 engines were deemed necessary to give the power & redundancy for small deck operations, particularly as UK indistry did not have an engine on the books that could do the same job with 2 (RR were VERY keen on the Merlin using 3 x RTM 322s!!!)

Because of the afforementioned power/ gearbox/ fuel consumption problems the Mk1 could never achieve the 4 hours time on station in a sea state 6 and was due to be upgraded to Mk2 standard with a new MRGB able to handle the power at a later stage. This Mk2 upgrade never happened due to whichever defence cuts were necessary at the time.

The procurement of the Merlin is a book in its own right and there are lots of other examples of cock ups that I know of (mainly conmcerning the ASW variant) but we are where we are!

[4thright]

Indeed andyy....and given the lack of extra cash....the best niche for the 3s is as a dedicated component of the RN Amphibious Force (CHF), whoever ends up flying them.
As someone who got heavily into what tne Advanced Engineering Gearbox would have done to tne Merlin ( ie.made it the ac it always should have been), it is a shame the plans lie in the virtual dustbin. If only we could turn back time, or someone could find the cash now to take it forward....the 101 would then truely get its wings.:ugh:;)

[Neartheend]

One of the worst things you can hear in the office is 'it's an Agusta workshare' item. You then know whatever has gone wrong will stay wrong for a very long time.

[dangermouse]

I think you will find that Agusta designed the A101, A102, A109, A129 etc MGB prior to the EH101 so to say they had no experience is quite incorrect.

ralso remember that the EH101 MGB is one of the very few that HAS demonstrated a true 30min dry run capability so I guess they do know a little about MGB design.

When the aircraft was designed and developed the RTM322 was never in the picture. The Integrated Development programme that launched EH101 always intended to have 3 off Engines specified as GE T700s. ONLY when the RN changed the specification of the 101 to include dipping sonar with associated increase in AUM thereby making it a 'Merlin' rather than an EH101 did the change in engine come about. As much as anything to ensure that the UK helicopter engine industry survived and to provide a UK source of an expensive part of the aircraft (legitimate concerns for a Govt)

The 3 engine requirement was driven by CIVIL concerns regarding Class A t/o performance capability that was felt to be very important in the light of the BHAB recommendations following several North Sea crashes. Remember the target market was civil and military from the start and it was a judgement call that the two companies made at the time to 'compromise' the aircraft so that both types of market could be addressed. In hindsight this seems to have been a sensible decison as the crashworthiness and survivability driven by Civil rules has benefits for all users (sadly missing from CH457 and Puma) whilst still having a very impressive OEI flyaway capability (quite useful when hovering over the oggin)


DM

[Neartheend]

so I guess they do know a little about MGB design

Shame they made it out of pasta strips though. According to the AW transmissions man, the Holborn foundry produced gearboxes from the Sea King and Lynx appear far more robust.

[dangermouse]

similarly you appear to know what you are talking about

but appearances can be decieving



:=

[Neartheend]

DM, I know nuffin' I just listen to the what people tell me at a secret helicopter factory on Lysander Road somewhere in Somerset. Names can also be deceiving (note the spelling) as I bet you don't really look like a cartoon mouse. :)

[ramp_up]

Has anyone one actually heard the transfer deal from the horses mouth. Or is it because of a Janes article written by CO CHF, who would clearly then back up his story by telling his Sqn's that its a done deal. Only asking because I have heard a different story from an equally credible source. Next issue is the training, whilst all 3 services train their QHIs using the CFS standard course at Shawbury, rear crew training is something of a crock of ****e. If the Chiefs can agree on a transfer of equipment, please can they enforce the same standard of rear crew selection and instructor training across the board regardless of platform too. Eg Rear crew are seleted at OASC and instructors qualify through the CFS.

PS that doesn't mean completing a 15 week course teaching me how to fire a wide variety of infantry weapons that I will never use and open and close a wildcat cabin door.

[jamesdevice]

just remember the only gearboxes actually DESIGNED by Westland were for the Lynx / WG30. And thats what killed off the WG30 - when they started crashing

Besides which the Westland Foundry was at Hayes, not Yeovil and was transferred to Normalair-Garrett in the 1970's when Hayes was shut - Normalair moved it to Chard and eventually sold it out of the Westland Group completely. Last heard of in Liverpool from memory...
Do Westland now have the plant or skills to actually MAKE a gearbox?

I seem to remember that at one point in the 1970's there were doubts even about the Sea King gearboxes and Westland were considering using Italian ones
As for the Merlin gearbox - just checked Derek James history of the company. the entire transmission is a Fiat design / build


Quote from Dangermouse:
"ONLY when the RN changed the specification of the 101 to include dipping sonar with associated increase in AUM ...."
What?????
The EH101 / Merlin evolved from the WG34 which was ALWAYS intended as a direct Sea King replacement with dipping sonar. In fact Westland were "ready to go" with the WG34 design in around 1977-78 and then had to hold back to allow Italian input and for the MOD to make its mind up. They'd actually been working on it for several years - and then had to hold off for five years or more while everyone else ripped the plans apart. With the further delays in building the prototypes you ended up with something that could have flown in 1980 not appearing till 1986. And then came the Westland crisis...

[4thright]

Hi JD
I think its fair to say that Westlands gearbox design heritage is just a bit more comprehensive than your rather dismissive comments. Some of it, of course, having come from other companies prior to the enforced mergings of the late 50s from Britol, Fairey, Saunders Roe etc.

That said, the award winning conformal gearing design made for the Lynx was quite a triumph in the way extra power could be transferred across the gear teeth thus allowing the gear box height and overall dimensions to be substantially reduced. This is not possible in the Fiat sourced "sun and planet" style box (a la Sea King) which inherently means a more vertical orientated design and lower power to weight ratio.

While the accident rate of the W30 certainly contibuted to its demise , I think mostncommentators would also point to Westlands poor perfromance in commercial product support at the time..certainly in the civilian arena.

What your message also misses is reference to the major potential impact of the world beating WEstland Advanced Engineering Gearbox ( AEG) design which aimed to make fundamental changes in how power and torque was to be transmitted through the MRG components. The casing design (made of composites) aimed to transfer most of those stresses through that casing rather than at the gear teeth. This in turn meant a significant increase in power to weight potential, as well as much reduced fatigue loadings and hence safety improvements. Further benefits would not only be a smaller MRG for the given power but also a much shorter one. The rig prototypes as far as I understand it, were well on the way to proving the concept - I witnessed one of the runs myself, and of course, the RAF's version of the W30....to meet ASR404 (Puma/Wessex replacement) in the mid 80s was to have this MRG design.

I also Understand that the WG34 concept envisaged using the AEG at a later stage, and as has been said earlier in this thread, when the RN ASW version was envisaged, use of this AEG was seen as offering a route to full mission performance as originally specified. A combination of bi-national workshare allocation and the gross early 101 cost overuns put paid to a later Merlin Mk2, this had beem sign posted with the earlier cancellation of the RAF W30-404, which would have been the first use of this world beating MRG design.

Had EH101 had the AEG in its design (and it had worked!) then we would not be discussing the 101's low payload ratio at all, as the gearbox itself would have been much lighter than the MRG design used, not under as much component stress, and the RTMs could have been used to their power potential at better sfcs. Oh and another bonus is that the overall height of the beast would have been several feet less! Problem is that the several £100M to get it sorted was never forthcoming.

....now anyone want to discuss which squadron numberplates will survive the transfer?:8:)

[Unchecked]

"...after September this year....". Hardly unequivocal, is it? I mean, the year 3000 is "after September this year". Also, as stated previously in this thread, you can always rely on the word of a politician to be gospel and any decision to be set in stone and irreversible, can't you?

[Pheasant]

Regarding rear crew training, what in gods name makes you believe that the RAF process is the correct/best route. It's certainly the most drawn out!!!

As the RN are now the sole owners of officer rear crew training, why should the RAF have any say at all?

But this is thread drift,so let's get back to the proper discussion on CHF. Transfer the capability to the RN as instructed and let the capability managers worry about future improvements.

[Unchecked]

Instructed when, by whom and most importantly, within what budget ?

As for your garbled ranting about officer rear crew, that's relevant how? We're talking Non-commissioned aircrew here. Do keep up.

[high spirits]

Unchecked,
The idea is to transfer the Mk3 and then bleat for the funding later. By that time it will be solely RN. There will then be an outcry that it cannot go to sea without more money being thrown at it, and hence the funding will appear. It would be cheaper in the long run to buy brand new airframes that will last longer, are already Marinised and convert the junglies to that airframe. This is simply an exercise in which Service takes the redundancies in a time of reduced budget.

One Service has simply been shafted at the expense of another.....before I get lots of puffer jet guff, please remember who lost cockpits there, and in the Tonka GR force too during SDSR.

[Unchecked]

And of course the RN ending up with a frame they cannot do anything useful with will be the fault of the Crabs in Light Blue - no doubt we'll be sabotaging the airframe or something such pathetic.

No doubt this will feed Pheasant's 'follow a legal order' paranoid nonsense, but ask yourself why those in the RAF would want to train anyone that is ultimately going to put them out of a job?

My humble opinion is that the RN should be asking why the govt feels that their unique and vital capability doesn't deserve the best eqpt, why the new buy CH47 aren't going to them - the best cab for the job and the cheapest option all round. I think they pursue the Merlin agenda because a spot of crab bashing suits them best.

[dangermouse]

I am afraid jamesdevice that your historical knowledge is unsound


The basic EH101 Integrated Development Project was to develop several variants of a common helicopter;

Civil
Utility
MMI naval
RN naval

Of the above variants only the MMI aircraft was required to have a dipping sonar capability, the RN variant was exclusively a Sonobuoy user, fitted with provisions for but not with a sonar.

as the IDP was approaching closure the UK decided that the aircraft that had been developed against the IDP requirements was not what was wanted and a more capable aircraft (later named Merlin) was required. This had RTM322 engines an increased AUM and a dipping sonar.

DM

[andyy]

Having been privvy to much primary sources of info within the EH101 International Project Team, DOR(SEA), Westlands and private conversations from many involved at the coal face I have to both disagree & agree with DM to some degree.

The RTM322 was specified a very, very long time before the Active Dipping Sonar was a requirement. The two are not linked. The original requirement was written at a time when "passive sonar was king" and the RN did not envisage the cab going to sea with an ADS. However it is true that the original requirement called for the provision of facilities for ADS at a later date if necessary. What the requirement did not say was that ADS had to be provided whilst retaining the need for an AUM that still allowed the 4 hours time on station. The RN still wanted all of that, & naively thought that what it was going to get, but it was impossible. Westlands provided a hydraulic feed & voltage & when the ADS was finally specified, the RN were surprised that the weight had grown!

And no matter what the gearbox design experience of Agusta & Westland was, it is a fact that the gearbox was an Agusta workshare item & that it was not able to handle the power that the RTMs could deliver, or the power that the alternative Westland designed gearbox was supposed to be able to handle.

[high spirits]

Unchecked,
Training the RN to fly it will be a professional responsibility, but I take your point about a lack of motivation. There is a major problem with the whole transfer for the RAF. Who will want to stay, given that it is suddenly a big game of musical chairs where half of the chairs get removed in a oner?

Some light blue will have to stay around until the transfer is complete with the risk that their mates who jumped ship early now have a job and they don't. Or the second tourist who stays, doesnt quite achieve 'above average in the air', and has to start all over again, but 2 years behind his equivalent mucker who jumped before him=career foul. That is quite a dilemma.....

[dangermouse]

for the backup, however a review of the IDP aircraft build standard states that civil variants will use the CT7 and Military will use the T700 (effectively the same engine), there is no mention of RTM322 in the EH101 development plan. It was added when 'Merlin' was specified as a modified IDP EH101 variant that used a 'legacy' (ie IDP devloped) MGB.

DM

[Bengo]

If my aged brain is still remembering things aright the CT&/T700 was chosen because the DGA(N) at the start of the WG34-EHI-Merlin saga ( was it rocket Ron Holley?) still bore the scars of the Lynx development and vowed that there would never be another new helo engine developed in a new airframe on his watch.

Rolls then managed qualify and demonstrate the RTM 322 for the US Seahawk/Blackhawk so it could be deemed not to be a new engine. By then most of the PP's were flying on T700's anyway.

N

[Unchecked]

High spirits,

Agreed about the professional responsibility to train the RN - as per the RAF SH force will grit it's teeth and get on with it yet the rest of the services will find it within themselves to be spiteful and negative about how the crabs have screwed them over and how lazy or whatever they are etc etc.....yawn yawn.

The best option will probably be to jump early if one can. The question is where to? 50% of the force can apparently slot right into the new chinook buy, but only if that force stops taking on the reams of newbies sat in the horrific shawbury holding pot. If the much mooted Odiham PVR exodus happens, then that may help to some degree but if so many are jumping from the good-ship Odiham, then many may feel that it's not the best option to move into. And then we have puma, who will require some op experienced bods in a few years time, however they are well-manned and won't be needing many to boost their ranks. So, we'll be looking at those who are approaching the end of their initial engagements being shown the door because that will be the cheapest option to take. All of those that are above average in the air, shoved onto civvy street along with their considerable talents, just because it saves a few quid to help pay for one of the most half-baked rearranging of resources ever seen.

Basically, it's a pointless shafting of hard working and capable men and women.

[high spirits]

Unchecked,
Half baked, and unfunded - the usual buy now pay later attitude that has got the military into the present situation.

There is another massive disincentive to stay. How many flying hours would you expect to get between Op Tours? Enough to stay current, or maintain a rating? Not sure of the answer, Ive been away from the game for a while.

[jamesdevice]

Dangermouse
what you are overlooking is that before EH101 there was WG34, and that had been pretty much finished as a design as straight replacement for the Sea King. The later need for speciation into different types only came when others started demanding their pounds of flesh in the design.
Naval Staff requirement 6646 was issued in 1977, and the WG34 (with dipping sonar) was submitted in 1978 in response.That design had been worked on a Westland for some years and was close to finalisation. Then some prat had the idea of a joint venture with lots of variants. EHI as a company wasn't set up till 1980, there was massive delay as a new management tier took over, and then proceeded to cripple the design with excess weight
And don't forget that even when the design was finished they f'd up on the actual build. IBM (now part of Lockheed Martin) had to be called in to supervise system integration and eventually became the project leaders.
So you have a project designed by one company, redesigned and crippled by another, with the build split over two contractors (Westland and Agusta) and project managed by another. Its a wonder the thing ever flew

["Running in"]

"When I see an AAC or RN 'crewman' with an ounce of the skillset of his/her RAF counterpart"

Unchecked - I take it by such a statement you have served with all types? If not then you are basing your opinion on assumption.
The issue is that all 3 breeds carry out different roles - you are comparing apples & oranges. Junglie crewies are trained to navigate and are more involved in flight planning than their light blue counterparts. RAF crewmen are more involved in flight servicing compared to their junglie counterparts. Army crewmen/ gunners operate in small aircraft with a much more limited but valuable role they dont need to know how to operate a ramp in a similiar way that Ramp up (i assume he does down too) needs to "open a wildcat door and learn to operate lots of weapons" (god forbid anything military come onto the equation). All carry value within their own organisation & it seems to work just fine.

As for comparisons to instructional capability - again this is based on hearsay and assumption. That's fact - as no RAF crewman has carried out an exchange with CHF and therefore no one can make an unbiased assessment of the training pipeline. On the other hand several CHF crewmen have carried out loan exchanges to the light blue and can therefore make a judgement as they have seen both systems in action. Generally the feedback is that both systems fulfill their forces requirement - which as I said before are very different.
Several years back CHF tried 60 as an experiment but it was deemed excessively long with an end product short of entry standard for OCU, no gain but lots of pain with regard to time.

[onthebumline]

Unchecked,

You sound so serious about all this. Chill out dude, nobody at our level in the RN has it in for anbody in light blue. We are all just greatful to have a job and obviously don't want anyone to have to lose a job to facilitate this.

As for your silly idea about RAF crewman having a better skillset than his RN counterpart, this is total rubbish. I have flown lots with both and can assure you that they are equally capable of doing what is asked of them.

Try to remember that this is only SH flying we are talking about. Take off with some guys in back, fly to a grid, drop them off, fly home. Its not rocket science.

I hope you are PVRing because you sound deeply upset with your lot in the forces and I bet you bore the pi55 out of the guys who have to share a crewroom with you.

BL x

[dangermouse]

I never considered WG34 as that always seemed to be a paper project, I didnt realise that it got close-ish to selection.

Hence my comments regarding 101 specifically as that had an agreed way ahead and build standard.

ALL the PPs had GE engines fitted, PP4 and 5 were retrofitted with RTMs once 'Merlin' was launched


DM

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Unchecked,



Try to remember that this is only SH flying we are talking about. Take off with some guys in back, fly to a grid, drop them off, fly home. Its not rocket science.



BL x

You haven't done very much of this have you :rolleyes:

[GipsyMagpie]

Nope, not that hard.....nor is counting down from ten missing out 7 and 9.

[onthebumline]

Seldomfitforpurpose,

For perspective, I am a 2K hour SH QHI with temperate and obviously desert op experience and amphib, jungle and artic non-op experience. I am not trumpet blowing meerly saying that I am not as experienced as some here and more so than others.

The point I am putting across is that SH 'flying' is no more complicated than getting a helicopter to a location with some guys or kit in the back and dropping it of, then returning home. Indeed applying some tactical principles to this process that makes it different from civvy flying.

The thing I find hard to grasp in military flying (conversion) training is why an experienced civvy pilot can convert from one type to another in a couple of weeks with a few hours of ground school, some sim and a handful of aircraft hours. Granted that it would take a few more hours on a mil type to learn subtle differences in tactics and DAS etc, but it certainely shouldn't be taking 10+ months and about 80 aircraft hours to convert people.

Instead of doing it using the civvy model, we have to say no no no you are a SK pilot.......you need to learn a how to navigate a merlin......or you are a lynx pilot, you have to learn how to do a CAD in a chinook. Ultimately it is all the same rubbish in a different frame and the fleet disagreements and diferences in opinion of how things should be done just wastes millions of taxpayer $ which we apparantely don't have at the moment.

I am sure you will read this and again retort a 'this guy dosen't know his arse from his elbow' comment. But have a think about it, and really the whole SH game is a piece of piss made complicated by people making up fancy procedures and methods so they can banter other fleets about how SH1t they are.

I reckon that if I really had to, I could teach an experienced guy in a couple of hours how to start my aircraft type, and then could pretty much just let them have a go and figure it out. This is certainely the way it used to be done before we had billions to blow on luxuries like flying training.

BL

[Unchecked]

But back to crewmen, where this started from my blasé and slightly generalised and unfair comment, they of other fleets are not selected by the same standards nor trained in the same breadth of topics and knowledge of their RAF counterparts. I am basing this statement not on opinion or conjecture, but by the admission of RN & AAC crewmen that I have trained and worked with. Admittedly, they have picked up the thrust of it ( things like weight & balance) in short order, but it's having that training in the first place that sets them apart.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Seldomfitforpurpose,

For perspective, I am a 2K hour SH QHI with temperate and obviously desert op experience and amphib, jungle and artic non-op experience. I am not trumpet blowing meerly saying that I am not as experienced as some here and more so than others.


BL

Strangely enough before crossing over to fixed wing I was a 2k hour SH crewman who can vouch for the fact that anyone who thinks it's as simple as


"Try to remember that this is only SH flying we are talking about. Take off with some guys in back, fly to a grid, drop them off, fly home. Its not rocket science."

Really has not grasped the whole of the SH thing, a thought for you, how many hooks under a Chinook.................:rolleyes:

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

GW,

The reason you don't get it, and I suspect never will is that it's way beyond your limited mindset, not your fault but when you only have small aircraft to play with but try to step outside the box on this one.

Never done it myself as I was a Puma crewman till I went Hercs but do you reckon you could, as it stands and without any further training what so ever, voice marshall a Chinook overhead a triple load whilst working out which load goes on which hook etc etc etc.

Or do you think that with a short fixed wing cross over course you could then convert to the C130J or C17.......

For RAF ALM,s that's not rocket science :ok:

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Probably, sorry chap but that cuts very little mustard in the big scheme of things.

Of course you could always try selection to see if you actually have what it takes :ok:

[high spirits]

Onthebumline,
Some of your comment I agree with. Your experience is similar to mine. I think that conversion could be as much or as little as you like for an experienced SH pilot. Competence arrives at about the 100 hour mark in the MK3 for the experienced crossover pilot IMHO. There are of course significant airframe and cockpit differences that will sap ones capacity, but after that it is just a helicopter....

The trouble is that we now have CI defined syllabi for arctic, desert, jungle etc that sap even more hours. The Merlin conversion in terms of ac hours is significantly less than 80 hours for the RN. The sim heavy course is probably a bit of arse covering by the system. They don't want you getting the lawyers involved when you stand up in court and claim that you had never seen that emergency before. The reason it has taken up to 10 months is due to airframe availability.

As I said, conversion is what you want it to be. Not going down the wrong part of the FRC when you are below icy cloud in poor vis at night and making the wrong decision is competency and captaincy

[Unchecked]

You can't sit there on your friggin' high horse slating Seldom's use of the word 'selection', inferring that he's comparing himself to the SAS ! Pathetic. It's just a word, the correct word. RAF aircrew are SELECTED to do the various roles, because they have passed a series of stringent tests at the Officer and Aircrew SELECTION Centre. Nobody was suggesting it was Iron Man. Just because the Navy call it something different, that's not our fault.

No, it wasn't just ASW crewmen but CHF too, not telling me how marvellous I am, just how some of the things I'd learnt over the length of my training was quite different to them. This was often evident at Staneval time, when revising. You may go on the defensive, but this is how it was.

I won't even furnish your attempt for a rise that RAF and AAC crewmen are the same with a response.

[andyy]

Back to the WG34/Merlin debate & JD's comment:
"EHI as a company wasn't set up till 1980, there was massive delay as a new management tier took over, and then proceeded to cripple the design with excess weight
And don't forget that even when the design was finished they f'd up on the actual build. IBM (now part of Lockheed Martin) had to be called in to supervise system integration and eventually became the project leaders.
So you have a project designed by one company, redesigned and crippled by another, with the build split over two contractors (Westland and Agusta) and project managed by another. Its a wonder the thing ever flew"

I have no idea how close to flying the WG34 was when the 101 became a reality but I'd guess it was a little further off than implied or else we probably would have bought it in the first place! EHI did not cripple the design with excess weight on purpose, or on a whim, the excess weight came about because of the aforementioned gearbox/ RTM322 fuel consumption issues & because the rear fuselage structure, as designed, vibrated like hell in the prototypes & needed beafing up (note the prototypes initially flew with scaffolding poles cross bracing the rear fuselage!).

The project management was a mess. When isn't it with British military design/ procurements? But it was also partly the MoD's fault as at the time they were actually the system integrator by default. EHI built an airframe that flew (& that's what they were contracted to do); the various equipment manufacturers built radar, sonar, radios etc that worked (& that's what they were contracted to do) but no one was responsible for making them all work together in the flying airframe! Until L-M were contracted. You'd have though that the MoD would have learnt the lessons of TSR-2, Nimrod AEW etc & specified the procurement of a "system" rather than doing things seperately but NO!

[Unchecked]

There was inference from Running In that RAF crewmen don't do planning or Nav. They do. Very much so.

They also accompany the pilots on IF trips, often with little to do, but learning enough about it and doing enough that should they end up with 2 junior LCR stick-monkeys, about to pull up through cloud into an airway, he or she could say no and come up with a sensible plan B. This is after they've quickly selected all the necessary, nearest and relevant navaids and freqs to further reduce the capacity required of the front enders. And once they're finally preparing for an approach, correcting them when they've calculated and selected the wrong MDH. I've heard it on verygood authority that CHF crewmen don't even bother their arse to go on IF trips.

It's not just ramp up, ramp down and counting backwards missing out numbers.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Remember what I said about a superiority complex, "selection", your not the friggin SAS.
A good few years ago, before we had PA there was a small number of fella's crossed over to the light side, I don't believe one of them had any trouble with "Selection".
If its okay with you I will pass on having a go, there is no job security!

Oh dear oh dear is that a cluck cluck cluck I hear :p

Where did I ever say it was difficult young man :confused: What I did say was that there Is way more to SH than cabbying round half a dozen guys in LFO. Its not your fault you don't get that, you dont have to get it as that's pretty much all you do, or at least that's what you tell us is all you do.

Next chance you get pluck up some spuds and go have a chat with the Chinny or Merlin guys and ask them about the wide variety of stuff that drives on and off their aircraft, ask them about the skill sets involved in the USL,s they carry, what it's like having a bucket load of guys with kit and freight on board et etc, might just give you a more rounded look at the bigger picture that is SH.

Pssst, I work in the same office as one of the guys you mention who left the Navy for the RAF and whilst he misses some aspects of his previous life he is content with his new life and would never consider going back, do you know of many that did go back:ok:

[jamesdevice]

"& because the rear fuselage structure, as designed, vibrated like hell in the prototypes & needed beafing up (note the prototypes initially flew with scaffolding poles cross bracing the rear fuselage!."

Thank you -you make my point for me
This and the tail were Agusta's main input into the airframe design.
i.e. one of the EHI changes from the WG34 design

[dangermouse]

a little knowledge goes a long way.. and 2 and 2 seem to make 5 here

there was a development activity on 1 airframe which simulated the stronger production fuselage by internal bracing, it was an engineering investigation only

no other aircraft had any 'scaffolding poles' fitted

DM

[APO Dried Plum]

"One advantage to recruited seasoned serviceman as oppossed to school leavers is that we mitigate the risk of a guy going wibble once the ramp is lowered, not one case exists in our branch, a recognised manning problem within a certain service!"

Absolutely pathetic. Really pathetic.

I suppose there is no correlation between 'going wibble' and exposure to MERT/IRT type scenarios? You may be surprised to know that the RAF WsOp branch count many ex RN, RM and Army in their number and yes, are all the stronger for it. Also let us not forget the fact that the RMs pioneered TRiM and good on them for doing so. No-one is immune from sights/smells etc they may be called to witness - whatever their cap badge.

This thread has descended into 2 parallel discussions. One an informative and interesting debate on the evolution of the Merlin the other a free-falling p!ssing contest which has become slightly embarrassing.

I'm out.

[Neartheend]

"One advantage to recruited seasoned serviceman as oppossed to school leavers is that we mitigate the risk of a guy going wibble once the ramp is lowered, not one case exists in our branch, a recognised manning problem within a certain service!"

IMHO anyone that calls into question the mental states of any fellow service person needs to have a very hard look at themselves. There is absolutly no corrolation between age, length of service and PTSD. This is becoming typical of the depths that the RN are going to to try and justify their own 'master race' existance. In 1937 the government commented that "the RN's efforts were chiefly deployed on the fight to have control of air power rather than on studying the strategic and tactical uses to which it should be put" No change there then, the RN only want Merlin because it keeps people like GW in a job. Lets face it anyone could operate from a ship, the FAA have proved it!!

["Running in"]

Unchecked:

If you re read my post I didn't say an RAF crewman doesn't get involved in Nav or flight planning - merely the fact that his CHF equivalent is more heavily involved in it - he has to be as he is trained to operate the aircraft single pilot. As for IF Nav - again he is trained in that skill on the OCU. Don't get confused with IFP, i.e climbing,descending turns on instruments for an hour - I freely admit that a Jungly crewie won't always jump in for that but an IF nav trip with various approaches - happens all the time.

I'm pleased to hear that an exchange was able to identify areas where he wasn't as well versed and admit it, it's why we send people on them and it displays something sadly missing by many posters on this thread - humility.

All the best RI

[Radar Command T/O]

Lets face it anyone could operate from a ship, the FAA have proved it!!

Having served in 2 different CVS (on 4 or 5 different tours) I lost count of the number of RAF GR7/9 pilots complaining that they "didn't join the RAF to go to sea".

How many light blue are prepared to remain at 48hours notice to embark in a FF/DD for up to 10 months continuously? (yes, including during your leave periods.)

How many, once embarked, would be prepared to fly 300 miles at night to a foreign airfield and then another 300 miles back, arriving at that Ship with no diversion fuel to land on a deck no more than 15 feet longer than your aircraft which is moving at 15 knots and also pitching and rolling in and out of limits?

How about when you're embarked, you're at AL 60 for SAR any time the Ship is at Sea?

Or even when you're not flying you could be called upon to don a BA set and conduct a re-entry into a burning compartment, or a flooded one?

Anyone thinking this is not routine for a FAA crew is sorely mistaken and I invite anyone who thinks this is easy to request an exchange tour to an FF/DD flight. We could use the extra personnel.

Perhaps anyone could, but the FAA do.

[Unchecked]

I take your point about the FAA, but the CHF just don't embark for that long. Another dit spun to me by an actual CHF aviator.

[andyy]

Not at the moment, but they have in the past, & may well be required to again in the future.

[oldgrubber]

Why don't you guys start a new "Who's the best Winch Weight/Steward" thread. It's distracting from the subject of this thread and frankly is sounding a bit childish!

Cheers now

[Vie sans frontieres]

The one thing that unites all FAA and RAF crewmen is what they think of the c*nt in the front who makes comments like oldgrubber just has.

[genesis848]

Seldom,

I have a little sympathy for you, so let me impart a little wisdom in your direction.

I fear "running in" and GW are simply "winding you up" mate, dont add fuel to the already massive fire by trying to "justify" or "defend" your corner, it will just make them, as it has me,laugh out loud!!!

RN and RM crewmen are a self effacing bunch, they wont be bragging about thier skill sets or what theatres they have operated in, or how much they "triple loaded" last night, otherwise they will have the p**s ripped out of them by thier oppos, they just get on with the job, just like thier RAF SH counterparts.

What you all say (RN or RAF)makes a lot of sense,anyone who is reading this thread "sat on the fence"so to speak will see both points of view, but i have to agree with APO that this thread is getting away from the point slightly....but then you only have to read the SARH thread on Rotorheads to understand why that often happens on here.

Lets try and stick to the point APO alluded to, and thats how to progress/develop the Merlin into a suitable marinised SH platform, whoever its crewed by.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Why don't you guys start a new "Who's the best Winch Weight/Steward" thread. It's distracting from the subject of this thread and frankly is sounding a bit childish!

Cheers now

Fairly sure the back peddle to the "it was only a bit of banter" stance is on its way but this is another classic example of why CRM training was bought in all those years ago, another bloody pilot with an "if it's not all about me me me I don't want to read about it" post :rolleyes:

[Neartheend]

Having served in 2 different CVS (on 4 or 5 different tours) I lost count of the number of RAF GR7/9 pilots complaining that they "didn't join the RAF to go to sea".

Whats your point? Of course they didn't want to go to sea otherwise they'd have joined the Navy... but were they still there doing the job, of course they were.

As for CHF embarking, when I said to a CHF mate the Merlins will need marinisation he said, no they don't I can't remember the last time CHF operated from a ship.

Yes anyone could, but the FAA do thats because its their job, not because they are somehow special and pass golden nuggets, well I suppose Sharkey might!!

Anyway, me mums called me in for tea. I might be out to play later after I've dun me homework....

[jamesdevice]

"I can't remember the last time CHF operated from a ship."
Elements of 847 are currently flying off Albion's hangarless open deck and have been for the last four or five months , both in the Med and east of Suez

OK its not a whole squadron, but they DO do it. And they may be Lynx not Sea King, but they are still part of CHF

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Seldom, Unchecked,

I too am out, before the pair of you claim web induced PTSD. Really, you need to stop being so sensitive.

So no answers available then eh :p :p :p

[Unchecked]

I'm not being sensitive, just putting it how it is. As told to me by various RN peeps over the years in various crewrooms. Not my fault if your oppos are embarrassing you by peddling the truth !

As for deployments, the dit from a very experienced guy who had been around a fair time, went along the lines of only deployed a handful of times and the longest ever he did was less than 2 months. It's not really that important, just putting it as a reply to the dit about deploying for 10 months etc.... Which I don't doubt that the FAA do. CHF are a different story though.

[alfred_the_great]

When was the last time Royal embarked for a full deployment? It's not because we don't want them to, but because "main effort" drives the fact they physically can't do it beyond individual dets (CHF) or Coy's (RM).

I remember 1999 when quite a lot of CHF went to sea for a sustained period, and took part in a combination of exercises and operations. I would expect that type of deployment will happen again post-2015....

There have been a more than a few CHF types who've re-catted to grey lynx to get on in the promotion stakes, including a couple of bootnecks.

[minigundiplomat]

Having read the recent posts on this thread, I can see that there is less need for moderators on Pprune these days, and more need for gynaecologists.

No wonder the treasury is cutting through the military like a knife through butter. Inter-service banter is great, but every thread turns into a peeing competition.

[Fire 'n' Forget]

Let's face it, in every crew room an exchange officer exists that has transferred from the navy. I currently have 3 and one just left that tried but got refused transfer by the navy. I personally only know of 1 that has went the other way......says it all really.

[furnace rats]

Fire 'n' forget

Some people will always seek the easy route.

[MaroonMan4]

MGD

Totally agree, if there are still arguments to be had after the political descion, lets make our airships earn their pay, not us at the squadron level.

There is this big ongoing study and of course PR12, both of which I am sure that CAS and his team will fight our corner. Even I as the most sceptical of senior officers recognise that in this extreme fiscal climate they are doing the best job possible at fighting tooth and nail for us at every stage. They managed to save the Tonkas and keep the Fisheads out of fixed wing, I am sure that they will be able to do the same with Merlin.

It isn't over yet, but it is not for us to slag each other off, trying to compare genitalia - that certainly ain't going to draw resolution, and don't we have some real enemies to fight?

:confused:

[Hilife]

Wot, like "the Judean People's Front." :)

[Pheasant]

They managed to save the Tonkas and keep the Fisheads out of fixed wing, I am sure that they will be able to do the same with Merlin.

The sad thing is that in doing so the reputation of the RAF as an honest broker is being trashed and you, as a Service, are generally no longer trusted to tell the truth. People like CO JHC, CO MAA etc are not helping your cause one little bit.

The fact is maritime aviation from the sea is best done by maritime aviators (and I am including all elements from grubbers through aircrew to Wings of ships), the skillsets translate well to the battle ashore, but not necessarily vv.

[Unchecked]

Obviously can't agree with your first paragraph there Pheasant. After all, it was a certain RN 2* ex-Cmd JHC who sat down in front of the Merlin crews and told them that the Merlin would transfer, that 24 new chinooks would replace them, that they'd all remain employed and at benson. Is that not the biggest whopper of the lot ? If HE had stood up to the defence sec during SDSR, maybe those chinooks would be coming and this whole thread be mooted.

I do agree though that Maritime aviation should be done by maritime aviators. I will caveat though that with a bit of training it's not beyond the capabilities of the light blue, conniving, evil crabs.

[alfred_the_great]

Unchecked? Why would a 2* have anything to do with the SoS Defence? About the only people who get to call the latter are CDS and heads of Service, now amended to be be solely CDS. As much as I like the old JHC, he was more than a little naive to "promise" you such things.

[Odigron]

Pheasant,

I agree that maritime aviation is best done by those with the correct skill sets, but that does not drive the requirement for them to be RN, they could be any cap badge, as has been proven on numerous occasions. Sufficient maritime training and experience - yes, has to be RN - no.

[Unchecked]

Alfred

Yes, my mistake. Obviously he should have stood up through his chain of command. I thought he came across as a nice bloke too on the few occassions I found myself in an audience with him.

[Pheasant]

I agree that maritime aviation is best done by those with the correct skill sets, but that does not drive the requirement for them to be RN, they could be any cap badge, as has been proven on numerous occasions. Sufficient maritime training and experience - yes, has to be RN - no.

Odi and Unchecked,

There you go again assuming it is just about pilots and flying to the deck. It is not, it is a system of systems that starts with the stoker and chef and ends up (at sea) with the CO of the ship. All need to be air minded to make ops from the sea safe....it is not the pilot that decides the deck is within limits or authorises the take off it is usually the officer of the watch, CO of the ship or Wings - I am not aware that the RAF are qualified for any of these roles or have a desire to be so. Who sets the embarked standards and practices? Not the RAF because they have no-one with the depth of knowledge and experience to do so.

Although it may appear to be otherwise, I am not against the RAF...but it is their (senior level) arrogant assumption that "the RAF does it best, and if it flies it must belong to the RAF.." that makes me sick.

[Odigron]

Pheasant,

You missed my point, I never said that the RAF or AAC were best placed to do the role, I simply said that it wasn't RN only. I also specifically avoided saying Aircrew, because I understand your well placed point about the stoker upwards.

I feel, however, that you are being too stovepiped in capability terms, especially in this era of financial constraint. Your hypothesis suggests that Maritime/littoral capability can only/best be provided by a single Service - RN; with sufficient funds available, I might agree. But with the constraints being imposed on HM Forces, we need to do things smarter and I believe there are ways to achieve the goal and deliver the capabilities for much less cost - unfortunately, it would mean changing/rationalising the current systems - stovepiped capabilities just don't cut the mustard anymore.

Tough times ahead for all.

[Unchecked]

I'm not assuming anything and yes, I was only talking about pilots but I never mentioned anything of all the other key roles. Your paranoia puts you on the offensive again, I see.

Yes, the RN are the best people to do all of the jobs you mention, including the flying. Your pilots have been doing it for years, it is their niche, the RAF haven't and yes, in a perfect world it would remain that way. RAF PILOTS could though, with enough training and exposure, handle deck operations in RW aircraft if required and that is why I still maintain that the Merlin mk3 should remain with the RAF, the Merlin force should absorb some of the CHF crews into it to train the RAF in deck ops. For the limited amount of time that the CHF spend on deck then the marinisation of the mk3 is costly and unnecessary and we should not be wasting our taxpayers money on it.

So yeah, please do continue to have air-minded people aboard your ships, from the chef to the CO, but please, stop telling everyone that the RAF are incapable of landing a helicopter on them.

["Running in"]

I don't think anyone is saying that the RAF can't land on a ship. It's what goes on beyond the point of "chocks & lashings" that SME knowledge comes in. Again your facts are wrong about CHF embarking - heard of Auriga & Cougar? Sea Kings were on both with crews embarking between op tours. Surely it's obvious why CHF haven't embarked a full SQN recently? The whole idea for future force 2020 is to have a capabilty suited to fight "a war" not "the war". It's been decided (rightly) that littoral manouever is very much a part of that future force capability- hence the need for 3 CDO BDE and supporting arms including dedicated lift assets -CHF.
The point Pheasant has made but is falling on deaf ears is that to support the embarked helos there are a number of experienced aviators in key positions utilising their embarked experience to support ops safely. These include Wings, little F, upper air ops and other positions within Brigade. Have a quick straw poll in the crewroom on Monday - You'll need a wing cdr for wings, a sqn ldr for liitle f, a f/lt & a f/sgt for air ops-all aviators for a 2-3 year draft to an LPH. That's just a few positions - there are many more but i can't be asked to list them, it's Sat PM and it's beer o'clock. The point is there is much more to landing on a ship. Now ... Beer....

[Unchecked]

That's fair enough - but it's not fair enough to say pheasant was making the point that aviators were required for these roles because he really wasn't. Anyway, like I said, absorb some CHF into the Merlin force and surely these roles are fulfilled, along with bringing your QHI/QAI experience to train the crews how to land the birds on the LPH. This shouldn't take too long. This has surely got to be a better and cheaper option than :

Sack 50% Merlin aircrew
Sack or redistribute Merlin eng force
Re-role 50% Merlin aircrew to chinook
Re-role all CHF aircrew to Merlin (with all associated costs)
Marinise Merlin for sustained deck ops (embark only when reqd)
+ whatever else I may have missed !

[Odigron]

Don't disagree, but, in the future, those position don't have to be dark blue - any uniform colour could be trained.

Desired capability is not the issue - how to achieve it is.

I am not suggesting bin the RN here, I'm saying that we can't keep doing what we have done - we can't afford it. So how do we achieve the desired result with less money? There are many potential solutions - single coloured uniform for aviation (and I don't care what it is!) has got to be cheaper than 3 colours with the various chains of command and additional costs. I'd love to recommend maintaining the status quo, but I, for one, don't see that we have the funds to do it all. I am trying to be broad minded in what is clearly a single service minded environment.

["Running in"]

Or go for the really cheap option - give CHF those shiny new Chinnys:cool: I don't think your bosses would wear that one. In all seriousness no one wants to see guys lose jobs - hopefully it won't be quite as drastic as that? It would seem that the sums add up though as far as the powers that be are concerned.

[Pheasant]

But you guys are missing the point. To do aviation from the sea properly (including manning all of the positions mentioned by Running) takes a career of operating from the sea (and wanting to). You can't do this by attaching the odd one or two guys to an RAF unit, there needs to be sufficient mass to create a career path from Mid to Cdr and beyond. The RAF know this only too well which is exactly why they are arguing to maintain all the capability they can. The RN understand this which is why they are fighting so hard to retain CHF as a formed RN unit. It is why the RN are manning up F18s and carrier decks in the USN at this moment.

[Odigron]

I concede that there is futility in trying to espouse anything other than the current status quo. I accept that you have a view, which is shared by many, that I feel will not survive the current finacial situation - with that in mind, the risk is that littoral, as an unaffordable expense, will lose, if it is only RN that can do it.

No point in further discusion, as too many are entrenched in their beliefs with no thought of how to make it all happen in the future.

[Unchecked]

But what I'm saying is that you move sufficient numbers across from CHF and these become your SMEs initially. Over the passage of time and with sufficient embarkations, the experience breeds across to the RAF and in the future the tradition and skillset is back up to the necessary levels. If the RAF made littoral move one of it's roles then over time they would make it work in the same way that knowledge and experience gets passed on to new personnel through training in every branch of the armed forces.

[Pheasant]

the experience breeds across to the RAF and in the future the tradition and skillset is back up to the necessary levels.

Nice idea, but people do not join the RAF to make going to sea their career. We would end up with the same situation as the Harrier where embarkations occured for the minimum time - as decreed by the RAF, not RN. You will not develop the necessary through career expertise to fill all of the shipbourne and maritime staff posts.

Expeditionary ops remains the mainstay of Govt policy with Carrier enabled strike and amphibiosity the central pillars - until they change the policy it is where the priority will now go and transferring Merlin is part of that policy. I assume the Govt are prepared to pay for it as they keep telling us it is going to happen.

[high spirits]

Pheasant,
For Gods sake stop banging on about career structure. You are going to have one QE class carrier, plus LPH at sea with a few single deck amphib vessels. Stop talking like it's some huge branch, and not just a specialisation for the few. I have seen a full LPH op and a CVS op. Impressive, yes. Rocket science, no. Flyco on Ocean was manned by a failed aviator last time I was on it.

[alfred_the_great]

Whilst he may be a "single issue fanatic" he does have a very valid point. Imagine how you'd run an airstation (RNAS or RAF with CHF just flying in every so often and taking over for a week or two at a time, from their principle base at sea. I've no doubt there'd be howls of outrage about how the MAA/RAF/FAA would need to uphold standards ashore....

[high spirits]

Alfred,
Agreed, I'm not putting my Service up as a solution, far from it. I also won't sit here and put up with guff about 'growing' carrier SO's as if it is some sort of preferable career choice for right minded RN Officers.

[Backwards PLT]

Would be interested to hear how things are going on Ocean atm. Is it an unworkable solution as some on here are saying or is everyone just getting on with it and doing a good job?

[MaroonMan4]

We must be careful.....

Although I totally agree that amphibious 'gumpf' is not rocket science and that any service can do the flying element of it, we should be aware that after Afghan there is every intent to return to the set up that many of us remember from the late 90s and early 2000s where we did spend alot of time at sea in the Med, and by the end of it we became quite good at it (apart from the odd wheels dropping off the back every now and again :()

But it takes practice, focus and resources to do it properly - of course we can take it on risk (i.e. cuff it), but lets just look at what the knock on effect has been for the guys/capabilities that have been asked to endure in the Med.

If we in the light blue are saying on these forums that with the right training any Service can do amphib then we need to be prepared to put our money where our mouths are. I say this selfishly as I hate the morale vacuum of the O Boat, and 6 months on an amphibious exercise/deployment just fills me with dread. But having taken the Queen's shilling I will go where I am told, but please do not expect me or my colleagues to tick off bare deck landing currencies and then call us Very High Readiness Maritime CR.

If you want me to do it properly, then I need to train regularly with the customer, know the whole amphibious doctrine and TTPs stuff, and actually integrate properly - which we do not do at the moment, looking at the earliest opportunity to disembark.

And in doing this amphib gumpf we have to be very aware that signing up to taking airframes away for months on end will mean that they aren't on the line for training the rest of the field army and the new guys coming through the OCF. Unless someone makes a big change in policy, the Support Helicopters in the RAF are primarily there to support Army operations on the land, not being wasted bobbing up and down at sea.

I agree flying from a deck is not a black art, but it cannot be cuffed otherwise we will be found severely wanting if god forbid there is an accident, let alone actually have to do the job properly as per Al Faw.

[Mick Strigg]

Remember, flying from sea is more than just "getting airborne from a moving airfield".

Imagine saying to a RAF SH Squadron: There's a ship - operate from it! The art of moving, maintaining, launching, recovering, securing and any other 'ing you can think of it totally different from doing it ashore. The RN has specialist branches to deal with the unique aspects of this, so safety is assured.

To achieve the same standard of assurance, the RAF would require a Fleet Air Arm to facilitate embarkations - full circle once again!

[FODPlod]

Pheasant,
For Gods sake stop banging on about career structure...

FAA pilots and observers can be employed as warfare officers on battlestaffs and on the bridge/in the ops room of ships when they are not on operational flying tours. After passing COQC exams, they can even command warships when they become too senior to fly on ops.

Just out of interest, what do RAF pilots and navigators do when not assigned to flying duties (which their FAA equivalents don't)?

[Neartheend]

Well the 1SL did say post the SDSR announcement that it might be easier if the Air force provided the aircraft and the RN provided the ships!!! Anyway non of its insurmountable. The RN wants to retain its embarked ops experience ready for the carrier(s) so they could provide the chock heads, air traffic etc etc. Look at it as jobs for the boys. The only thing stopping any of this working is inter service bickering which to be honest needs to nipped in the bud. Jointery and good senior management would resolve this is in a a heartbeat.

[Pheasant]

Neartheend,

Sadly Jointery achieves exactly the opposite. it exacerbates inter-Service rivalry, is expensive in terms of staff effort and attempts to achieve a common base for standards and practices (usually the lowest common denominator). One could argue that Haddon-Cave, and thus the MAA, has raised the bar on assurance - in particular in terms of "competent authority".

I would argue that in order to be assessed a competent authority to safely assure operations from the sea you would need to be able to assure each aspect - from stoker providing the fuel, to the Officer of the Watch on the Bridge, to the team manning flyco etc, to the aircrew manning the aircraft and thence to the CO of the ship authorising the flight. I would go on to argue that the only way to guarantee that assurance is to have an embedded capability in the RN. Such an embedded capability could then assure the occasional visit by a CH47 etc, effectively by surrounding it in "cotton wool" of expertise of the host organisation.

This host organisation needs to be grown (ie career managed) with maritime experts who live and breath ops from the sea.

I don't think it has anything to do with inter-Service rivalry, just common sense. In these constrained times capability needs to be embedded where the best level of assurance can be given. I simply do not believe the RAF have the interest or culture to embrace true maritime operations from the deck of a ship.

But then I would say that wouldn't I.

[Not_a_boffin]

Can someone explain why the RAF wants to maintain three separate SH fleets (Wokka, Merlin & Puma LEP), none of which (for various reasons) are fully capable of sustained embarked ops?

Just don't get the Puma LEP at all.

[andyy]

FODPLod, remember that RN Pilots/Observers can be asked to carry out watches on the Bridge at sea as THE OOW or 2nd OOW whenever they are embarked. They don't just do it when they are too senior to fly on ops. RN Pilots/ Observers are Seaman Officers first & aviators second (whether they like it or not!)

Indeed they are often REQUIRED to carry out Bridge watchkeeping duties to keep themselves current iaw the requirements of maritime law & the watchkeeping certification requirements. If nothing else this helps them maintain their whole ship knowledge & contributes to a whole ship "aviation-maritime mindset".

I have no doubt that the RAF Merlin force could transfer to the CHF, perhaps with a few RN/RM aircrew bodies to help their assimilation to the role but they would have to immerse themselves the CHF role fully, become ship aware & safe (members of fire fighting and damage control parties, even get involved with storing ship & replensishing at sea etc - Yes, Officers do that too) and when embarked they may be expected to help out in the Ops Room, FlyCo or on the Bridge when not flying. Effectively they would become the FAA & undisputedly orphoned from the RAF. Do you want that? Fine if you do, welcome.

[I'm Off!]

Afraid you are very wrong Andyy, Seamen Officer has been out of existence for years and years. Pilots and Obs are indeed Warfare Officers, but unless they have a Bridge Watchkeeping Qual they are as much use as a YO (albeit vastly more experienced) and therefore do not keep watches on the bridge unless they volunteer. In addition, only having 1 P and 1 O on board (unless a P2 or O2 are gaining experience with that Flight), means that to try and stay within credible limits for rest and fatigue coupled with about 8 secondary duties each results in a shortage of time that would certainly not be helped by standing a 4 hr watch on the bridge for which they are not qualified or embarked for that purpose.

[Backwards PLT]

Loathe as I am to post in this thread, I feel strangely drawn to it.

Still waiting for the reply about ops off Ocean. Is the ship suffering with all those AAC types on it who can't do OOW?

On that subject, I totally agree that in a frigate or destroyer the OOW piece is true, but I wonder if USN/USMC aircrew do OOW on US aircraft carriers? I'm pretty sure they don't - once you get above a certain ship size (crew size) it is neither necessary nor desirable, just inefficient. This doesn't mean that everyone on board shouldn't do fire party / damage control etc - that is a given. Similarly with divisional cdrs etc.

My second point is that for both CHF and JSF, a considerable (vast majority for JSF) of time will be based on land. If we look at the past 20 years there has been some demand for maritime basing but plenty for land basing and given future resources (ie sod all) a fleet can only do one job at once and can't be held somewhere in reserve in a niche capability.

Last - I find the "pilots join the RAF to fly not go to sea ergo the FAA should fly" argument quite amusing. If you are a fan of that logic then sailors join the RN to sail a ship so shouldn't fly aircraft!

Best we just get on with it as a mix and use the differing areas of expertise to do the job properly.

Mind you, I still think the RAF should give away all SH to the RN/Army and operate all the combat air.:}

[andyy]

IO, yes, yes, yes, I'm not that out of the loop, I'm well aware that Seaman Officers became Warfare Officers, I was one, but I'm afraid I prefer the old term. FF/DDs will only have one Pilot & Observer normally from the flight but embarked aircrew in CVS/ Ocean etc will be expected to volunteer to keep watches to keep their BWC currency and help maintain the aviation-maritime mindset amongst all depts. If CHF is mostly light blue & they do not contribute to the whole ship practices where does the whole ship aviation maritime knowledge come from. "Them & Us" is no way to operate. Unless the embarked squadron are inculcated in the true nature of shipboard operations then "they'll be trouble ahead...."

[I'm Off!]

Andyy,

How many embarked Aircrew in CVS/Ocean have a BWQ? Let me suggest less than 5%. And I really do believe that is accurate. How many CHF Pilots have BWQs? And are current? Less than 5%.

Is it really worth discussing ratios of that ilk?

[andyy]

IO, the point is that the RN does need aviators who have shiphandling experience & "ship drivers" that have aviation (inc Littoral) experience. With just small ship flights & the Culdrose Merlins, the RN & CHF will both be a lot poorer without it.

As I've said, if CHF remains largely light blue, fine, but they will need to become immersed in the maritime functions to a great degree.

[Neartheend]

Same old story with the RN re' OOW duties etc is that we've always done it that way and 300 plus years of tradition stops us from doing it any other way. BTW the damage control and fire fighting courses at Whale Island and deck handling at CU were all quite straight forward and weren't that bad even for us crabs. Whats a fearnought suit, soft wood wedge and running lashing between friends, I've even been known to get involved with the donkeys d*ck during RAS evolutions. The hardest part of embarked ops is learning to drink CSB and avoiding the 1st Jimmy during rounds!!! People aren't born master mariners or airmen they evolve/develop. As for jointery, 360 Sqn was a great example of how it could/should be done if the worker bees are allowed to get on with it without influence from the career driven city fathers. Just think if the transfer of Merlin debate wasn't going on and there was a push to embark Chinook and Apache onto OCN without any input from the CHF then I doubt our RN mates would be searching for so many lame excuses as to why it couldn't happen. Let the 'black catting' begin

[Bismark]

Lot's of banter on this thread! Been away for a while and without wishing to drift.....

a considerable (vast majority for JSF) of time will be based on land.

BPLT,

I think you will find that with cats and traps the JSF will spend a whole load of time at sea. And if one CVF is deployed there will be cries for the other one to be brought forward for training, either that or the JSF guys will join a US CV for training. You will not generate a high sortie rate by just bouncing on and off occasionally.

[On_Loan]

I think you find when we only get 2 JSF they will be very busy - there are a lot of airshows don't you know....

[alfred_the_great]

B_PLT - OCEA found it quite hard work to embark, train and integrate the Apache. Ship's Air and AE Dept are working hand in hand with the REME LAD to keep it going, but it is not an ideal situation, and some fairly hefty changes would have to take place if it were to become an enduring task (i.e. continual re-embarkations).

AAC (all of them from CO downwards) are carrying out Sea Survival training to make them safe to go to sea, adding to the training burden of the Squadrons.

So what of all of this? Like any squadron embarking, there is faff and hard work required by all concerned to make it happen, but crucially the Air and AE Department (all WAFUs) have been the key enablers. Remove that provision and the game stops. If you want RAF or AAC chaps embarking OCEA or QE for 2 years at a time to be F or Wings knock yourself out, otherwise I would suggest that there is a defined requirement for WAFUs to keep current on the type of operations OCEA or QE would be called upon to do.

[Nicholas Howard]

BPLT

but I wonder if USN/USMC aircrew do OOW on US aircraft carriers? I'm pretty sure they don't - once you get above a certain ship size (crew size) it is neither necessary nor desirable, just inefficient

It might surprise you to know that by Federal statute the CO of a USN CVN has to be a naval aviator. It would seem that our cousins know a thing or two about safe operation of aircraft at sea and what it takes to sustain that capability, they've only been doing it continually for nearly 80 years. Also, from my (limited time) onboard Dwight D Eisenhower I noticed several of the aviators standing watch on the bridge.

Of course we could just follow the dictat of the (unwilling, unqualified, uninterested) Few!;)

Nick

[handyman]

Can the RAF operate from the O boat into the long term with Merlin? Ans Yes of course they could, but they would need to invest in the maritime environment.

This means more time working up the ship and ship's company in maritime Ops and taking the ship through BOST/OST etc. This will require time away even before the deployment of many months. Naturally the harmony rules will have to be revised as the RN currently requires up to 660 days away in a 3 year period. All perfectly achievable and on this point all of the forces should have been aligned ages ago.

This will also mean that the posts of Wings, Little F, F2 (argggggh) should be manned by RAF aircrew over the 2-3 year tour, pretty much permanently at sea. But all achievable in time.

The AAC have worked extremely well in Libya and from baby steps have worked up to be more than proficient in the maritime environment - albeit in the med lol :E (with the help of embedded exchange RN crews). However, this has taken a while and with the RIP of the new Sqn, this process will start all over again. This demonstrates that if we want a credible amphib capability able to respond to whatever our lords and masters throw at us, it must be practised and maintained into the long term; no lilly-padding! The RAF could achieve this and it could be made to work.

I simply believe that CHF are the right people to take on this task. Whether you want to give them the Merlin or as some of you have pointed out a much better answer would be the CH47. They have the experience in depth, from aircrew to AEM, and once the current war and financial restraint has passed, the appetite to go to sea.

Giving the task to the RAF is surely a riskier venture; for the RAF as well as Amphib capability. However, I am pretty sure they could make it work, but it would be a poisoned challis for them.

The whole watchkeeping ticket is an absolute red herring as the ship never relies on wafus to sustain the roster. However, the RN philosophy is very much all of one company and understanding other roles and integration of the FAA is very important for greater understanding of the maritime environment and avoiding a them and us culture.

It looks to me as though these points have been weighed up and the answer that fell out was in favour of CHF!

H

[Neartheend]

Sorry, but I must beg to differ, 845, 46 48 have not embarked in the past few years for anything close to the harmony limits. Standfast the grey fleets, who by their nature regulary do. There is plenty of scope for Wings and little F to come from the Wider FAA there are no rules saying he/she must come from the CHF. From my close association with 84x I cannot see what couldn't be done by the RAF SH force or better still a joint force. You go on about the amphibious role but other than flying from a ship which both Chinook and AH have done in the past the tactical flying at the other end is the same old same. Using your augument, then only the RAF SH should carry out RW land based ops in Afghan Sorry I still can see no compelling evidence to suggest that only the RN could maintain the role if it came to it. Finally, harmony is negotiated by the single services. If the RN has not managed to negotiate better for it's personnel then thats a problem for the RN to address without bringing everyone else down. Perhaps topmast failed for a reason.

[high spirits]

All of last few pages of this thread still doesn't address the issue of capability. Without a cab that has the power, and is maranised(and paid for), there is no capability. If there is no need to marinise, because CHF will not spend enough time at sea with the Merlin, then there is no need to transfer....

I really hope that this does not go ahead on the Mk3. If it does, standby for the RAF to deploy to sea with the RN anyway. On the Chinook...

[FODPlod]

Sorry, but I must beg to differ, 845, 46 48 have not embarked in the past few years for anything close to the harmony limits...

FAA personnel, including those in CHF, may not have been embarked in ships for extended periods in recent times owing to competing demands but I'm willing to bet their time at sea combined with their 'off time' deployed on ops in Afghanistan and elsewhere would breach the RAF's Harmony Guidelines by a long chalk. The same applies to the 40 Cdo booties who only returned from Herrick XIII last October but have been embarked in HMS Albion for Cougar 11 since April.

That's life in a Naval Service dark blue/lovat suit for you. The question is, could embarked light blue air ever compete for operational availability, continuity or cost effectiveness? As I understand it, apart from four weeks late Feb/early March, the French carrier Charles de Gaulle's air group has been flying almost continuous ops since Oct last year. Would an RAF det be capable of doing the same? If you tell me there are plenty of other RAF personnel sitting around in the UK to take their place every 4-6 months, it kind of proves my point about the relative cost effectiveness of the FAA (even the French version).

[alfred_the_great]

N - you might be in for a shock when Harmony guidelines are "tri-serviced"...

Indeed Wings and F (and everyone else in the Air Dept) can be not CHF, but on the basis the Stovies can't do it, you're reducing your potential pool to the Baggers and Pingers. The Lynx boys traditionally haven't done it because they've never worked from a big deck.

The wider point is about embarked Maritime Aviation - every argument made about CHF could equally be made about the Baggers (and possibly the 771 Cabs and Grey Merlin). At some point a decision needs to be made - if you fly from the sea, you need to work, properly, from the sea. Light Blue, Dark Blue, Green, at the end of the day I don't care, you just need to lift when I instruct you and keep to the FlyPro....

[althenick]

At some point a decision needs to be made - if you fly from the sea, you need to work, properly, from the sea.

ATG et al

I know I go on about this but The RAF (and possibly the Army) May end up with a recruitment/retention problem if we go down that route

[url=http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=15992]Jointery - Going to Sea /url]

I know its quite old and cant help but wonder if attitudes have changed. But to me if you turn round to the RAF and say to the chaps "Well 4000-odd of you are now going to take up from where the FAA left off" then I reckon there would be a mass exidous- just like the last time!

[Pheasant]

The RN are not bothered about their harmony guidelines as they understand the need to deploy in ships for extended periods. The first thing the RMs want to do when they get back from Herrick is a spot of leave and then off on an ex or more ops. I seem to recall that the RAF would deploy for 4months and 1 day because that would get them the OWP.

Another thing missed recently is that you need to be able to operate from a deck in sea state 6+, I do not think we have done that for a while around the Gulf and Med. That would probably count the AH guys out and make the CH47 go running for their beds.

In terms of capability maybe the CH47s should be split between the Army and RN....only teasing.

[Neartheend]

N - you might be in for a shock when Harmony guidelines are "tri-serviced"...

Don't see a problem. Unless you drastically reduce numbers and increase Op deployments there will always be more personnel to deploy than areas to deploy to. You can't reduce personnel by much as you cannot predict which fleet is will need to deploy and for what. Cross pollination to meet surge has its airworthiness issues. Anyway they are 'guidlines' rather than targets.

Well 4000-odd of you are now going to take up from where the FAA left off Eh what are you on about. we are talking about a fleet of 25 cabs with maintainers. Not even the crabs need 4000 to do that.

Re' deployed time away and harmony. I've done a poll on 84X and the most I've found is 160 days in 365 inc PDT and dets. After 2 to 3 years most will rotate through 2nd line billets either in what workshops are left or on the training sqn where the pace is slightly less intensive. The RAF SH are doing about the same but without rotation.

I really don't give a flying big 'F' who ends up with Merlin, but most of whats being said on here bears very little resemblence to what I see here day on day here at Vl. Please lets remain factual rather than emmotive as for the reason why the transfer should take place.

[Pheasant]

Please lets remain factual rather than emmotive as for the reason why the transfer should take place.

Why on earth should we do that...it's a rumour network, not the official MoD debating chamber.

Re the transfer....it is mostly about emotion because the RAF will not follow a simple order to get on with it. Someone at the top of the shop needs sacking.

[high spirits]

Nasty sideways walking crustaceans.........:{:{







Bell end.........

[Neartheend]

Will not follow a simple order Go and cry to Lord West and Sharky. Just think the RN will only get the carriers to keep jocks in tabs and beer. The FAA will only control 40% of the JCA fleet and they just might get 25 cast off White elephants. Their biggest air station is to be invaded by the AAC leaving only one pure FAA air station which is so far West that the CHF are crapping themselves in case the Merlin basing option goes ahead. I'd say that's not the greatest result ever seen. Perhaps the one needing the sack is closer to home than the RN would like to admit. :D

[Pheasant]

Drove past Yeovilton yesterday, lots of building work going on near one of the hardstandings.....preps for Merlin? Or is it for Wildcat?

Fleet Air Arm Museum has a new restaurant!

Any news on CHF?

[Hovermonkey]

@pheasant: Wildcat complex; it was on the air day programme map anyway...

[Seaking93]

Project Winfra, for the Wildcat, as for the museum, not a new restaurant, just a refurb of the existing one over the last winter.

[Pheasant]

Any post leave news on the transfer?

[TheWizard]

You seem very eager to find out Pheasant!! Why not give JHC a ring?!;)

[Pheasant]

I want rumours not the truth!

[Neartheend]

Transfers been binned as Puma 2 is about to be canned! No duff, 12 clips and whatever the Army equivalent of good gen' is

[TheWizard]

Oh yes, so it has.....................................n't

DSEi 2011: Puma 2 makes quiet progress | Shephard Group (http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/rotorhub/dsei-2011-puma-2-makes-quiet-progress/10020/)

Must try harder or whatever the Navy equivalent is

[Evalu8ter]

Wizard - all true but definitely an EC view of the world. Nimrod was flying and about to enter service and then was binned. The Puma has been a hot topic over the past few weeks - even more so since the 14 CH47s were contracted. As for it being the "preferred choice" for SF well, outside the urban environment that's a load of EC marketing spiel - even the extra tank and CAFTS isn't going to turn it into a long range insertion platform a la CH47/CV-22.

If I were in CHF, or a supporter of them, I'd be lobbying real hard for Puma 2; if the Puma is binned I can't see any way CAS will give up 2 Sqns of Merlins - I don't think a trite "he's been ordered" swings it. The original Transfer was predicated on 24 CH47s - if the RAF loses Puma as well as the 10 Chinooks it's not the same ballgame. IMHO it would be a transfer of Puma crews & numberplate to the new CH47 Sqn and probably the end of the road for CHF :(

[Neartheend]

Guided Weapons: Are you my son? He says 'whatever' whenever he starts to lose an argument. If you are him, please can you tidy your room it's a right tip!! :)

[On_Loan]

Interesting article in the Times this week with Dr Fox announcing (quietly) that the number of Seakings in Afhgan would be reduced due to the improving situation, and also to allow the crews to train on 'more capable airframes' in preparation for the SK withdrawal in 2016. Merlins per chance?

[Old-Duffer]

Just how long does it take for a qualified and combat ready member of rotary winged aircrew to convert to Merlin or even Wildcat?

I can understand that a cadre of experienced guys will set up and run the 700 series sqn which kicks off Merlin for the Navy but the essentials of operating the aircraft don't take four years, surely. The simulators at Benson, for example, provide type conversion and tactical instruction and one assumes there will be some secondment of crews to the RAF and vice versa.

I smell a political rat here! The rat in question could be nibbling in several different directions.

Old Duffer

[high spirits]

O-D
Smell a rat if you want but you are missing one crucial fact. The Merlin is still on Ops with the RAF. Hence the timescale.

[Old-Duffer]

High Spirits,

Whilst accepting the operational imperatives, I still don't buy the long timescales.

If the RN selects crews and begins to feed them into the conversion/training system; probably in lieu of RAF personnel, and if the RAF exchanges some personnel with the RN, it ought to be possible to declare at least one sqn operational in 18 months (set aside for a moment any navalisation required to the cabs themselves).

That sqn might perforce be based at Benson in the interim but there's no reason (as we've seen with Harrier) why a sqn manned by mixed crews cannot carry the 84? number plate and operate as such.

I'm not sure how many aircraft there are now (23 + 6 minus the one that was bent and a few out of the system for trials/upgrades etc).

My main concern hinges around the continued IMHO vulnerability of the Wildcat and Puma projects: let's hope I'm very wrong (Mrs O-D thinks I am most of the time).

O-D

[high spirits]

O-D,
I suggest you go to Benson and talk to the boys and girls about how much resource is available at home; Aircrew , instructors and aircraft to train on. Add to that, support to Ops and you will quickly see how empty the pot is.

I have no doubt the transfer could take place on your timescale, but alas we live in austere times. I have said for some time that this will take a while due to resource shortage. I don't think I will be proved wrong.

[Old-Duffer]

High Spirits,

Let's agree to disagree!

As an aside, I saw a letter in (I think) the Daily Torygraph t'other day which costed out the retention of Ark Royal - something like £115M to 2015. The writer then commented that Eric Pickles could find £250M to restore weekly bin collections.

Ipso facto, our armed forces can be left bare but at least the rubbish gets collected.

O-D