Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

CHF - Merlin Mk 4

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

CHF - Merlin Mk 4

Old 1st Aug 2011, 14:32
  #221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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....
On_Loan is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2011, 15:45
  #222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where-ever nav's chooses....
Posts: 833
Received 46 Likes on 26 Posts
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.
alfred_the_great is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2011, 15:45
  #223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: England
Posts: 39
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
USN CVN

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
Nicholas Howard is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2011, 19:27
  #224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 (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
handyman is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2011, 20:09
  #225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Neartheend is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2011, 20:59
  #226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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...
high spirits is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2011, 21:26
  #227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 819
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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...
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).
FODPlod is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2011, 21:40
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where-ever nav's chooses....
Posts: 833
Received 46 Likes on 26 Posts
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....
alfred_the_great is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2011, 22:15
  #229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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!
althenick is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2011, 08:34
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Pheasant is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2011, 13:03
  #231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Neartheend is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2011, 14:24
  #232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Pheasant is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2011, 14:39
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quote: the RAF will not follow a simple order to get on with it..

Nasty sideways walking crustaceans.........







Bell end.........
high spirits is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2011, 20:14
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.

Last edited by Neartheend; 5th Aug 2011 at 10:02.
Neartheend is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 09:03
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
Pheasant is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 10:30
  #236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@pheasant: Wildcat complex; it was on the air day programme map anyway...
Hovermonkey is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 12:36
  #237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somerset
Age: 68
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Project Winfra, for the Wildcat, as for the museum, not a new restaurant, just a refurb of the existing one over the last winter.
Seaking93 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2011, 10:49
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Any post leave news on the transfer?
Pheasant is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2011, 10:59
  #239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You seem very eager to find out Pheasant!! Why not give JHC a ring?!
TheWizard is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2011, 21:17
  #240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I want rumours not the truth!
Pheasant is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.