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 15th Oct 2011, 18:24
  #281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: in the mess
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Due to its simple and rugged design, the Sea King rarely suffers any significant maintenance issues, and, when it does, it is relatively easy to repair." Really? could have fooled me! Mind you, I'm sure Merlin will be much better.

Good luck to the Junglies, they're a good bunch, but the SK4 was totally out of its depth and unsuited to SH operations in Afghanistan, which given the helicopter is a maritime effort designed in the Fifties, is not an enormous surprise. That they muddled through is to their credit.
nice castle is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2011, 20:46
  #282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Whatever happens, it's only right that somebody from either MoD, Govt or the RAF starts to make a definite plan for it's loss and begins to tell those at Benson exactly where their futures could lie. Stringing them all along whille the clock ticks down to 2015 is grossly unfair on a large, committed group of guys and girls who dragged that aircraft kicking and screaming into 3 theatres and gave it the success it's had. I don't expect this to happen, of course.
Unchecked is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2011, 21:43
  #283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It won't really matter when all the rotary assets and personnel become The Defence Helicopter Force
Door Slider is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2011, 09:29
  #284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Joint Force Merlin.

Last edited by MaroonMan4; 17th Oct 2011 at 04:24.
MaroonMan4 is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2011, 09:42
  #285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: in the mess
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Agree with unchecked and MM4 wholeheartedly.
nice castle is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2011, 10:41
  #286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MM4

Right or wrong, and that is something we will never agree on, you are deluded if you think our opinions have anything to do with the course of events.

The RN RAF etc will do as they are told.

This "we will allow" stuff smacks of a false sense of your ability to influence events.
Tourist is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2011, 11:08
  #287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tourist,
Quite right, we follow orders.....

But doling out orders without doing a proper analysis of cost versus benefit smacks of incompetence.
high spirits is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2011, 18:00
  #288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"But doling out orders without doing a proper analysis of cost versus benefit smacks of incompetence"

And by god our polititions have done a lot of that...........
Tourist is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2011, 20:06
  #289 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Amen to that, Tourist.

FWIW IMHO, i think this is all too far gone now to be reversed. It's come out in public, the outrage that would come from telling the Junglies that they're not going to have a shiny new helicopter after all would probably be a bit too much for the govt to stomach - not sure a new Def Sec would want any bad news in the first few months of his term. The cost vs benefit is probably outrageous but they can easily offset that by not marinising Mk3 to Mk4 and just making the Junglies make-do with an aircraft that they can't even send below deck on their flat-tops. This is an outrage in itself but easier to convince the public it's for the best than making the CHF redundant. It's a stinking fudge but that's what they do, right ?

At best, we'll see something like MM4's proposal. When is the new RW Strategy due to be published ?
Unchecked is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2011, 20:19
  #290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Decision to erode years of Merlin operating knowledge and experience at a ridiculous and unnecessary cost is bonkers.
Unchecked is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2011, 21:50
  #291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Back in the sandbox ... again!
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Surely the effectivness of a Support Helicopter force is dependant on the individuals in the force, their training, experience (in role) and ability. Providing it is planned and delivered correctly a change of aircraft type should only improve this effectiveness. The government have decided that there continues to be a requirement for an SH force with expertise to operate in the amphibious environment. When the RAF took on the Merlin they utilised the existing SH expertise from within their organisation to provide an SH capability in a very short period of time. The Junglies will do the same by learning the relevant lessons from their RAF brethren and then molding this and their own style to amphibious operations. This is after all only a change of aircraft type - yes it has a few more bells and whistles but lets not over egg it. The upshot is that there will be no loss in effectiveness by transferring the Merlin and the governments requirement for a continued Amphibious capability will be met - ultimately regardless of whether the Mk4 upgrade takes place or not. It seems to me that the key point here is that it is the government that decides the capabilities that it wants and not the CAS or FSL.
jungliebeefer is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2011, 22:37
  #292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"a change of aircraft type should only improve this effectiveness"

Interesting to compare that comment with the views of many of the guys I knew who were on the Commando squadrons back in the early 1980's. They were in the middle of the transition from Wessex 5 to Sea King 4,. (from memory 846 was SK4, 845 Wessex 5 though I may have that the wrong way round) Almost universally they felt that despite the improved performance, the change was retrograde. Why? Three reasons:
1) You could mount a range of rockets guns and missile on a Wessex 5, turning it into a gunship and giving it a significant degree of self defence.. The SK4 was lacking in the required wiring,
2) The Wessex 5 was more reliable and less likely to break (and easier to fix)
3) In their words, the Wessex 5 was "squaddie proof"
I'm relaying this second-hand, its not from personal experience but I find it interesting that a perceived "upgrade" may not really be so.
jamesdevice is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2011, 23:00
  #293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Back in the sandbox ... again!
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Admittedly my statement does require the new aircraft to provide an upgrade in capability ... but thats probabally a debate for a different thread!
jungliebeefer is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2011, 07:43
  #294 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i'm not saying the Junglies aren't capable of converting, like you say it is only an aircraft change. That's not to say that Merlin won't be a bit of a frustration for you guys !

My main point is it all leaves a bit of a bitter taste because if Mk4 doesn't go ahead, the RAF is effectively losing trained operators all for the sake of RN having an aircraft that isn't really what they require. The whole point of it going, as briefed, was that it had to be marinised and if that doesn't happen then why not just stop the whole process and give them something else (eg 14x new chinooks) thereby reducing the cost of retraining 2 sets of crews ?

Of course it is only my opinion that Mk4 marinisation will not happen because the money isn't there - if i'm wrong and it does then the full cost needs to be made fully transparent.
Unchecked is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2011, 09:39
  #295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Somerset
Posts: 191
Received 40 Likes on 14 Posts
Money?

"Of course it is only my opinion that Mk4 marinisation will not happen because the money isn't there - if i'm wrong and it does then the full cost needs to be made fully transparent."

The money may, or may not, be there- there are several planning rounds to go before any serious quantity has to be spent on marinisation, and if cash is too scarce to do everything it may not be necessary to marinise all the Mk3's to deliver the CHF capability the Government (on decision day) wants.


However the driver about the money is as (probably more) likely to be industrial and political as it is to be military. As mentioned i this thread, Westlands will need something to do after they have nailed together the Wildcats. Vince Cable and David Laws think (hope) this will be the AW 169, but actually supporting a civil aircraft to the standard a civil customer can get elsewhere is new territory for WHL and will require much money at least.

Additionally, Yeovil for some reason has been a key constituency for Governments of all flavours so they won't want to see Lysander Road jobs disappear or move to Italy and will either find work to supplement the AW169 or provide profits to ensure that AW169 is able to stand up successfully from Yeovil.

Finally, There may even be 'strategic capability' voices raising the need to be able to maintain RW design and integration capability in UK. That will depend on the new industrial strategy, whenever that appears.

N
Bengo is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2011, 20:51
  #296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bengo,
Correct, there are plenty of planning rounds to come. But if you are not going to marinise all of them, what is the point of giving up 2 sqns and 10 years worth of corporate experience on Mk3?
high spirits is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2011, 21:11
  #297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 511
Received 155 Likes on 82 Posts
Vs three squadrons and fifty years of experience in amphibious and SH ops?
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2011, 21:39
  #298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
4 sqns, not 3(845,46, 47, 48?)50 years? not on SK 4... How many carriers to fly off in future? How many frames will be Marinised? Why the need for all Merlin Mk 3 to go to the RN if we can only foot one carrier at sea, at once.? I have never denied that we need a CHF, but this plan to retrain two sets of aircrew is bolleaux and does not stand any scrutiny, either financial or military.
high spirits is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2011, 22:44
  #299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
TWO squadrons - 845 & 846
848 is a training / headquarters squadron and in a more honest time would have been numbered 7xx
847 is the old 3 CBAS and flies armed reconnaissance Lynx. Presumably one day they'll get marinised Apache.....not Merlin
Only time 845/6/7/8 were all Commando squadrons together was during the Falklands war when the Wessex 5 training squadrons were renumbered from 7xx to 84x overnight in an attempt to play with the Argies minds over how many front line squadrons we had.
If memory serves me correct, wasn't 849 also formed at Culdrose using spare stripped out SK Mk2 cabs which were awaiting conversion to Mk5?

As far as I can remember ALL the SK4 cabs were in 846, the other squadrons were Wessex 5. So effectively one squadron then held the entire current CHF SK4 fleet. now spread over two front line and one training squadrons. To me that sounds like a hidden reduction in capability
jamesdevice is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2011, 05:07
  #300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
James,
I'm talking about CHF as a whole. Is it not 4 sqns? It looks quite a large organisation for one, maybe 2 pretend aircraft carriers...
high spirits 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.