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 18th Oct 2011, 20:38
  #321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
but however you look at it, 14 Chinooks or 28 Merlins do not equal the 38 (??) or so surviving SK4, or the 110+ CHF fleet of the early 1980's
jamesdevice is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2011, 20:49
  #322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Beefer,

In terms of footprint and downwash, Merlin is almost the same as Chinook, so it doesn't really fit into the medium bracket i guess you're talking about - Puma 2 is probably the more sensible suggestion ?

James,

Yes, 14 Chinook for 38 SK4 in terms of pure numbers doesn't go, but in terms of lift capacity it probably evens out. At MSL, you'd be lifting a company in 4 or 5 airframes. Merlin would be 7 or 8. How many Sea Kings would that take ? Genuine question.
Unchecked is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2011, 20:50
  #323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Peter Luff: The Ministry of Defence is currently exploring options as part of the concept phase for the Merlin Life sustainment programme. It is therefore too early in the programme to be able to confirm details regarding cost, scope and aircraft weight and performance.
The cost just for the aircraft work is £0.5 Billion. Not sure the money is available with the UK stuck in recession and runaway inflation. If a order for that much was around the corner would HMG really let AW ditch 300 plus jobs at the worst possible time for jobless stats and especially after getting a 'job saving' loan of several millions from the nice Mr Cable not many weeks ago. The RW 2* eluded to Mk3 struggling in H&H at his brief today. The cab is a white elephant and the best thing would be is for it to be retired gracefully post ops in 2015, if the aircraft lasts that long.
Neartheend is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2011, 20:59
  #324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I suppose that depends on all of your future ops being conducted in hot and high conditions. It performs admirably in other scenarios. Op Telic can vouch for that.
Unchecked is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2011, 21:06
  #325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 ?
Sorry for commenting on an old post, but please do come on. Does the general public really give 2 flying farts what happens to CHF when they are fighting for their own jobs and financial security. In fact Joe public would be happy to hear that money wasn't going to be spent on defence at all. Lets be fair, in the current climate, unless you are in the job, have been in the job, related to someone in the job or work for AW, BAE or Boeing etc then you won't really care about the MOD or defence.
Neartheend is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2011, 21:52
  #326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can't really argue with that. Although i can be sure that the public do care about where their taxes are spent and spending the £0.5billion you've quoted, and more on top, won't sit favourably with them.
Unchecked is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2011, 23:50
  #327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just a few things (personal opinions) I want to add.

The potential for the green Merlin to corrode more than the MK1because of its construction is actually cobblers, to put it mildly. The actual process of bolting them together is/was the same. I visited the build shed in the 1990s as part of my M Sup course and was surprised to see not a lot in the way of JC5A, Polycast, PRC, being used and if you speak to the people in the know, they will tell you that whilst this “appeared” correct at the time, it was (as we now know) was due to processes not being followed down the tortuous route of AP links to where is said, “apply jointing compound XYZ”.
The corrosion of embarked aircraft is a constant problem, whether it’s a Merlin or a Seaking, or an Apache. The biggest problem on the Invincible class ships is the lack of fresh water available to the flight deck for washing procedures. The modern sailor has little or no concept of water rationing; a concept put into practice regularly on the old steam ships. It’s now common place for priority to be given to the comfort and facilities available to the crew rather than think about the consequences of not washing the aircraft after a days flying. Ask anyone who served on that class of ship, the fresh water supply on the flight deck was essentially a garden hose on the island bulkhead.
The Ocean is no better, it is a nightmare of a ship, with no support for embarked flights and an obvious priority given to the troops it carries. The poor stokers struggle to keep the thing moving and to be frank, couldn’t give a toss if the WAFUs can’t wash their petrol pigeons; why should they?
If the basic concept of using jungly cabs at sea is to embark them, sail to the scene of the fight, and use them to disembark the troops ashore; then in real terms the inability to fold is actually a red herring (and yes I have supported the Junglies as AED and operated with them on RFA and Navy ships). Ocean was originally designed as a “30 day ferry”, hence the lack of maintenance facilities and flight support problems on board her. If you know the Merlin aircraft, you know that it is child’s play to pull the blades off (two pins), so make up a shed load of aircraft covers, pull the blades off, and deck park them covered up. Leave one or two to carry out mail and stores runs to the accompanying RFAs and ships (or a couple of old MK4 SK), and wash the flyers daily. When you get within a day of the baddies, fit the blades and off you go! They should stay with the troops as they move inland, so what’s the fuss?
To quote the armedforces.co.uk website with reference to the new carriers;Each of the two huge lifts that move aircraft from hangar to flight deck can carry two fighter-bombers. They're so big one of them could carry the weight of the entire ship's crew”.
So with that in mind, does the tail need to fold? In fact does the aircraft need to fold? Just how big are these lifts?
As for the problems that are caused by the Junglies learning about a new aircraft, well firstly, the MK 3 Merlin ain’t that complicated. Secondly, the problems solved by having one force (RN) operating the aircraft to one set of standards and very importantly managing the logistic support in one way (RN) will increase the availability of spares that are common to MK1 and MK3 Merlins (lots).
(Got rid of the last statement so I don't get shot!!)
oldgrubber is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2011, 06:04
  #328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Grubber,
I have no doubt that what you say about the PRC etc is true. The bit about parking up covered cabs minus blades on the flight deck is utter hoop. The deck is busy enough with exercising bootnecks and flight ops without the hazards of more ac than necessary rotting away on the deck.

The new QE class lifts, if they can take fully spread chinook or Merlin are the answer. Chinook, a better solution than Merlin, as less are needed for the same capability. Therefore, less storage space in the hangar. Especially if lynx or AH are embarked too. Get rid of the 'O' boat. I agree with you, it's rubbish.

As for the complexities of flying Merlin versus SK, how do you know? I personally think that although it's a helicopter at the end of the day, the systems do represent a step change. It will take circa 100 hours before a typical crew feels themselves back into the comfort zone.

Whatever the decision, the answer is not Mk3 Merlin. It makes no financial or military sense........
high spirits is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2011, 06:09
  #329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cheers grubber, you've just confirmed what I've been saying along then. Give the chinooks to the CHF.

Marinisation - not required.
Deck space - not an issue
Time at sea - limited
Retraining TWO sets of aircrew - expensive (in money and experience terms)
Lift capacity - better with a chinook for less airframes (which are being purchased anyway)

Why are the RN, JHC, MoD and the Govt failing to see this?
Unchecked is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2011, 07:04
  #330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: on the cusp
Age: 52
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So is the argument buy new Chinook vs. marinise Merlin Mk3? What are the differences in cost there? Is the £0.5 billion to simply marinise the Mk3, or does that include an upgrade similar to MCSP and growth capacity?

Marinisation - not required.
I believe that Chinook would still have to be marinised if it wants a floating home. Marinisation is not just about treating the airframe and folding blades. I'm sure that Merlin and presume that Chinook has an option to manually fold. The equipment fit required for nautical operation (or at least littoral operation) has to be considered. EMC is a massive consideration with the numbers of high power transmitters and highly sensitive recievers on board, what is the current EMC clearances for the Chinook? Merlin equipment is designed to work near maritime radars. What are the current ship handling operating limits for the Chinook? Merlin was designed to be operated at sea.

Deck space - not an issue
Operationally it is necessary to occasionally "lilypad" what is the smallest deck the Chinook can do this to/from if the flat top needs to be cleared? Or if you are involved in large scale SAR.

There are merits to both solutions, to be honest the answer is not simple, if it was the matter would already be decided. I just wanted to express an opinion on some of the negative things that have been said about Merlin and skipped over for Chinook.
dClbydalpha is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2011, 09:06
  #331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why is it necessary to 'lillypad' ? Genuine question. And why can't that be done by the Lynx/Wildcat element ?

WRT Chinook deck clearances and EMC, it surely has them as it has operated from ship before ? Merlin Mk3 has no such clearance as it was not designed to be operated at sea - that was the Merlin Mk1, of which i believe there is about 40 gathering dust in storage throughout the country.
Unchecked is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2011, 09:37
  #332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Old Grubber said: 'Secondly, the problems solved by having one force (RN) operating the aircraft to one set of standards and very importantly managing the logistic support in one way (RN) will increase the availability of spares that are common to MK1 and MK3 Merlins (lots)'......................................So thats why over 50% of the Mk1 fleet are on the ground for spares and snags at any given time. The logistics route is the same for both fleets. AW, DE&S and Defence transport. The only single service logs input is from the supply R&D or gang plank to the customer, with a bit of EMBAV thrown in for good measure. If you have no spares the logs route can be as good as its likes but still won't overcome the basic lack of spares issue. BTW there is only 45% commonality between the two fleets - not really lots - so thats not really a valid point as most of those are not the important 'makes it fly' bits. Lastly Mk3 is hugely complicated due to its integrated systems. Everything goes through two very clever but unreliable computers./ Its a pinkies nightmare when it starts playing up as it can report snags on 'S' systems and not report on U/S ones. I've worked both and SK is far simpler in almost all respects.
Neartheend is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2011, 10:22
  #333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi-Med-Low Mix

Gents,

Various Navies/Marine Corps around the world are arguing that same point about lift, may I suggest that the bits of kit under construction/use were not designed (initially) with current roles in mind.

Why spend billions of dollars/pounds reinventing the wheel when the largest user of maritime ship/shore helicopters (USMC) has this capability in development already;

Home

The original '53 was a good unit as long as the logistical chain and support elements followed it, is any other ML system different?

Just wondering why so much time and energy is spent on adapting a frame(s) that were not initially designed for such when a MOTS systems might be available..

Not built here perhaps?
Flyingblind is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2011, 11:23
  #334 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: on the cusp
Age: 52
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unchecked As nothing ever goes to plan, there are scenarios where it is of tactical advantage, or necessity, to land on something other than your Carrier or LPH. I agree it may not be a high priority requirement, but it is a major advantage in high tempo environments where things have gone wrong.

EMC clearance is not a simple YES/NO. Almost all aircraft will have their limits, and operations will take them into account. Some limitations are more acceptable than others. Merlin Mk3 is based around similar equipment to Merlin Mk1. Therefore the EMC marinisation of Mk3 is likely to be simpler and less risky as there are more knowns than unknowns.

I'm not aware of what the Chinook has in terms of startup/shutdown limits in terms of wind strength and directions and how they compare with the Merlin.

Neartheend As for SK4 vs Merlin Mk3. How do the capabilities of the AFCS, Digi Maps, FLIR, Comms, etc. compare? Not disagreeing with you, sometimes simpler is better depends on your mission requirements.

Does the marinisation option of Mk3 include more equipment common to the Merlin Mk1 update?
dClbydalpha is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2011, 14:55
  #335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MERLINS TO WAVE their magic for the Commando Helicopter Force

It is full steam ahead for the engineers and aviators of the Commando Helicopter Force (CHF) as they make preparations for the planned transfer of RAF Merlin Support Helicopters to replace its ageing Sea King Mk 4 helicopters, which are due to be withdrawn from service in 2016. The CHF Merlin Mk 4 will be derived from Merlin Mk 3 airframes currently in service with Number 28 Sqn and 78 Sqn Royal Air Force at RAF Benson. A small number of Royal Navy aviators are already at RAF Benson and will be joined by 12 aviators and 35 aircraft engineers in the new year.

The planned modification programme for the RAF Merlin transition includes new cockpit and avionics systems, using open system architecture which will ‘future-proof’ the aircraft to keep step with, and enable embodiment of, evolving technologies over the next one to two decades. This aircraft update will be conducted through a Merlin Life Sustainment Programme which will be necessary to address critical obsolescence issues that will start to affect the current Merlin Mk 3 fleet in the middle of this decade.

The new cockpit will be based on the same cockpit design that is being installed in the Merlin Mk 1 as part of its own Capability Sustainment Programme which is currently being undertaken with Agusta Westland and will deliver its successor - the Merlin Mk 2. In this way Defence will see improvements in the support and management of the Merlin Fleet by having common spares for the Merlin Mk 2 and Mk 4 fleets; this will also deliver efficiencies in training for both maintainers and aircrew.

As part of the Merlin Life Sustainment Programme, the aircraft will also be modified to adapt them for operations in the maritime environment. This will include fitting a powered folding main rotor head and tail pylon to enable stowage and maintenance of the aircraft in the hangar of the Landing Platform Helicopter HMS OCEAN - or the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier. The Merlin Mk 4 aircraft will also be fitted with maritime enablers such as a Radar Identification system, flotation gear, Telebrief and lashing points for flight deck operations at sea.

Commenting on the future Captain Matt Briers RN, CO CHF added, “Once the planned transfer of the Merlin Mk 4 to the Commando Helicopter Force is complete the aircraft will be a key enabler in the insertion and sustainment of a Commando Group ashore. This contingent capability will deliver high readiness, flexible, multi-role forces, whether for diplomatic, humanitarian or military tasks; a key capability identified in the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review. There will be many challenges ahead, but the combination of CHF and the Merlin Mk 4 will offer a new direction and increased value for money for Defence”.
Bismark is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2011, 16:06
  #336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Neartheend,
As you say the MK1 fleet are suffering with unserviceability; why is my statement that placing all the supply and usage of assets in one forces area of responsibility going to affect that detrimentally? Don't forget that Benson are not the supply point for Merlin spares, the "Depth" facility for aircraft and components, Culdrose is. The IOS Warehouse is the conduit for the vast majority of "in scope" spares to anyone who uses the MK1 and 3 aircraft and that is in Culdrose. The Transmission bay, MDMF, Workshops, MAWS etc, etc, all exist at Culdrose, as does the RTM Engine bay (which also supplies Apache).
I would take issue also with the fact that the interchangeable assets are not the "makes it fly" bits, come on now, be honest, tell that to the transmission bay!
I agree with your list of organisations involved in supplying spares, but the comment I wrote and then deleted last time (because I didn't want to upset people) would have clarified the main problem (other than lack of sufficient assets) facing the fleets. For reasons I suspect you know about as you seem "in the loop", there is a real lack of "confidence" in usage history and that costs money. Lets leave it at that.
As for the Seaking, she was good though wasn't she!
High Spirits,
The deck parking of aircraft (including Chinooks) and vehicles on the CVS's is standard when carrying out embarked troops operations ("Bored Winter", "Purple Helmet" and so-on), so if they can manage it on a little "through deck cruiser", I reckon the POW could do it and land fixed wing aircraft too! Remember we are talking about a "transit" and unload scenario, for sustained ops from offshore to land you are right, they need to be struck into the hangar. Not ideal but not "hoop" either.
How do I know (re. complexity)
Well mechanically I completed my conversion and taught others for years, including aircrew and have done other Merlin jobs since. So whilst you are right that I have no aircrew experience, I have spent many hours talking with retread and ab initio pilots, who all told me that it almost (and I quote a senior pilot), "flies itself".

Cheers
oldgrubber is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2011, 18:19
  #337 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
O-G,
Looking forward to watching it fly 'by itself' at night, at low level into that dust landing......
Almost as much as I look forward to watching £0.5 billion being prised from the Treasury. (if indeed that is the cost, which seems to be a rumour). The article seems to promise 'value for money'. Hope that includes new engines, tail rotor and main gearbox....
high spirits is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2011, 18:59
  #338 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Commenting on the future Captain Matt Briers RN, CO CHF added, “Once the planned transfer of the Merlin Mk 4 to the Commando Helicopter Force is complete the aircraft will be a key enabler in the insertion and sustainment of a Commando Group ashore. This contingent capability will deliver high readiness, flexible, multi-role forces, whether for diplomatic, humanitarian or military tasks; a key capability identified in the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review. There will be many challenges ahead, but the combination of CHF and the Merlin Mk 4 will offer a new direction and increased value for money for Defence”.
The key word in all of this is clear to see.
Unchecked is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2011, 03:17
  #339 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah, all bar the funding, which has neither been calculated or allocated.
Unchecked is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2011, 05:43
  #340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: on the cusp
Age: 52
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To update and prolong the life of Merlin Mk3 costs money, and gives capability. To buy more CH47 costs money, and gives capability. To prolong the life of SK4 costs money, and gives capability. To not spend money, you have to lose capability. Whether the decision is correct can be debated for a long time. In reality very few people have access to all the costs and capability assessments. But I hope we can agree that it is better that something happens rather than the cheapest option of do nothing and gradually remove the SK4 from service with no replacement. Or is that naive of me?
dClbydalpha 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.