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 20th Oct 2011, 11:22
  #341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Of course it's not naive - we all want what's best and in an ideal world we would supply our Armed Forces with nothing but the best equipment in adequate quantities for all the roles they are required to fulfill - but there is no money for this so we're fudging along with a plan that makes very little financial or military sense. With that in mind and considering the treasury has committed to buying the CH47 anyway, then surely that is a better and cheaper option than refitting an aircraft that does not require it and losing a wealth of experience in operating Merlin and the expense of retraining those that are lucky enough to escape the inevitable redundancies.

Of course, in an even-more-ideal world, the Navy would sail all of the ships and boats, the Army would drive all of the vehicles and fight on the ground, while the Air Force would do all the flying. If our services were that clearly defined, there could be no inter-service bickering over who should be flying what or land-grabs for equipment from their warfighting brethren.
Unchecked is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2011, 14:32
  #342 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Of course, in an even-more-ideal world, the Navy would sail all of the ships and boats, the Army would drive all of the vehicles and fight on the ground, while the Air Force would do all the flying.
With the risk of thread drift, the above is utter b****cks. Why would the so called
ideal world
make the RAF the Air Operating Authority of choice for operations from the sea? They have neither the will nor interest to be such a beast and is why the FAA was wrested from their grips in the late 1930s and has been the status quo ever since.

Unchecked, the real reason the Merlins are going to CHF is because there is no more money(well certainly not for a new type), Defence has come down on the side of amphibious capability and carrier enabled strike), the CHF are currently the lead operators in this environment, the RN is the AOA thus CHF is to survive. QED.
Pheasant is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2011, 16:51
  #343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unchecked, the real reason the Merlins are going to CHF is because there is no more money(well certainly not for a new type), Defence has come down on the side of amphibious capability and carrier enabled strike),
So if defence is coming down on the side of amphib, why are they not ensuring that amphib has the best possible platform to fulfill the role ?

If the plan is to have CVF as an amphib operations launch platform then it is known that they will be large enough to fully operate chinook from, above and below deck. Chinook is the better option in terms of capability and finance - the budget has already funded them.

If the plan is to take Merlin because Ocean will continue in it's role,which even by the admission of some Dark Blue posters in this forum is not up to scratch, then that's not exactly investing into the best equipment is it - that's just 'making do'.
Unchecked is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2011, 17:18
  #344 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
QED

Of course, if you are going to spend circa half a billion marinising what you have, then you might as well spend that amount on brand spankers airframes for CHF.

If you only plan to marinise a handful of the 28 and save cost then why train up 2 RN sqns when the land SH element can be done by the existing crews from the RAF?

It's cheaper.....QED
high spirits is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2011, 19:22
  #345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If you only plan to marinise a handful of the 28 and save cost then why train up 2 RN sqns when the land SH element can be done by the existing crews from the RAF?
Because all that is certain is that there is an endorsed policy for Amphibious and CEC.....and an endorsed policy to transfer the Mk3 to the RN (and forget what the then ACAS had written into the SDSR book and CAS's SDSR briefing notes cos iit was fiction).
Pheasant is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2011, 20:10
  #346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, I have been following this thread for a few weeks now, and I need to say that most of you are seriously wrong.

It's not less Chinooks to deliver the effect, it's fewer.

Now I've got that out of my system:

I honestly believe Merlin Mk 4 for CHF will be the best solution for defence, and Merlin Mk 3 the second best. It's a great aircraft (I have flown it in RAF service and I'd like to hear those who dismiss it as 'wheezing' describe the performance of SK4!)

Much as my instinctive reaction is to side with the boys and girls at Benson who have made this aircraft a resounding success, if Defence is so strapped for cash and so forgetful of previous NAO reports on helicopter lift that it won't buy enough SH for both the SH force and the CHF then a Chinook/Puma SHF and Merlin CHF makes some sense to me. Also I am an admirer of 3 Cdo Bde, which manages to produce as much if not more in a 1 in 4 rotation as any Army unit does in a 1 in 5 (20% saving potential there perhaps?).

I must correct people who say the Merlin has the same 'footprint' as Chinook - although the dimensions are similar if you look at the area on the ground you need for the wheels and ramp, just have a look at where the rotor mast is - right in the middle of the Merlin, so the overall area taken up by the fuselage and the disc is actually not that much different from the Sea King - Chinook, with its rotors at the extremities of the fuselage needs a much bigger area. Downwash is bigger on Merlin than Sea King, but not as big as Chinook and over a smaller area (BERP affects this).

Also, I cannot agree more with a previous poster that marinisation is much more than just getting the blades to fold. Merlin is at least developed from a programme to produce a maritime helicopter - even if it doesn't use as much sealant as OG would like, there are designs for tiedown points etc as well blade fold, 3 hydraulic systems etc.

I loved flying the Merlin and I hope CHF do too.
Occasional Aviator is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2011, 20:15
  #347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I've been told that a 1* brief the other day confirmed treasury issues with Mk3 upgrade.
Neartheend is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2011, 20:24
  #348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well put post OA, my argument still stands though that if 3 Cdo are to operate from the CVF, it is big enough to accomodate Chinook in all aspects and taking the 14 new and already budgeted frames away from the RAF to the CHF provides them with the best and cheapest capability.

We also love flying the Merlin - hence my opposition to the plan. I'm sure anyone here can empathise with that.
Unchecked is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2011, 20:25
  #349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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

If the 'planned' tranfer takes place what excellent reasons you have just given for moving the CHF to Culdrose under the future basing options project. Now let's see the VL old and bold be quite as quick to want Mk3/4.
Neartheend is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2011, 08:11
  #350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
excellent reasons you have just given for moving the CHF to Culdrose
Apart from Culdrose being a Merlin Deep base I can't think of one valid reason for CHF to operate from there. The first one being no trees or training areas!
Pheasant is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2011, 08:27
  #351 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 80
Posts: 6,379
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
OA - I like your pedantic semantic point - have you noticed in Waitrose the signs to the quick check-out now say "fewer than x items", not "less than x items"
Wander00 is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2011, 09:44
  #352 (permalink)  
MG
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 593
Received 15 Likes on 9 Posts
OK, thread drift: The misuse of less, when fewer is meant drives me up the wall. I only went to a rubbish comp which has ceased to exist but I was taught correctly. I see the misue everywhere, including on adverts when they've had time to correct everything.

Anyway, back to thread: BBC Points West said this morning that the RN were getting the RAF's Merlins. It must be true!
MG is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2011, 10:00
  #353 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 1,041
Received 13 Likes on 5 Posts
OA - a most balanced and unemotive post. Something of a rarity in this thread! MG being pedantic? Never...!!

However, a few comments if I may. The Merlin does "wheeze" if Afg (compared to Chinook or Puma 2) but will be a revelation to the CHF at Sea Level and near ISA temperatures. The Merlin is a huge fuselage and, yes, does have a slightly smaller footprint than Chinook, but LitM is all about punch per deck spot - you may get 5 CH47 instead of 6 Merlin on a CVS in the LPH role but those 5 Chinooks will be packing 40+ marines or underslinging the Viking - and to be frank, no amount of fettling the Merlin engine/Xmsn system is going to get the Merlin there. WRT downwash - I've flown the Chinook embarked and it was most uncomfortable being on the deck with a Mk1 Merlin landing on in front of me - subjectively it was far worse than another chinook; perhaps a function of disc loading?

Perhaps the biggest point I'd make is that nobody was really complaining about Transition when the RAF were getting 24 new CH47s and 30ish Puma 2s - everyone got what they wanted. The reduction in CH47s in effect robs the RAF of an SH Sqn (and the valuable SO1 command position) and may lead to a few pilots being without chairs when the music stops. The reason for an upsurge in angst is the uncertainty over Puma 2; the RAF will be vehemently opposed to losing another 2 sqns if it's scrapped. The arguement will be why pay the costs to, potentially, make 2 sqns of trained Merlin aircrew/maintainers redundant and then pay to convert CHF crews to the ac? What's harder - teaching crabs to float or SK4 crews to fly Merlin? Having gone through the former with the CH47 (and being a graduate of the AOPC) it's probably the latter. Whisper it quietly, but landing a powerful, controllable modern helicopter on 20 000 tons+ of steel actually isn't that hard...took me a couple of sim trips and a day/night qual. Within a couple of weeks we were doing AR5/NVG decks. Don't get me wrong, landing a grey lynx on a T42 in the middle of the Atlantic is completely different - but the essence of LitM is that you're close to shore in calmer waters, flying modern ac off large platforms. Speaking to my CHF mates, it seems that there is a massive gap in deck time for anyone who's spent less that 5 years in the force due to Afg - so there's less of a current capability to transfer. My biggest concern, however, would be losing the senior CHF staff's experience in planning LitM ops - how willing will my fellow crabs be in learning the complexity of unpacking an Amphib group's holds in the right combat configured order?

So the arguement distills to how much Defence values a 24/7 LitM capability and the (hoofing) ethos of CHF to deliver the capability. If the answer is "nice to have" then CHF goes and StOM/LitM is delivered by a TAG of RAF CH47s/Merlin and AAC Wildcat/AH. DRWCS will report soon and, hopefully, all will become clear. However, there comes a point when whatever decision is made we in the military need to come to attention, snap a salute and carry on.
Evalu8ter is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2011, 10:26
  #354 (permalink)  
MG
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 593
Received 15 Likes on 9 Posts
MG being pedantic? Never...!!
Someone has to make up for your gashness!! Shouldn't you be at work today?!
underslinging the Viking
- Not if they let you near it. It'll never get there, you'll lose it on the way.
MG is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2011, 21:20
  #355 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Evalu8ter



Great post - sums up everything more than nicely. Shame no-one else is listening.
Unchecked is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2011, 21:22
  #356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Guidedweapons

And it would appear that with all the apparent press releases just lately, the RN are doing their utmost to fight their corner. Fair play, but I do wonder why they feel the need.
Unchecked is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2011, 22:12
  #357 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 819
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Unchecked
And it would appear that with all the apparent press releases just lately, the RN are doing their utmost to fight their corner. Fair play, but I do wonder why they feel the need.
Because (a) so much of their work is 'invisible' compared to the other services and (b) no one else will.

As a typical example, this recent photo in a national daily shows Cheryl Cole surrounded by Royal Navy personnel beside a Royal Navy Sea King in Afghanistan. It's obvious to you and me from the type of salute but the picture is captioned 'Star salutes with brave troops' and the accompanying article doesn't contain a single reference to the Naval Service although it mentions both the Army and the RAF.


FODPlod is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2011, 22:23
  #358 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm with you on that one FOD, we Crabs can fully empathise - for many years now we've been flying Army helicopters in the press. Even our own RAF News rarely reports on anything we do. My point though is it seems that maybe the RN are bringing the transfer issue out into the open, maybe in a fairly clever attempt to sway any potential decision that is to be made in the future ? I don't know. Maybe the conspiracy theorist inside me is making a bid for freedom ! But SK4 doesn't go OSD until what, 2016 ? Why make the fuss now, when DRWCS is just around the corner ?

Last edited by Unchecked; 21st Oct 2011 at 22:35.
Unchecked is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2011, 22:31
  #359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oh, and i've just read the article - its disgustingly inaccurate.
Unchecked is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2011, 14:34
  #360 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The bit where it says she was flown around by 663 Sqn AAC, the picture of her behind a GPMG with the caption telling us that she is in the cockpit, and the photo of '663 Sqn AAC'. I suppose it is written by idiots for idiots though.
Unchecked 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.