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 24th Jul 2011, 07:01
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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....
high spirits is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2011, 07:22
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"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
engineer(retard) is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2011, 07:42
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Pheasant is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2011, 08:18
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
high spirits is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2011, 09:20
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
MaroonMan4 is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2011, 10:08
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
high spirits is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2011, 10:09
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pheasant
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
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2011, 12:30
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.

Last edited by Neartheend; 24th Jul 2011 at 21:45.
Neartheend is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2011, 14:44
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Unchecked is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2011, 15:20
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.

Last edited by Neartheend; 24th Jul 2011 at 16:01.
Neartheend is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2011, 15:38
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Unchecked is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2011, 16:29
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.

Last edited by Neartheend; 24th Jul 2011 at 21:35.
Neartheend is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2011, 16:46
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nicely clarified - my bad !
Unchecked is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2011, 22:50
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: England
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 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.
4thright is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2011, 08:39
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Northamptonshire
Posts: 1,455
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 7 Posts
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
Old-Duffer is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2011, 09:26
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
4thright. Good summary but a bit short on rumour and far too much objectivity
engineer(retard) is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2011, 10:15
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Mold
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
4thright

WTF! Are you trying to ruin this thread?

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.
xenolith is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2011, 10:32
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Pheasant is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2011, 10:59
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: England
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So when does the Pheasant shooting season begin? Just a few weeks i think! . Guff...is that Pusser's language?
4thright is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2011, 12:15
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Stay with it Pheasant, ignoring reality will often help solve difficult problems.
engineer(retard) 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.