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 13th Jul 2011, 13:53
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Battersea
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CHF - Merlin Mk 4

Just spotted in Hansard - appears to confirm that CHF are to get Merlin after all. Is the Mk 4 then still on course??

22 JUNE 2011 Column 41 W

Merlin Helicopters

Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the RAF Merlin Mark 3 will be transferred to the Royal Navy. [60876]

Mr Robathan: We intend to upgrade and transfer our current fleet of Merlin Mk 3/3a helicopters to the Royal Navy: the first upgraded helicopters will enter service with the Commando Helicopter Force in time to replace the Sea King Mk 4 helicopters, which are planned to be withdrawn from service in 2016.
Pongoglo is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 16:00
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: GMT
Age: 52
Posts: 2,048
Received 163 Likes on 57 Posts
I wonder if that means the Chinook buy has been given the green light?
minigundiplomat is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 19:23
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: England
Posts: 39
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Political obfuscation

I think the key word in Mr Robathan's statement is "intend"...
Nicholas Howard is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 20:14
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wonder if that means the Chinook buy has been given the green light?
Sorry, what is the connection? I am not aware that SDSR linked the 2 events. SDSR told the RAF to handover the Merlins to the CHF - I presume this is all going ahead and the Junglies are filling the conversion courses at Benson? If this is not the case the RAF need to explain why not.

Or is this all part of the Torpy/Anderson "One Air Force" campaign - grow up.
Pheasant is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 20:32
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Er, there is the small matter of the 36 odd RAF (inc RN and AAC exchange) Merlin crews that will need employment ie, if the Chinook order goes ahead then they retrain and assimilate said crews.
If it doesn't, then where do they go?? (and don't say tough luck or make them redundant as that is not a grown up option)
TheWizard is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 21:03
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 463
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Pheasant,

At the risk of inviting a re-run of the of old arguements please read:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...e-merlins.html

hopefully it will explain the comments.
chinook240 is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 21:08
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SDSR did not tell the RAF to hand the Merlin to the navy, it stated quite clearly it's RAF SH requirements for Future Force 2020, which included 25 RAF operated Merlin helicopters along with puma 2, and the existing chinook strength, plus 14 extra.

It was FRWS (published prior to SDSR and a labour gvt strategy) that outlined the merlin transfer, along with a new buy of 24 (+2 attrition) chinooks to replace the Merlin. Since FRWS was binned some months ago, then I think that the door has still not closed on this issue.
Unchecked is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 21:47
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unchecked,

The statement in the RAF bit of the SDSR paper was incorrect and along with an incorrect statement by CAS shortly afterwards was corrected in the House of Commons. No linkage was made to the Chinook order. It is quite possible that RAF crews will be made redundant following the transfer of capability to the Junglies - life in a blue suit.
Pheasant is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2011, 21:53
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Let's just see what happens. I don't think it's over yet.

Ps, why is it down to the RAF to explain why junglies aren't filling the ocus?
Unchecked is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2011, 06:13
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pheasant,
Perhaps you ought to read the thread as Chinook240 suggests..... It might give you a more rounded view of what the issues are for both Services. Throbbing away on this forum will get you precisely nowhere. JHC have the word 'Joint' in the title, not Navy or RAF. It would be politically unacceptable for Fox to reveal helicopter redundancies in either Service. The redundancies are coming (because there will be physically less platforms to fly) but they will be hidden. Prepare for compromise..........
high spirits is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2011, 08:27
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi Spirits,

I have read the thread and stand by my comments. Why you think it politically unacceptable for Fox to announce helicopter redundancies I do not know...he has happily announced 17,000 others in SDSR. The time-frame for transfer is 2015/16 ie post Afghanistan, so no issue there.

Unchecked,

Quote:
Ps, why is it down to the RAF to explain why junglies aren't filling the ocus?
Because the RAF are refusing to allow the Junglies to join the OCUs! What's that about following a direct order?


We all know the RAF are petrified of 2018....why else would Project Trenchard be up and running?
Pheasant is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2011, 09:58
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That's mischief-making bullcrap and you know it.

The navy are going on the offensive on pprune. This must mean theyre about to lose another capability. You grow up.
Unchecked is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2011, 10:20
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unchecked,

I am not in the Navy, so am not aware of their game-plan. My views on the RAF come from their behaviour, the nature of recent PQs, their performance at HCDC hearings and utterances of senior officers at things like Air Power conferences (and the views of more junior air officers who are fed up with the attitude of their bosses).

I do find it intriguing that the one document not revealed to the NAO on the recent carrier strike investigation was the record of the meeting between the then CDS (RAF) and the PM in the final seconds of SDSR re Harrier and Ark Royal when this was not the recommendation (according to the NAO) of the Defence Board....but this is thread drift.
Pheasant is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2011, 10:33
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: GMT
Age: 52
Posts: 2,048
Received 163 Likes on 57 Posts
Peasant

I didn't realise I needed your permission to post. I am very sorry, but as others have pointed out, the two events are connected [least of which is they both involve helicopters].

Som of your earlier posts on this thread seem to suggest you either misunderstood my post, or are a huge stroker of the phallus. Perhaps it is not me that needs to grow up?
minigundiplomat is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2011, 10:51
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: arrrrrrrgh
Age: 55
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
or are a huge stroker of the phallus
Pot and kettle spring to mind there minidumb.

Nice insult though, but what does it say in the rules that I keep being reminded of? Oh yes that's it.

No offensive/abusive posts.
No swearing, sexually explicit or vulgar language.


Whoops, you broke both these rules. Perhaps a bit of editing is required.
Really annoyed is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2011, 10:57
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: GMT
Age: 52
Posts: 2,048
Received 163 Likes on 57 Posts
Even before your post, I wondered whether you an Peasant were one in the same........
minigundiplomat is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2011, 12:22
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pheasant,
A misunderstanding. Liam Fox flamed Labour over the shortage of helicopters. It would be unacceptable for him (and to him) to have to announce redundancies on 'his watch'.
As for the RAF refusing the RN onto the OCF; that is incorrect. The OCF have been running a lighter programme of late for reasons best not discussed on this forum. Find out why before you post factually incorrect comments.
high spirits is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2011, 13:06
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi Spirits,

Fox is now the Minister, not in opposition. What he said before is irrelevant.

Simple question - how many Junglies in the OCF right now? All new crews in the OCF should be RN now in order that a smooth transition occurs - lighter programme or not.
Pheasant is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2011, 13:42
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Why does the CHF Junglies have to be replaced by the Merlin, can't they take the extra uplift of CH47?

They could be marinized at at the point of manufacture, would only need one crew conversion and would give the commando force the lift capability they have been looking for. Everyone's a winner.........
Could be the last? is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2011, 13:44
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pheasant,
There are no 'new crews' on the OCF at the moment..... Accusing the RAF of refusing RN crews onto the course is utter tosh.

It may be irrelevant to you ref Fox in opposition, but it is not irrelevant to any future headlines and accusations of hypocrisy. My point was simply that any redundancies due to fewer cockpits will be hidden in natural wastage as the changeover happens, if indeed it goes ahead as planned.
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.