So why are we raising this issue?
Is it adding any value to Defence, the RAF or these threads?
Puma will add value to the Army, and of course it should have been saved from HMT's knife as the next conflict will require air mobility, just as the last conflicts have shown us what happens if we do not have enough helicopters.
As to Merlin going to the Fisheads, get over it and just because our Airships and Blimps have been backward in planning the outflow of our Merlin crews to other cockpits we cannot blame the Fisheads as they would ideally have had their FASH, SABR or whatever it was called many years ago. We got our Wessex replacement they got an extension of service to the Sea King.
There have been many recent studies on the cost of Merlin transition and if for one moment Army thought they could save a Regiment or two by keeping us in Merlin and stopping transition (or by making a Joint Force) they would have done it. Don't forget Army pay for us and also CHF.
The cost of Merlin transition has been proven to be not significant
if the UK wants an amphibious capability and at the last SDSR the current Prime Minister stated he did want an amphibious capability which has been articulated in recent policy and doctrine documents. As discussed in earlier threads I wouldn't be surprised if there were numerous SDSR 'U turns', but I personally think a national amphibious capability is here to stay, therefore so is CHF and Merlin marinisation. If HMG do decide that a future amphibious capability is not required or is too expensive then with carriers not being operational for 10 years plus what will the RN do?
When will the bitter single Service focused people on this thread understand that the cost of ship optimising Merlin is minuscule compared to the overall mid life upgrade for obsolescence-whichever Service flys Merlin it will need investment from MOD and HMT. I would like to wager that those that espouse that the mighty Chinook can do all amphibious stuff haven't actually served on a busy deck or operation for any period of time (e.g. Al Faw), if they had then they might not be so confident in their assumptions. Same goes for Puma 2, if we are seriously planning on routinely operating Puma2 at sea, then I really hope that the LEP includes a marinisation element. One or 2 non marinised aircraft (say AH and CH47) can be worked around and absorbed into an embarked deployment by a majority of marinised aircraft, but if all embarked aircraft are not marinised then this presents a different dynamic, not just from an operating perspective, but I would also suggest overall risk/safety?
And that is just the equipment, what we forget is that if Merlin did not go to the Fisheads and CHF was absorbed into us or the Army, are we in light blue really going to accept a career profile (for all ranks) that includes many months at sea in order to run future ship's air ops, engineering teams, deck marshallers, fire fighters, etc etc? The RN grows those personnel (not just aircrew) through a career profile that takes time at sea as the norm. I don't think that many of us either joined up or would accept in the future regular 6 month deployments at sea. I know that the first time I found it interesting, but by the second time I and Mrs MM4 were less than impressed.
I do find it amazing (worrying) that as soon as we lose a capability/cockpit seats (through no fault or single Service agendas by the Fisheads-but due to HMG and VCDS decisions/direction) that we then start a campaign of negative
PR and information saying the Merlin is too costly or not very capable.
There is no money for Blackhawks, or NH90 or more CH47 or any other new helicopter. I am pretty convinced that DE&S will only accept a core rotary programme of Apache, Chinook, Merlin, Wildcat and Puma. Any helicopter that maintains air mobility and lift for our troops must surely be a good thing, not single Service agendas to try and get the Fisheads out of Merlin by 'eating our own' and trying to scrap Merlin in total.
Comes across as very bitter and twisted.
I think I know why, and it could be because our hierarchy may not have been honest with us until recently and might have created the impression that the Merlin transition was not really going to happen. We all understand that alegedly our senior leadership has tried every trick in the book to not only keep Puma, but also prevent Merlin from going to the Fisheads.
This is the heart of the problem as if we had started honest and open planning for a Merlin transition as part of a wider JHC plan with other transitions then we would not be in the position that we are today where people have only just realised that they will be moving on and it will not be through a career path in the Merlin Force in the long term.
In summary Puma is cost effective and will be in much demand by troops for future conflicts, the cost of Merlin transition is neglible, and be careful if CHF does go as there are many non-flying aviation tied sea jobs just waiting for us if it does, but the bottom line is cutting helicopters of any type or Service is not going to assist future conflicts and the troops we serve.
Can we please stop this very damaging bickering. If we are too busy fighting and focussing on each other then not only will we be disjointed and dislocated for the next conflict, but we will probably miss the real threat which is the next SDSR.