"MERLIN"

[spicycoke]

shortly going to merlin. Does it really have a role or are we creating one for it? Is it the battle field helo we want? Once again are we having hardware forced on us by the politico's? Any thoughts people?

[Big Green Arrow]

Do you need to ask these ?'s here? Are you a volunteer? Judging by your tail-piece it sounds like you are on the 'Swift' Sqn. Why not speak to someone on 28? Sounds like things are slipping right, again!

Cheers BGA

[spicycoke]

Currently many rumours as to the ability of the merlin. Would be nice for a reply from a merlin mate to clarify how the beast is performing. Am a volanteer and im looking fwd to the job.

[bigley]

Don't worry spicey mate, there'll always be a need for a heli to carry Chinook strops!!!

PS we'll do a spelling test when I get back!!!

[spicycoke]

Have you nothing better to do? Mi speling is fyne :)

[BillK]

spicycoke, the Merlin is not bad, a few teething and build standard problems, but it will have a role and is nice to fly. Give us or Tim a ring and we'll happily talk. See you later.

[fobotcso]

Guys (Galls), not a subject to pursue in depth in this public place. If the poster who asked the Q in the first place is a genuine UK military person, God help us! What on earth could his(her) motives be in trying to extract this kind of info?

Read the Red Stuff at the bottom.

[Jackonicko]

Fobotsco,

I'm sorry, but you're being paranoid again. Had Spicy been asking about operational deployments by Merlin, the capabilities or technical features of Nemesis, or about any UORs incorporated for Veritas (an example that's probably inappropriate for this type), then yes, it would be entirely appropriate to raise concerns about security. Similarly, it's probably wise to be careful when talking about tactics, whereas doctrine may be more readily discussed. Surely we should differentiate between legitimate military security (which should be tight, in case you misunderstand) and what is merely politically embarrassing (which the public may have a right to know about)?

I'm glad we're talking about RAF Merlin, 'cos it strikes me that it's largely a programme to be proud of, although there are legitimate questions to ask, as has been intimated elsehwere on the thread.

Look again at Spicy's qs. . ."Does it really have a role or are we creating one for it?" (He's not asking anyone to give details about the role performance, for pity's sake, but raises an issue of procurement/doctrine policy. I think it's great that someone who has volunteered for the aircraft is interested, and think that his motives in asking the question are clear - interest and keenness).

and

"Is it the battle field helo we want? Once again are we having hardware forced on us by the politico's?"

If the aircraft is the wrong one for the job, and if it was entirely politically selected, then that would reflect badly on HMG, and could, I suppose, 'comfort an enemy', though IMHO that's a flimsy excuse for a 'cover up'.

It would seem to me that an element of politicking did go into the Merlin buy (didn't they go for a split Merlin/Chinook 3 buy?) and that Merlin was more expensive than the RAF's favoured option. I often think that where trade/industry considerations affect an order, then some of the cash (the extra) should be charged to that ministry, and not the MoD. Let MoD pay the defence part of the price, and let someone else pay the industrial subsidy!

There's perhaps also a question over the cost of adding AAR capability when we have nothing to refuel the damned things from, and won't have for another ten years or more!

But the bottom line seems to be that it will be a useful type, and is already showing some promise. I'm particularly amused that you think that the evil ones in the press don't actually yet know about Merlin......

And to Spicy, I hope that your new posting at Benson is a happy one, and that you enjoy the lovely country pubs of rural south Oxfordshire, or Berkshire, or Buckinghamshire, since Benson must straddle all three!

[Man-on-the-fence]

Fobotcso. .I dont see your name listed as a Moderator. .You really should change your name to Big Brother.

[Gainesy]

The Army might want to ask:. .Can you get a Land Rover in it? (Ramp break over angle + internal dimensions?). .Is it difficult to walk up the steep ramp in wet/muddy boots humping a Bergen/Gimpy etc? . .Is the side door too high to clamber into easily?. .But its much quieter than a Wokka.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Many years ago, one of those nice salesmen explained to me that the 101 was designed with the capacity to carry "battlefield" vehicles.

It didn't look like a Landrover would fit in there, and he agreed. Apparently it was designed with the Italian equivalent in mind! (Maybe the old 4-wheel drive Fiat Panda)! <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[Gainesy]

Cyclic,. .That's what I heard from someone in the SH world who was at the trials severtal years ago. They used an Italian Army 4x4 which is narrower, shorter and not as high as a L/R. Wastelands PR stuff shows dune-buggy/madmax vehicles--no Pinkys/Dinkys or standard issue L Rovers.. .BTW, it only became the 101 after a typo in EH Industries first press pack; it was really the EHI.01 :)

[Admin Guru]

So let's analyse this. A brand new helicopter that does exactly the same as a Wessex only with a few more computers.. .Can Bill K or Tim suggest that the loadies have a closer look at the size of the vehicle in question. I very much doubt that a new chopper procured for a land rover carrying task will be unable to carry such a vehicle!

<img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[rigid_rotor]

Well I like it.

Its fast and smooth(and doesnt require a trip to the dentisits after flying at Vne). Everyone gets a crashworhy seat and it will go through weather that no other british SH(or many others)can. Its loaded with avionics and is generally pleasant to fly. The ramp angle is significantly lessened by setting an initial step similar to that of the step onto a CH47. Incidentally, what about a Chinook Mk3 with extra fuel tanks as an AAR "mother cow" for Merlin?

Just because its British built doesnt mean you have to slag it off.

Just enjoy it and operate it to its potential. In some (not all!) respects it is more capable than anything the RAF currently has.

r_r

[pltofftaylor]

I'm not sure about battlefield vehicles.... but I know for a fact that 6seater golf carts fit in a treat..... just ask the crew that flew into RIAT and knicked my golf cart.. ."Hey guys.... yeah funny.... I need to go somewhere........ I'm very busy...... guys... pls..... Those paper clips can't wait."

thats Cranditz credabilty for u.

Regards,. .A stressed RIAT holding officer.

ps. Its taken 6months of therapy just to be able to say the R word again without screaming.

[Man-on-the-fence]

Hey Shredder

You weren't responsible for the nice red white and blue sleaves over the cones around the C-17 and the other RAF displays last year were you?

If so I think we've met.

. .Edited for spelling and to wonder where DID all those sleaves go <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[ 22 January 2002: Message edited by: Man-on-the-fence ]</p>

[Muff Coupling]

Spicey,

Aircraft: looks good enough to pull with, sounds better than a Wokka, smoothish and on balance some thought gone into the design (less the ramp and Bergans under the stroking seats!). Cockpit a bloody good stab at a pilots office, EFIS etc, shame about the WX radar, but you might get it later!

Q1 Role: Nearly that of a Wokka. A concept of ops and role will need fine tuning, but expect medium lift Support type tasking.

Q2 Battlefield helo: Not in the strictest sense as it is not a Wx, Puma, SK replacement. That is supposed to be SABR (and SAMR for the Fleet), ie the gap between Army Lynx (BLUH or FLynx if you prefer). But no doubt you will get around the sharp end with it.

Q3 Political aircraft: OH Yes!! Yeovil employment and Paddt Ashdown factor. Very expensive; need hard sell of export version to fund UK units (hence US 101 bid), waiting for final, final and final Canadian decision!!

Whatever is said here..you have got it, make it work, and have fun doing it!

Fobotcso: chill, nothing in any thread here that cannot be found open source. Try looking in Janes Def Weekly, Rotor & Wing (Big spread on Merlin Nov 01), etc oh and MOD UK RAF website!!

[pltofftaylor]

Hey Man-on-the-fence,

Not me.... but I know the man. I'll send him your regards. <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> . .They made great hats at the Hangar Party though didn't they........ awesome, definatly not issued kit.

Don't suppose you have any good holding posts (prefrably with some flying involved) for a soon to be out of work EFTS stude... due to grad in April do you?. .It could be a long hold (fingers crossed, If all goes well on the rest of the course.). .And it would be nice to spend it on a Sqn.

Regards,. .Shreds

[ShyTorque]

As I recall, the 101 was designed to fit into the back of a Landrover.

No sorry, the reverse WAS true but unfortunately it was the old Landie and it would just fit. But LandRover redesigned their vehicle, didn't they, and it got bigger all round. As Westlands philosophically said at the time: "Bu@@er". <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[Man-on-the-fence]

Shreds

Sadly I am a volunteer myself, but give'em a call I'm sure they could stitch you up :)

[spicycoke]

Thanks jackonicko you have understood the q's. Fobotcso could do with reading a little more into the questions rather than going off on one. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[Jump jump John]

Admin Guru - the new landies don't fit, or so the trials mates at EGDM tell us, and i think they probably know, don't you.

Still, don't know how they managed to find time to tell us, what with all that whinging they were doing about pay and such like... :)

[Cyclic Hotline]

I was told about the Landrover problem in 1989, when I first saw the EH-101.

Don't know when they changed Landrovers, or what the changes are.

Those Toyota trucks sure seem to hold up well in Afghanistan! <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[ShyTorque]

Cyclic Hotline,

The earlier little Landies had leaf springs. The later ones have coil springs, bigger overall body dimensions and sit higher.

They were talking about the EHI 01 a long time before 1989, don't know when they noticed the new Landrovers wouldn't fit though. I think the design was already committed.

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Must be something about Benson...

The Argosy (Whistling T1t) was designed to carry the Saracen APC. By the time AW's finest entered service, the Saracen was up to the Mk 2 version and - guess what? - it didn't fit.

I see we are still learning from our mastikes - not.

[Oh I See]

So a Series One Landrover would definitely fit in a 101 then?

[ShyTorque]

OIC,

Not necessarily! But I recall that being part of the original requirement. I know the steep angle of dangle of the ramp was a problem, I saw them trying to winch one in once. I don't think driving one in was possible.

Some of the glossy blurb showed Argocats being used instead!

Underslung is better anyway, it's quicker to load and allows for an instant large reduction in gross weight..