More Merlins?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Drehestol til besætning' may or may not have no-mates but I can confirm he or she can in fact choose to talk to you if he or she wants to cos that one swivels
And the folk-singer station is not just a Publication shelf/bookcase but a folding publication shelf/bookcase so you can dispense with the books as necessary to accommodate any alternative inflight entertainment.
One thing to remember though ... the Danes are sticklers for good design so for Pete's sake don't let them strip out the Hans Grohe plumbing before they deliver! It's streets ahead of Armitage Shanks!
Requiem,
I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you stand up your claim that the RAF will be getting the SAR aircraft?
I can see three powerful indicators that it is otherwise:
1) The number being discussed is six.
2) There are six TTTs, only one of which (DEN 01, first off the line and the Danish trials aircraft) has been delivered (last Friday).
There are eight SAR cabs (DEN 02-09).
3) Westland say that it's the TTTs.
Unless you KNOW different, of course.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you stand up your claim that the RAF will be getting the SAR aircraft?
I can see three powerful indicators that it is otherwise:
1) The number being discussed is six.
2) There are six TTTs, only one of which (DEN 01, first off the line and the Danish trials aircraft) has been delivered (last Friday).
There are eight SAR cabs (DEN 02-09).
3) Westland say that it's the TTTs.
Unless you KNOW different, of course.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SW England
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whisper I hear from wastelands is that it is the TTH 101s with a lot of functionality inhibited i.e. no worse than the HC 3 why do you think they are being called the Mk 3A.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GARP = Generic Aircraft Release Process. Used to provide Release To Service (RTS) for the Melin HC Mk3, although the Merlin HM Mk1 is RTS'd under Military Aircraft Release (MAR).
They look and work quite differently; perhaps someone else can explain exactly how because I'll make a mess of it!
They look and work quite differently; perhaps someone else can explain exactly how because I'll make a mess of it!
It would be interesting to have an explanation of that, certainly.
As to TTT or SAR, I'll add a 4) to the list of evidence in favour of the TTT.
4) On October 12, the Danish Defence Minsiter, Mr. Søren Gade, responded to a question from one of his colleagues in the Danish Parliament, saying that:
- He had ordered the Danish Defence Command to evaluate the British request for taking over some of the Danish Merlin airframes due to serious lack of British helicopters for operations abroad
- This would only concern the TTT variant and not the SAR variant
- Denmark must receive replacement TTT airframes as soon as possible
- The only consequences for Denmark of such an arrangement would be a postponement of the implementation of the TTT variant in the Danish Air Force
- The implementation of the SAR variant in the Danish Air Force would continue unaffected
I'd call that conclusive.
Nor do I believe that there will be any inhibiting of core capabilities/functionalities, which is why type conversion to these aircraft will be required even for existing HC3 aircrew.
Hats off to the Sun for getting the phrase "Danes saving our bacon" into their Monday story, but with the criticism that they dropped the ball by failing to use the term "Big Chopper".
As to TTT or SAR, I'll add a 4) to the list of evidence in favour of the TTT.
4) On October 12, the Danish Defence Minsiter, Mr. Søren Gade, responded to a question from one of his colleagues in the Danish Parliament, saying that:
- He had ordered the Danish Defence Command to evaluate the British request for taking over some of the Danish Merlin airframes due to serious lack of British helicopters for operations abroad
- This would only concern the TTT variant and not the SAR variant
- Denmark must receive replacement TTT airframes as soon as possible
- The only consequences for Denmark of such an arrangement would be a postponement of the implementation of the TTT variant in the Danish Air Force
- The implementation of the SAR variant in the Danish Air Force would continue unaffected
I'd call that conclusive.
Nor do I believe that there will be any inhibiting of core capabilities/functionalities, which is why type conversion to these aircraft will be required even for existing HC3 aircrew.
Hats off to the Sun for getting the phrase "Danes saving our bacon" into their Monday story, but with the criticism that they dropped the ball by failing to use the term "Big Chopper".
Ed, I suspect that JN was picking up on the previous suggestion/rumour that what is currently 230 would become a detatched flight of 33, with the numberplate transferring to the new Merlin unit.
Rumour control to date has the possible numberplate as being 78, 230 and 825. Any more bidders?
Rumour control to date has the possible numberplate as being 78, 230 and 825. Any more bidders?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being a bit thick here (and I have read the whole of the thread!), but lets just confirm that these new Merlins (of whatever spec) will be flown only by RAF crews conducting an accelerated training programme at Benson?
Is this purely to alleviate the issues raised on Ops and in the NAO report and not the SABR/FASH/FRC (whatever we are calling it this month)? I know that they are all linked but does this mean that the Sea King drivers will have to continue with that airframe for many years to come?
Will it at least free up the ageing Sea King to atleast return to sea in its designed role (ideally WAFUs do the Amphib sea stuff and Crabs do the Land stuff - as we know, not always the case - but ideally!).
However, I do feel a bit of sadness for the Sea King guys that have been waiting and waiting and waiting for something a bit more capable - and now they see us having another slice of the BH/SH funding pie.
Have read this right or is there something that I am missing?
Is this purely to alleviate the issues raised on Ops and in the NAO report and not the SABR/FASH/FRC (whatever we are calling it this month)? I know that they are all linked but does this mean that the Sea King drivers will have to continue with that airframe for many years to come?
Will it at least free up the ageing Sea King to atleast return to sea in its designed role (ideally WAFUs do the Amphib sea stuff and Crabs do the Land stuff - as we know, not always the case - but ideally!).
However, I do feel a bit of sadness for the Sea King guys that have been waiting and waiting and waiting for something a bit more capable - and now they see us having another slice of the BH/SH funding pie.
Have read this right or is there something that I am missing?
Jackonicko
(Extract from AP3456)
Generic Aircraft Release Process
With effect from 1 November 2004, the management of release for all new
aircraft is in accordance with the Generic Aircraft Release Process (GARP) (see JSP 553, Annex J, Appendix 3). Most of the existing aircraft projects retain their traditional aircraft release management procedures (and are now referred to as 'legacy'aircraft). However, legacy projects will, in due course, convert to GARP documentation.
The main changes introduced by GARP include the following:
a. There is no MA Release document.
b. The Safety Case and Aircraft Document Set reflect the 'as flown'
aircraft configuration.
c. When the aircraft is in service, the Safety Case will be 'owned' by the Release to Service Authority (RTSA).
d. Amendments to the Release to Service document are agreed jointly between the Integrated Project Team (IPT) and the RTSA.
e. Service Deviations will not apply under this process. RTS information which has not been derived from a fully substantiated Safety Case is termed a "Clearance with Limited Evidence" (CLE) and is recorded in Part F of the RTS.
Hope this helps.
Each will have his or her own take on this. I twitch at the “as flown” bit, when considered against various benchmark rulings from within MoD. To me, this is related to the “test and declare” status afforded some projects, whereby the trials a/c lacks kit (often Service Engineered Mods), kit does not meet its spec or where kit hasn’t been integrated properly; so the aircraft does not conform to, and cannot be assessed against, the Whole Aircraft Specification (not that many have one that’s current). In other words, it is common for the MAR build standard to be wholly unrepresentative of that actually needed to fulfil the operational role. It is up to the IPT to ensure that all subsequent build standards, of all aircraft in the fleet, can be traced back to the MAR aircraft. This is configuration control, the importance of which is often ignored. Very few aircraft types have such a robust audit trail. More often than not, an aircraft will be deemed safe upon acceptance off-contract (notwithstanding CDP’s ruling that this is not actually necessary, which rather negates the reason for having a contract) but it is quite a different thing to MAINTAIN that safety throughout its life. Again, the latter is often forgotten about, and certainly no longer understood or practiced by many in DPA.
(Extract from AP3456)
Generic Aircraft Release Process
With effect from 1 November 2004, the management of release for all new
aircraft is in accordance with the Generic Aircraft Release Process (GARP) (see JSP 553, Annex J, Appendix 3). Most of the existing aircraft projects retain their traditional aircraft release management procedures (and are now referred to as 'legacy'aircraft). However, legacy projects will, in due course, convert to GARP documentation.
The main changes introduced by GARP include the following:
a. There is no MA Release document.
b. The Safety Case and Aircraft Document Set reflect the 'as flown'
aircraft configuration.
c. When the aircraft is in service, the Safety Case will be 'owned' by the Release to Service Authority (RTSA).
d. Amendments to the Release to Service document are agreed jointly between the Integrated Project Team (IPT) and the RTSA.
e. Service Deviations will not apply under this process. RTS information which has not been derived from a fully substantiated Safety Case is termed a "Clearance with Limited Evidence" (CLE) and is recorded in Part F of the RTS.
Hope this helps.
Each will have his or her own take on this. I twitch at the “as flown” bit, when considered against various benchmark rulings from within MoD. To me, this is related to the “test and declare” status afforded some projects, whereby the trials a/c lacks kit (often Service Engineered Mods), kit does not meet its spec or where kit hasn’t been integrated properly; so the aircraft does not conform to, and cannot be assessed against, the Whole Aircraft Specification (not that many have one that’s current). In other words, it is common for the MAR build standard to be wholly unrepresentative of that actually needed to fulfil the operational role. It is up to the IPT to ensure that all subsequent build standards, of all aircraft in the fleet, can be traced back to the MAR aircraft. This is configuration control, the importance of which is often ignored. Very few aircraft types have such a robust audit trail. More often than not, an aircraft will be deemed safe upon acceptance off-contract (notwithstanding CDP’s ruling that this is not actually necessary, which rather negates the reason for having a contract) but it is quite a different thing to MAINTAIN that safety throughout its life. Again, the latter is often forgotten about, and certainly no longer understood or practiced by many in DPA.
Maroon Man
“However, I do feel a bit of sadness for the Sea King guys that have been waiting and waiting and waiting for something a bit more capable - and now they see us having another slice of the BH/SH funding pie”.
When this question comes up I always recall that the RN “EHI 01” (now Merlin Mk1) was originally planned to have two roles. Primary was ASW, Secondary was “Commando”. That is, to augment what at the time where recently procured Sea King HC Mk4s. Reversion to this Secondary role would have been lengthy, involving removal of the sonics kit (at least) and insertion of seats; also, the Commando variant was to have an augmented secure comms capability. The issue became academic when the numbers were slashed (from over 100). I think the radar was to be retained (the plan was conceived before anyone actually saw the avionics suite put together) as at the time the Mk4s were planned to be fitted with ex-Mk2 radars (very similar to Mk3s). This latter plan remained current for many years (well into the 90s), with the kit held in storage awaiting funding. In the end, DNO gave up on it for good reasons which I can’t mention.
“However, I do feel a bit of sadness for the Sea King guys that have been waiting and waiting and waiting for something a bit more capable - and now they see us having another slice of the BH/SH funding pie”.
When this question comes up I always recall that the RN “EHI 01” (now Merlin Mk1) was originally planned to have two roles. Primary was ASW, Secondary was “Commando”. That is, to augment what at the time where recently procured Sea King HC Mk4s. Reversion to this Secondary role would have been lengthy, involving removal of the sonics kit (at least) and insertion of seats; also, the Commando variant was to have an augmented secure comms capability. The issue became academic when the numbers were slashed (from over 100). I think the radar was to be retained (the plan was conceived before anyone actually saw the avionics suite put together) as at the time the Mk4s were planned to be fitted with ex-Mk2 radars (very similar to Mk3s). This latter plan remained current for many years (well into the 90s), with the kit held in storage awaiting funding. In the end, DNO gave up on it for good reasons which I can’t mention.
