Short term helo solutions - what's happening & what would we like to see happening?
Nurse,
I totally agree with your point. So why did the booties buy such heavy kit? A merlin can carry a split Viking, leaving about a 1000kg for fuel / crew/ armour / weapons - get the point? And a split Viking is hardly a "combat configured load"!! No, the only solution we'd have is either to store the CH47s without blades below deck, or fly them off an Atlantic Conveyor style STUFT.
Either way, far from ideal. But hey, CVF is designed with the chinook in mind, as LPH is one of her secondary roles, so come 2012 there's no problem........
The replacement for Ocean is being scoped at the moment - I imagine that CH47 compatibility is a KUR.
So buying more Merlin on the basis that it fits the current CVS/LPH is short sighted, unless you think they won't get replaced...
Sea King/Puma can still carry a light gun, as long as it's cold outside and you don't want to move it far!! Leave the lifting to the CH47 and the CASEVAC / patrol stuff to the PU/SK4.
I totally agree with your point. So why did the booties buy such heavy kit? A merlin can carry a split Viking, leaving about a 1000kg for fuel / crew/ armour / weapons - get the point? And a split Viking is hardly a "combat configured load"!! No, the only solution we'd have is either to store the CH47s without blades below deck, or fly them off an Atlantic Conveyor style STUFT.
Either way, far from ideal. But hey, CVF is designed with the chinook in mind, as LPH is one of her secondary roles, so come 2012 there's no problem........
The replacement for Ocean is being scoped at the moment - I imagine that CH47 compatibility is a KUR.
So buying more Merlin on the basis that it fits the current CVS/LPH is short sighted, unless you think they won't get replaced...
Sea King/Puma can still carry a light gun, as long as it's cold outside and you don't want to move it far!! Leave the lifting to the CH47 and the CASEVAC / patrol stuff to the PU/SK4.
Don't bank on CVF in LPH role being available to support the Wokka (and certainly not in 2012! CH47 compatibility is a KUR for LPH(RC), but I'd be astonished to find that fitting the size of lift required would be compatible with an affordable ship. Although the spot requirement and EMF issues lead to a big ship, positioning lifts will incur some major cost impacts, particularly wrt deconflicting landing craft, vehicle access and the hangar.
There is no easy way out from where we are. Wokkas are not suitable for sustained embarkation on a ship. I know the Odiham force and the CVS / LPH air departments have managed to do it, but at what cost in terms of airframe deterioration and emb8ggerance? Merlin (Italian Utility) modded up with a sensible transmission at least offers UK workshare, some fleet coherence and a long-term ML future beyond SK, but won't do large lifts.
The issue always comes down to HL. One option gives a compatible rotor craft fleet, but compromises either capability or ship affordability, the other option (53K) would require a very small fleet unless the specialist capability of the Wokka force could be traded against it (which doesn't appear likely).
There is no easy way out from where we are. Wokkas are not suitable for sustained embarkation on a ship. I know the Odiham force and the CVS / LPH air departments have managed to do it, but at what cost in terms of airframe deterioration and emb8ggerance? Merlin (Italian Utility) modded up with a sensible transmission at least offers UK workshare, some fleet coherence and a long-term ML future beyond SK, but won't do large lifts.
The issue always comes down to HL. One option gives a compatible rotor craft fleet, but compromises either capability or ship affordability, the other option (53K) would require a very small fleet unless the specialist capability of the Wokka force could be traded against it (which doesn't appear likely).
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evalu8or the Chinook is not a one size fits all helo actually in my opinion the RAF bought the wrong helecopter in the Chinook and should have bought the CH53 but anyway we're now stuck with them.
Yes an atlantic conveyor solution is an option but look at what happened to her bad luck yes.
The chances of CVF comming to fruition in its full promised spec are zero if it comes about at all and Ocean replacement is a long way away probably after chinook and merlin have been retired so Chinook is still limited. And I would guess that either illistrious or Ark will soldier on for a good few years as the spare LPH.
Yes a merlin can lift half a viking so 2 merlins can lift 1 viking as split loads not ideal but a comprimise or you put the vikings ashore across the beach another comprimise the stuff staff officers of 3 commando brigade get payed lots of money to work out.
Given the UK history of specialised chinook variants I would say the team involved in Navalising the chinook will be extremely cautious and I would also say that given the current round of proposed cutting and financial controls the more cost effective proposal with proven technology and capability will go forward.
Yes a properly navalised chinook based aboard ships capable of supporting it would be the gold plated option but thats not going to happen. My reading is SK and Puma will soldier on till they fall apart hopefully someone will be generous and give some money to replace a proportion of the SK fleet with a naval assualt helecopter and we'll have to muddle through with chinooks as deck cargo just like we always have and on land an updated puma and the HC3 Merlin will ease the burden on Chinook.
Yes an atlantic conveyor solution is an option but look at what happened to her bad luck yes.
The chances of CVF comming to fruition in its full promised spec are zero if it comes about at all and Ocean replacement is a long way away probably after chinook and merlin have been retired so Chinook is still limited. And I would guess that either illistrious or Ark will soldier on for a good few years as the spare LPH.
Yes a merlin can lift half a viking so 2 merlins can lift 1 viking as split loads not ideal but a comprimise or you put the vikings ashore across the beach another comprimise the stuff staff officers of 3 commando brigade get payed lots of money to work out.
Given the UK history of specialised chinook variants I would say the team involved in Navalising the chinook will be extremely cautious and I would also say that given the current round of proposed cutting and financial controls the more cost effective proposal with proven technology and capability will go forward.
Yes a properly navalised chinook based aboard ships capable of supporting it would be the gold plated option but thats not going to happen. My reading is SK and Puma will soldier on till they fall apart hopefully someone will be generous and give some money to replace a proportion of the SK fleet with a naval assualt helecopter and we'll have to muddle through with chinooks as deck cargo just like we always have and on land an updated puma and the HC3 Merlin will ease the burden on Chinook.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks for your opinion NURSE:
actually in my opinion the RAF bought the wrong helecopter in the Chinook and should have bought the CH53 but anyway we're now stuck with them.
I will file it in the big folder marked 'B#####ks I have heard quoted by people with no idea what they are talking about'
The US Forces have a huge supply of MH53, yet the aprons at Bagram and Kabul are full of Chinooks. They must be wrong, Nurse.
The CH47 has the triple hook facility, handy when you want to carry a Viking etc. The UK forces must be wrong, Nurse.
Blah, blah sea upgrades. The Chinook has had a sea upgrade for it's time as 'exposed deck cargo'. It's called regular servicing and a tin of varnish over anything suseptible to water ingress. Lot cheaper!
The exposed deck cargo you talk about has pulled a lot of people out of the clag. I get the impression that you would like to pick Helo's which are 'nice for medevac ops'. Go fly for Essex air ambulance, the Chinook has a huge spectrum of tasks to fulfil.
You are the weakest link, Goodbye.
actually in my opinion the RAF bought the wrong helecopter in the Chinook and should have bought the CH53 but anyway we're now stuck with them.
I will file it in the big folder marked 'B#####ks I have heard quoted by people with no idea what they are talking about'
The US Forces have a huge supply of MH53, yet the aprons at Bagram and Kabul are full of Chinooks. They must be wrong, Nurse.
The CH47 has the triple hook facility, handy when you want to carry a Viking etc. The UK forces must be wrong, Nurse.
Blah, blah sea upgrades. The Chinook has had a sea upgrade for it's time as 'exposed deck cargo'. It's called regular servicing and a tin of varnish over anything suseptible to water ingress. Lot cheaper!
The exposed deck cargo you talk about has pulled a lot of people out of the clag. I get the impression that you would like to pick Helo's which are 'nice for medevac ops'. Go fly for Essex air ambulance, the Chinook has a huge spectrum of tasks to fulfil.
You are the weakest link, Goodbye.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that most of the CH47's on the Ramp in afghanistan are US Army assets supporting Army operations I'm not surprised. the CH53 is used By USAF for SF type ops and the Marines as it heavy transport. Which begs the question If a Naval assualt version of Chinook was such a great Idea do you not think the USMC would already have it and wouldn't be devloping Osprey or updating its CH53's?
Now some of the features that make Merlin good for IRT/Medivac also make it a better platform for deploying troops from as the ability to communicate clearly easily makes command and control at all levels much much easier.
The triple hook capability is great for heavy and awkward loads like Viking but can be worked round or comprimises reached.
Yes there was an element of luck with the Deck cargo way of carrying helecopters. Given the damage the force of the sea can do to ships hulls what effect would a storm have on an exposed helecopter airframe if it even managed to remain shackeled to the deck. And I was always told relying on luck in military operations leads to disaster. Storage in a hangar would seam to be the better option.
Now some of the features that make Merlin good for IRT/Medivac also make it a better platform for deploying troops from as the ability to communicate clearly easily makes command and control at all levels much much easier.
The triple hook capability is great for heavy and awkward loads like Viking but can be worked round or comprimises reached.
Yes there was an element of luck with the Deck cargo way of carrying helecopters. Given the damage the force of the sea can do to ships hulls what effect would a storm have on an exposed helecopter airframe if it even managed to remain shackeled to the deck. And I was always told relying on luck in military operations leads to disaster. Storage in a hangar would seam to be the better option.
Thread Starter
This doesn't need to be a Merlin vs Chinook b*tchfight.
Nor is there any need to 'work around' the Chinook's triple hook capability.
I'll type this slowly, so that some of the Wokkafans can understand.
We need Chinook and its capabilities. BUT we already have 40 of them (plus the HC3s) and what we don't need is an ALL-Chinook, all-heavy SH force.
We currently have a three-type medium lift SH force - Merlin, Sea King 4/6 and Puma, and could and should rationalise on ONE type.
Merlin is the most versatile and useful of the three types, is the most reliable and available, and has loads of life remaining. It does not need to be replaced imminently, whereas the poor olf Pumas and Sea Kings are nearing the end of their lives.
Of the available options, Merlin is the best choice on which to base a standardised medium lift helicopter force, superior to the Cougar and S-92, and smaller, lighter SHs (UH-60, etc) don't offer sufficient advantages to justify adding another type to the mix.
Nor is there any need to 'work around' the Chinook's triple hook capability.
I'll type this slowly, so that some of the Wokkafans can understand.
We need Chinook and its capabilities. BUT we already have 40 of them (plus the HC3s) and what we don't need is an ALL-Chinook, all-heavy SH force.
We currently have a three-type medium lift SH force - Merlin, Sea King 4/6 and Puma, and could and should rationalise on ONE type.
Merlin is the most versatile and useful of the three types, is the most reliable and available, and has loads of life remaining. It does not need to be replaced imminently, whereas the poor olf Pumas and Sea Kings are nearing the end of their lives.
Of the available options, Merlin is the best choice on which to base a standardised medium lift helicopter force, superior to the Cougar and S-92, and smaller, lighter SHs (UH-60, etc) don't offer sufficient advantages to justify adding another type to the mix.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: heathcliff
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And herein lies the argument against the Merlin, listing it as medium lift, alongside helos the size of SK and Puma, while in reality it is Chinook sized with 1/3 of the lift capability and significantly more expensive to purchase and operate.
All of the points raised by NURSE underpin the case to give Merlin to the junglies (sorry guys) and allow us to focus on a smaller, but equally capable type.
All of the points raised by NURSE underpin the case to give Merlin to the junglies (sorry guys) and allow us to focus on a smaller, but equally capable type.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Electric sheep yes i agree with what you are saying. But if Merlin replaced both seaking and puma the economies of scale would make it cost effective and the interoperability would also give certain economies. Not an ideal solution but a fairly good comprimise.
Given the Numbers game how many airframes and how many squadrons would give JHF the capability it needs? and what would the shortfall in crews be if they got all the airframes they needed?
Given the Numbers game how many airframes and how many squadrons would give JHF the capability it needs? and what would the shortfall in crews be if they got all the airframes they needed?
And herein lies the argument against the Merlin, listing it as medium lift, alongside helos the size of SK and Puma,
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merlin Vs Seaking
Electric.sheepy-weepy, don't know the last time you saw a Merlin next to a SK but they're almost identical in size.
Seaking
length 22.15 metres
main rotor diameter 18.9 metres
MAUM 9,750 kg
Merlin
length 22.8 metres
main rotor diameter 18.6 metres
MAUM 15,600 kg
It is wrong to compare the Merlin to the Chinook, it was never designed or intended to be a replacement/competitor for that role. I'd like to know just how "significantly more expensive to purchase and operate" a Merlin is over the Chinook. Your claims lack fact and I'd love to know where or what your sources are. UK SH ops in Iraq would have fallen apart without the Merlin over the past 2 years, and if it is as dire as you claim it is, we wouldn't have any Chinooks in Afghanistan as they'd be stuck in and around Basrah.
Now thats magic, you'll like it, but not a lot.
Seaking
length 22.15 metres
main rotor diameter 18.9 metres
MAUM 9,750 kg
Merlin
length 22.8 metres
main rotor diameter 18.6 metres
MAUM 15,600 kg
It is wrong to compare the Merlin to the Chinook, it was never designed or intended to be a replacement/competitor for that role. I'd like to know just how "significantly more expensive to purchase and operate" a Merlin is over the Chinook. Your claims lack fact and I'd love to know where or what your sources are. UK SH ops in Iraq would have fallen apart without the Merlin over the past 2 years, and if it is as dire as you claim it is, we wouldn't have any Chinooks in Afghanistan as they'd be stuck in and around Basrah.
Now thats magic, you'll like it, but not a lot.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we need chinooks? Absolutely! Do we need a merlin sized aircraft? thats debatable. Yes it has done a sterling job in iraq, but it a very expensive cab to be a bus around MND SE. Do we need a puma sized aircraft, yes! The puma has been performing fantastically for years now. It looks certain like the upgrade is going to happen which is going to be a huge improvement in terms of lift and endurance
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we need chinooks? Absolutely! Do we need a merlin sized aircraft? thats debatable. Yes it has done a sterling job in iraq, but it a very expensive cab to be a bus around MND SE. Do we need a puma sized aircraft, yes! The puma has been performing fantastically for years now. It looks certain like the upgrade is going to happen which is going to be a huge improvement in terms of lift and endurance
Based on the fact that a Puma HASBEEN performing fantastically for years then is that enough to satsify the current requirements for more helicopters?
and even if and when it does get it's new engines do you really believe it will get a 'huge' improvement in terms of lift and improvement? I agree any is better than none but we are still not talking anywhere much above 1500 Kg at most for any useful distance.As for the Merlin being an expensive cab to bus around MND SE, yes you could say that, but what is the alternative if it wasn't there? Is a Chinook any cheaper? Are there enough serviceable Sea Kings around? Well, not now they are off elsewhere. Don't even pretend a Puma could move the same amount of personnel around in the same time frame. Perhaps for the daily mail run but thats about it. Ask the GOC and his Commanders which aircraft they have asked for time and time again?
4000 or so troops for RiP in anything smaller than a Merlin/Chinook would take about three months not three weeks.
The bottom line is that there is a requirement for both MSH and LSH and we can bleat/moan/argue/debate/reason till the cows come home and it will not make a blind bit of difference. Unless of course any of the Ministry or CAS are contrubuting to this thread and are getting a feeler for what is required but then again they told the media we recieved a 9.2% payrise this year
ps before anyone thinks this is another willy waving competition, I have many hours on Puma and Merlin so I can comment on both, unlike some!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Based on the fact that a Puma HASBEEN performing fantastically for years then is that enough to satsify the current requirements for more helicopters? and even if and when it does get it's new engines do you really believe it will get a 'huge' improvement in terms of lift and improvement? I agree any is better than none but we are still not talking anywhere much above 1500 Kg at most for any useful distance.
In terms of effectiveness the Puma upgrade works in terms of timescale and cost.
As for the Merlin being an expensive cab to bus around MND SE, yes you could say that, but what is the alternative if it wasn't there? Is a Chinook any cheaper?
Ask the GOC and his Commanders which aircraft they have asked for time and time again?
4000 or so troops for RiP in anything smaller than a Merlin/Chinook would take about three months not three weeks.
4000 or so troops for RiP in anything smaller than a Merlin/Chinook would take about three months not three weeks.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "gold standard" could have more than doubled the lift capability of the Puma fleet
However, it does not increase the physical dimensions of the cabin by a 'huge' amount, so roughly the same amount of freight/pax can be carried a bit further.
Also, a "useful distance" in Iraq is not really that far. There are enough refuels available everywhere necessary and if loiter time is what's required then you are using the wrong cab on so many levels...
However, we are not talking just about Iraq are we, this is about the future of SH?
Yes, because you would not need to replicate the support chain for a different type. No idea about per-hour costs though.
So roulement out some Chinooks/Merlins for the RiP just as we did in NI.
You're also making more of a pro-Chinook argument here as they can carry more
That, or Mi-26...
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would it be wrong to think in terms of:
RAF = Heavy = Chinook
FAA = Medium = Merlin (all roles)
Army = Light/Attack = LUH/AH
Single type hubbing and streamlining with a comprehensive golf bag for ops.
RAF = Heavy = Chinook
FAA = Medium = Merlin (all roles)
Army = Light/Attack = LUH/AH
Single type hubbing and streamlining with a comprehensive golf bag for ops.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Hook, Hants
Age: 68
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm late to this 'debate' - but here's a couple of points/observations:
1. Yes we need a mixed fleet in size/lift terms - but are forever rammed into a 'one size fits all' sitch by the usual financial constraints - hence the perpetual w*lly waving by all the different operators.
2. The 53 is only worth consideration in it's 3 engine guise (do they still make them with only 2 engines?) - and then it's a class above the Chinook (in size/lift/complexity terms). It's also something I would not personally like to load fully and then hoof into a hot LS in.
3. Viking is a single point lift, but a trifle porky for anything we currently have on the inventory - perfect for a 53E from a deck to somewhere close and 'cool'
4. I'm biased against tailrotors in terms of vulnerability/waste of power - but that's my personal problem, and I'm neither making the decisions nor holding the purse strings!
1. Yes we need a mixed fleet in size/lift terms - but are forever rammed into a 'one size fits all' sitch by the usual financial constraints - hence the perpetual w*lly waving by all the different operators.
2. The 53 is only worth consideration in it's 3 engine guise (do they still make them with only 2 engines?) - and then it's a class above the Chinook (in size/lift/complexity terms). It's also something I would not personally like to load fully and then hoof into a hot LS in.
3. Viking is a single point lift, but a trifle porky for anything we currently have on the inventory - perfect for a 53E from a deck to somewhere close and 'cool'
4. I'm biased against tailrotors in terms of vulnerability/waste of power - but that's my personal problem, and I'm neither making the decisions nor holding the purse strings!
To quote a hackneyed phrase "we are where we are"
Yes, the decision to purchase Merlin in 1995 was flawed militarily, and has resulted in more money being spent on less "Chinook Equivalents" (which is what the purchase was framed in). More money as there was the need to establish and maintain a bespoke infra-structure to maintain a marginal fleet size of 22 aircraft. Remember, we were originally going to use a handful of Merlin to replace Walter on 72 (and spent a lot of money changing JHFNI to support it) and we weren't getting shot at as much in 1995!
So we have the Merlin, get over it! With the decision to go commercial with SAR the last best chance at palming it off has gone. It's here to stay. And, it is doing a damn good job in Iraq - hats off to 28!
However, does this mean that we need to repeat our mistakes? Merlin is a lot bigger than a Puma (esp in downwash terms) and is therefore ill-suited to a lot of the smaller, more "intimate" LS that are Lx/Pu optimised.
Keep 28 going as long as the fleet is sustainable, but purchase a smaller utility helicopter (such as EC-725) which can do pretty much all a Merlin can for a smaller footprint.
And get AW to build us some "F" model Chinooks!!
Yes, the decision to purchase Merlin in 1995 was flawed militarily, and has resulted in more money being spent on less "Chinook Equivalents" (which is what the purchase was framed in). More money as there was the need to establish and maintain a bespoke infra-structure to maintain a marginal fleet size of 22 aircraft. Remember, we were originally going to use a handful of Merlin to replace Walter on 72 (and spent a lot of money changing JHFNI to support it) and we weren't getting shot at as much in 1995!
So we have the Merlin, get over it! With the decision to go commercial with SAR the last best chance at palming it off has gone. It's here to stay. And, it is doing a damn good job in Iraq - hats off to 28!
However, does this mean that we need to repeat our mistakes? Merlin is a lot bigger than a Puma (esp in downwash terms) and is therefore ill-suited to a lot of the smaller, more "intimate" LS that are Lx/Pu optimised.
Keep 28 going as long as the fleet is sustainable, but purchase a smaller utility helicopter (such as EC-725) which can do pretty much all a Merlin can for a smaller footprint.
And get AW to build us some "F" model Chinooks!!