Junglie Merlins
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CS ---yes indeed..we have to live with what we have got..and these days within our limited means....so a complete rethink is out of the question.
The Mk3 was never originally intended to go to 84 Sqn....and the 72 Sqn Flight was a "make do" plan given that the cash (after buying the 14 additonal CH47 Mk2s (and the Mk3s - lets not go there!!!)) only allowed 22 to be purchased in 95- more than 1 Sqn's worth but not enough for 2!
With the downsizing of the NI helo force in 2003, sense was seen and all Mk3s were put on one Sqn (28) to ensure best cost efficiency..particularly as in the early few years of service every Mk3 had to go back for post production modification to fit most of the SH goodies specified in the original contract.
The 84 possibility was a passing draft option during SDR98 when the buying a large number of additional CH47 was a distinct possibility and a thought emerged to replace the yellow RAF SKs and 84 Wessex with the 22 Mk3s (plus perhaps a few more from the RN fleet) modified for UK SAR. Given the budgetary limits in Cyprus it rapidly became clear that any Mk3s in Cyprus would be too expensive and not operationally justifiable, and a PFI style option was gone for...hence the Griffins Mk2s on 84 now.
The triple redundancy was a sensible thought process for 1980s regulatory thinking, particularly for civ ops T/Os from proper HLSs, but see how few have been sold for tha role..none...and the RN specified the idea because of the great number of ASW SKs that had ditched or been lost due to poor single engine performance. The reality is that the design carries at least 1500kg of dead weight and extra fuel usage too. A twin engine version (given that the engines are more than able to produce much more power if required) would be ideal for many roles..and more cost effective...but who is going to pay the mega bucks to design and clear it...no one....and of course it would need a new MRGB..the present one being of the old sun/planetary design (used because of workshare considerations) a la SK....and has too low limits on its input shaft and gearwheels to take all the power the 322 could be made to offer in a twin engine configuration. C'est la vie as they say....If you know anything about the WG34 (the original UK only design to meet the RN ASW requirment) you will have noted yet another opportunity missed.....
Cheers
The Mk3 was never originally intended to go to 84 Sqn....and the 72 Sqn Flight was a "make do" plan given that the cash (after buying the 14 additonal CH47 Mk2s (and the Mk3s - lets not go there!!!)) only allowed 22 to be purchased in 95- more than 1 Sqn's worth but not enough for 2!
With the downsizing of the NI helo force in 2003, sense was seen and all Mk3s were put on one Sqn (28) to ensure best cost efficiency..particularly as in the early few years of service every Mk3 had to go back for post production modification to fit most of the SH goodies specified in the original contract.
The 84 possibility was a passing draft option during SDR98 when the buying a large number of additional CH47 was a distinct possibility and a thought emerged to replace the yellow RAF SKs and 84 Wessex with the 22 Mk3s (plus perhaps a few more from the RN fleet) modified for UK SAR. Given the budgetary limits in Cyprus it rapidly became clear that any Mk3s in Cyprus would be too expensive and not operationally justifiable, and a PFI style option was gone for...hence the Griffins Mk2s on 84 now.
The triple redundancy was a sensible thought process for 1980s regulatory thinking, particularly for civ ops T/Os from proper HLSs, but see how few have been sold for tha role..none...and the RN specified the idea because of the great number of ASW SKs that had ditched or been lost due to poor single engine performance. The reality is that the design carries at least 1500kg of dead weight and extra fuel usage too. A twin engine version (given that the engines are more than able to produce much more power if required) would be ideal for many roles..and more cost effective...but who is going to pay the mega bucks to design and clear it...no one....and of course it would need a new MRGB..the present one being of the old sun/planetary design (used because of workshare considerations) a la SK....and has too low limits on its input shaft and gearwheels to take all the power the 322 could be made to offer in a twin engine configuration. C'est la vie as they say....If you know anything about the WG34 (the original UK only design to meet the RN ASW requirment) you will have noted yet another opportunity missed.....
Cheers
Last edited by Tallsar; 13th Jan 2011 at 23:57.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Up where we belong
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transcript of letter to Mr Edward Leigh MP dated 21 Dec 2010:
Quote:
Dear Edward
At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday 15 December I said that I would look into the point you raised about the transfer of Merlin Helicopters from the Royal Air Force to the Royal Navy.
I can confirm that it remains our intention to transfer 25 Merlin Mk 3/3a helicopters from the RAF to the Navy over the next few years. They will replace the Sea King Mk 4 helicopters which presently form part of the Royal Navy’s Commando Helicopter Force. They will be based at RNAS Yeovilton.
It is planned that these helicopters will be replaced in their present role with the Royal Air Force by new Chinook helicopters.
Yours David
Quote:
Dear Edward
At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday 15 December I said that I would look into the point you raised about the transfer of Merlin Helicopters from the Royal Air Force to the Royal Navy.
I can confirm that it remains our intention to transfer 25 Merlin Mk 3/3a helicopters from the RAF to the Navy over the next few years. They will replace the Sea King Mk 4 helicopters which presently form part of the Royal Navy’s Commando Helicopter Force. They will be based at RNAS Yeovilton.
It is planned that these helicopters will be replaced in their present role with the Royal Air Force by new Chinook helicopters.
Yours David
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Angleterre
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Training Pipeline thread:
Which gives some gravitas to theories concerning the air force losing a fleet whilst Navy SK pilots retrain on a new toy. It also explains why RAF Merlin OCF dates are sliding right with some conviction. However as the future of green Merlin appears to change on a daily basis, this does nothing for a feeling of job security or stability in life for anybody.
IMMEDIATE MEASURES
RW Pilot. Army pilot courses will continue with no change. There will be a small reduction in RN cse sizes however, all new RAF RW courses will be halved in size with students not in trg placed in a hold, pending the decision on how to rebalance the pipeline.
RW Pilot. Army pilot courses will continue with no change. There will be a small reduction in RN cse sizes however, all new RAF RW courses will be halved in size with students not in trg placed in a hold, pending the decision on how to rebalance the pipeline.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mk3 corrosion resistance
The design of the Utility 101 was LED by Agusta but it was not an Agusta only product, the 101 was a true 50/50 design indeed Merlin Mk3 design leadership was WHL only, actually the proper designation of the aircraft should be Westland Merlin Mk3, compared to Lockheed Martin Merlin Mk1 (due to the Prime contracts placed).
The EH101 was designed from the start to be a multirole aircraft, Civil pax, Naval ASW and Utility variants being the big 3. A Mk3 is a UK specific utility aircraft, the Mk3A is a (now) UK modded Danish specific utility aircraft for comaprison.
The spec for Mk3 always stated that operation from RN ships was a requirement for the SH role and the aircraft was designed and built with that role in mind.
A folding capability for the Mk3 was costed for the MoD as an option prior to contract award but was not adopted on cost grounds. Fitting a folding system would not be difficult as all the bits would be 'off the shelf', albeit involving some MGB and head rework. A tail fold would be more involved but eminently do-able. (Actually do you need to fold the tail at all?)
The 'poor' payload capability of the design is caused in part to the inherent crashworthiness capability mandated in the design which is singularly absent in the Puma and Ch47 (which use 1960s rules). The strengthened floor was due to a RAF specific requirement to carry vehuicle inside the cabin which results in very high localised floor loadings, other users have not this requirement and the normal floor is a lot lighter. The floor also allows use of an integral hook (to react the loads into the structure) which was another unique RAF requirement as well. With hindsight it may have been a better bet for the RAF to have specified a role fittable hook and not lose a fuel tank, but I guess the Chinook influenec on having a 'hell hole' to see the load held sway. Other 101 utility users have gone that way.
Remember the USAF retired the C141 due to its lack of volume not its lack of payload, sometimes mass isn't everything.
Tallsar is correct in that MAYBE a twin engine variant would have been a better bet, however my guess is that a twin engined aircarft would have used a slimmer fuselage and that would have reduced the Merlin biggest asset of volume rather than true payload. A different engine to the RTM322 or CT7 would be needed however to cope with the engine out case.
Is triple redundancy 1980s thinking?, isnt the new CH53K a triple engined aircraft as well?
Anyway we are we are now and I cannot see new build Merlin aircraft for the RM being purchased however much those of us in the west country would love to see that happen!
DM
The EH101 was designed from the start to be a multirole aircraft, Civil pax, Naval ASW and Utility variants being the big 3. A Mk3 is a UK specific utility aircraft, the Mk3A is a (now) UK modded Danish specific utility aircraft for comaprison.
The spec for Mk3 always stated that operation from RN ships was a requirement for the SH role and the aircraft was designed and built with that role in mind.
A folding capability for the Mk3 was costed for the MoD as an option prior to contract award but was not adopted on cost grounds. Fitting a folding system would not be difficult as all the bits would be 'off the shelf', albeit involving some MGB and head rework. A tail fold would be more involved but eminently do-able. (Actually do you need to fold the tail at all?)
The 'poor' payload capability of the design is caused in part to the inherent crashworthiness capability mandated in the design which is singularly absent in the Puma and Ch47 (which use 1960s rules). The strengthened floor was due to a RAF specific requirement to carry vehuicle inside the cabin which results in very high localised floor loadings, other users have not this requirement and the normal floor is a lot lighter. The floor also allows use of an integral hook (to react the loads into the structure) which was another unique RAF requirement as well. With hindsight it may have been a better bet for the RAF to have specified a role fittable hook and not lose a fuel tank, but I guess the Chinook influenec on having a 'hell hole' to see the load held sway. Other 101 utility users have gone that way.
Remember the USAF retired the C141 due to its lack of volume not its lack of payload, sometimes mass isn't everything.
Tallsar is correct in that MAYBE a twin engine variant would have been a better bet, however my guess is that a twin engined aircarft would have used a slimmer fuselage and that would have reduced the Merlin biggest asset of volume rather than true payload. A different engine to the RTM322 or CT7 would be needed however to cope with the engine out case.
Is triple redundancy 1980s thinking?, isnt the new CH53K a triple engined aircraft as well?
Anyway we are we are now and I cannot see new build Merlin aircraft for the RM being purchased however much those of us in the west country would love to see that happen!
DM
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DM - thanks for your input re the Mk3...you have elaborated even more than I was intially prepared to go. While you are correct that the original spec called for operation from ships...in terms of permanent operation from ships, as would be required by a "proper" CHF variant, and of course, the Mk1/2 variants, then no substantial measures were taken at build to enable this. As you rightly state we had run out of the cash - in 98 there was a further (fleeting) possibility we could have integrated folding heads in the last 2/3rds of the build at a "discount" price during SDR98.....but this was also rejected at the time given the aircraft's already limited payload capability against that very Mk3 spec to which you refer and no substanial support from the relvant MoD offices who were more focussed on delivering other major issues within that SDR, and it was pre-formation of the JHC. It still leaves the dilema that the Mk3 is not suitable for prolonged operations from ships, and without substantial improvement work...which in itself will prove costly, there will be long term cost of ownership issues, if and when the Mk3s are employed within the CHF role.
Cheers
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have tried, but failed, to resist the temptation to post a link to the "ha ha the RAF has won the RN has lost" thread from last year. I know it makes me a bad person, but hay ho.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...uture-faa.html
Quite frankly, stick it up your arse Crab early gloaters
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...uture-faa.html
Quite frankly, stick it up your arse Crab early gloaters
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ship ops
Agreed that the Mk3 does not have the full suite of mods required for prolonged ship ops however the baiscs (including corrosion reisstance) are there, it is built into the basic design, manufacturing methods and choice of materials.
The Mk1 requirement was operating off 'small' ships in serious sea states hence its specialised deck handling gear and undercarriage (including sprag brakes etc) and automatic folding system.
The necessary ship op requirements for a CHF variant would likely be MRH folding and probably Tail fold, and not much else. Some changes to oleo characteristsics MAY be necessary but unless operations on FFG/DD is required probably not, likewise a decklock wouldn't be necessary. So the actual changes to baseline Mk3 standard are small.
It would seem sensible to me to have the Mk3/3A fleet retained by the RAF but with mods for ship deployment and with suitably trained air/ground crew (i.e make 28 and 78 'maritime SH' sqns with a primary role of shore ops but with the skills and kit necessary for ship deployment IF AND WHEN needed).
As we will soon only have Ocean and Argus left now we really need a dedicated CHF force with all the overheads that entails?, after all AH is still an Army asset but goes shipborne (as do the Chinooks)
DM
The Mk1 requirement was operating off 'small' ships in serious sea states hence its specialised deck handling gear and undercarriage (including sprag brakes etc) and automatic folding system.
The necessary ship op requirements for a CHF variant would likely be MRH folding and probably Tail fold, and not much else. Some changes to oleo characteristsics MAY be necessary but unless operations on FFG/DD is required probably not, likewise a decklock wouldn't be necessary. So the actual changes to baseline Mk3 standard are small.
It would seem sensible to me to have the Mk3/3A fleet retained by the RAF but with mods for ship deployment and with suitably trained air/ground crew (i.e make 28 and 78 'maritime SH' sqns with a primary role of shore ops but with the skills and kit necessary for ship deployment IF AND WHEN needed).
As we will soon only have Ocean and Argus left now we really need a dedicated CHF force with all the overheads that entails?, after all AH is still an Army asset but goes shipborne (as do the Chinooks)
DM
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DM
Careful with that common sense you seem to be displaying, it may catch on! Why can't we continue as we are, cheaper in the short term and just bring the Junglie aircrew to Benson?
Careful with that common sense you seem to be displaying, it may catch on! Why can't we continue as we are, cheaper in the short term and just bring the Junglie aircrew to Benson?
With all the talk of carrying out expensive mods and retraining RN pilots to fly the 26 Merlin Mk3s I've often wondered if it would actually be easier to integrate an SH mod into the Mk1s when they get their planned Mk2 upgrade. Admittedly it may be a bit awkward retro fitting a ramp but the Sea Kings have lasted the last 30+ years without a ramp. We have 40 odd Mk1s, RN crews are already trained to fly them (you will soon have to retrain them to Mk2 anyway so start filtering in the Junglie guys), they have blade and tail folding fitted and oh, did I mention we have LOADS of them?!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to lessen the job that the Mk1 guys do (especially now without Nimrod) but we simply won't have as many ships as we used to. Do we need all of them for the ASW role? Would it be possible to have a role fit sensor suite for the guys in the back and strip it out for Amphibious Ops? Would it be worth having say a dozen of them permanently stripped down for trooping just in case we do one day need to carry out amphibious ops again?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to lessen the job that the Mk1 guys do (especially now without Nimrod) but we simply won't have as many ships as we used to. Do we need all of them for the ASW role? Would it be possible to have a role fit sensor suite for the guys in the back and strip it out for Amphibious Ops? Would it be worth having say a dozen of them permanently stripped down for trooping just in case we do one day need to carry out amphibious ops again?
Mk1 to Mk2 updates
Taken from the Shephard site for Rotorhub
A leaner, meaner Merlin | Shephard Group
it looks as the Mk2 are gear up for extra toops carrying when not used for ASW
"The changes mean that the Mk2 is a leaner machine than its predecessor. When weighed, the aircraft came in around 200 kg (440 lbs) lighter than a Mk1 even with test instrumentation onboard. The rear mission console, designed to be operated by two air warfare officers, has the option to be split in half if the aircraft is required for non anti-submarine warfare missions. With half the console removed, the aircraft can carry 12 patients in the CASEVAC role, over the Mk1s eight, or up to 16 combat troops, with the area previously occupied by the console being used for 'bergen' or backpack storage.
Other changes to the aircraft include a new environmental control system, fast roping equipment and the option of fitting a M3M 0.50 calibre machine gun for use out of the cabin door."
A leaner, meaner Merlin | Shephard Group
it looks as the Mk2 are gear up for extra toops carrying when not used for ASW
"The changes mean that the Mk2 is a leaner machine than its predecessor. When weighed, the aircraft came in around 200 kg (440 lbs) lighter than a Mk1 even with test instrumentation onboard. The rear mission console, designed to be operated by two air warfare officers, has the option to be split in half if the aircraft is required for non anti-submarine warfare missions. With half the console removed, the aircraft can carry 12 patients in the CASEVAC role, over the Mk1s eight, or up to 16 combat troops, with the area previously occupied by the console being used for 'bergen' or backpack storage.
Other changes to the aircraft include a new environmental control system, fast roping equipment and the option of fitting a M3M 0.50 calibre machine gun for use out of the cabin door."
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok - Now that is decided, can we stop now please?
Tourist,
Although I would recommend that you are cautious ahead of any announcement on this year's Planning Round, I am willing to accept that a Prime Minister's letter and the associated mood music appears to be that the remainder of the dark blue Fisheads have actually realised how close they are to losing the Fleet Air Arm and done something about it (too late for their Harrier mates sadly).
Probably assisted by a bit of China, North Korea and now Tunisia all conveniently in the media that could all possibly be spun to show a requirement for boats and helicopters.
I wish them good luck as I certainly wouldn't want to be in the Freak Force at the moment (certainly one that is about to spend long periods at sea in order to be something on the new carriers!) - but if nothing else can we please, please stop fighting amongst ourselves, arguing quite rudely and looking at each other in a funny way over the briefing tables now and accept that things have to change and just move on.
We do have a real enemy to fight you know
If not we will just eat each other up - and lose the mutual trust and respect that has been hard earned over the years where we (all 3 services) have all been in some very sticky situations to support the guys on the ground.
Although I would recommend that you are cautious ahead of any announcement on this year's Planning Round, I am willing to accept that a Prime Minister's letter and the associated mood music appears to be that the remainder of the dark blue Fisheads have actually realised how close they are to losing the Fleet Air Arm and done something about it (too late for their Harrier mates sadly).
Probably assisted by a bit of China, North Korea and now Tunisia all conveniently in the media that could all possibly be spun to show a requirement for boats and helicopters.
I wish them good luck as I certainly wouldn't want to be in the Freak Force at the moment (certainly one that is about to spend long periods at sea in order to be something on the new carriers!) - but if nothing else can we please, please stop fighting amongst ourselves, arguing quite rudely and looking at each other in a funny way over the briefing tables now and accept that things have to change and just move on.
We do have a real enemy to fight you know
If not we will just eat each other up - and lose the mutual trust and respect that has been hard earned over the years where we (all 3 services) have all been in some very sticky situations to support the guys on the ground.
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 15th Jan 2011 at 20:32.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Angleterre
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
June 2010:
I would not start the gloating process just yet. These things change often and the NH90 order was confirmed in Parliament, but as we know is now dead in the water. Possesion is 10/10 of the Law and the green Merlins are yet to have Royal Navy written on the side. We may yet get an RAF that flies and a Navy that sails. The Navy got to keep their Carriers of that they can be pleased however I suspect that at best there will be a Sqn manned by both shades of blue in the seats. We may even get to see a common 'con' (VM) in the near future. SDSR has few winners and much compromise, a trend that I can see this thread concluding with.
However, one piece of good news expected in the (SDSR) review is that the SAS is to get ten new helicopters worth £100 million.
The order for the twin-engined European-built NH90s will boost operations in Afghanistan, where commanders have long demanded more capability to airlift troops. But the Special Forces would have preferred the more expensive US-built Black Hawks, which are seen as tougher and more reliable.
The order for the twin-engined European-built NH90s will boost operations in Afghanistan, where commanders have long demanded more capability to airlift troops. But the Special Forces would have preferred the more expensive US-built Black Hawks, which are seen as tougher and more reliable.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Walter's Ash
Age: 59
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Required - Statement by CAS in Response to PMQ Reply
MM4 is absolutely correct.
I, amongst many here in this HQ, would heartily agree with the plea to stop the current unseemly arguments and disparaging remarks not only taking place on forums such as this, but witnessed daily within Air and Navy Cmds and, of course, at JHC.
Nevertheless it must be highlighted that although it has been nearly 3 months since the SDSR announcements, the senior RAF leadership have done very little to prevent or discourage the line (spin?) that the MOD-agreed and government-endorsed Rotary Wing Strategy no longer applied and, as repeated (somewhat childishly) again in this thread and others, that CAS would no longer allow the transfer of the Merlins to the RN.
Perhaps now with the unequivocal reply from the PM to Edward Leigh's PMQ, asked specifically to help end the unhelpful speculation that has percolated throughout JHQ (and was, reportedly, having a direct affect upon the morale of frontline personnel from both services), it is time for a similar unequivocal message by CAS (perhaps even alongside his opposite number 1SL) which, following on from the Prime Minister's words, lays out how and when the transition of these helicopters and the required training of the crews will take place. Although the detail is likely not yet in place (perhaps due to the ongoing 'sniping') a clear statement of intent with the high-level strategy and initial timeline might be a good start.
With such a statement, it may be that the some of the current broken strands of professional trust and respect that MM4 (and many other link-minded individuals in all services) wish to re-establish as soon as possible can start to be healed. Further public "gloating" (which I have witnessed from several colleagues - some pretty senior) on several occasions since Oct must now stop and positive steps taken to mend fractured relationships with the other 2 services (the Senior service in particular!)
In summary - CAS, now is the time to display real professional leadership and do the right thing. As MM4 so succinctly put it - "We do have a real enemy to fight you know!" - and it ain't your sister services!
H-W
I, amongst many here in this HQ, would heartily agree with the plea to stop the current unseemly arguments and disparaging remarks not only taking place on forums such as this, but witnessed daily within Air and Navy Cmds and, of course, at JHC.
Nevertheless it must be highlighted that although it has been nearly 3 months since the SDSR announcements, the senior RAF leadership have done very little to prevent or discourage the line (spin?) that the MOD-agreed and government-endorsed Rotary Wing Strategy no longer applied and, as repeated (somewhat childishly) again in this thread and others, that CAS would no longer allow the transfer of the Merlins to the RN.
Perhaps now with the unequivocal reply from the PM to Edward Leigh's PMQ, asked specifically to help end the unhelpful speculation that has percolated throughout JHQ (and was, reportedly, having a direct affect upon the morale of frontline personnel from both services), it is time for a similar unequivocal message by CAS (perhaps even alongside his opposite number 1SL) which, following on from the Prime Minister's words, lays out how and when the transition of these helicopters and the required training of the crews will take place. Although the detail is likely not yet in place (perhaps due to the ongoing 'sniping') a clear statement of intent with the high-level strategy and initial timeline might be a good start.
With such a statement, it may be that the some of the current broken strands of professional trust and respect that MM4 (and many other link-minded individuals in all services) wish to re-establish as soon as possible can start to be healed. Further public "gloating" (which I have witnessed from several colleagues - some pretty senior) on several occasions since Oct must now stop and positive steps taken to mend fractured relationships with the other 2 services (the Senior service in particular!)
In summary - CAS, now is the time to display real professional leadership and do the right thing. As MM4 so succinctly put it - "We do have a real enemy to fight you know!" - and it ain't your sister services!
H-W
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the info . As the this thread has developed and grown, it is interesting to note how the tone changes. Obviously inter-service rivalary is alive and well, but at this time where/when we are all being shafted would a bit of co-operation not be more advisable IOT secure a future for us all. Bar room banter is great, but come on chaps, we are supposed to be on the same side. BTW what is MCSP?
Oh and from a grav's pov, when I was on the ground in South Armagh in the 80's and 90's with typical Norn Irish weather it would only be the junglie Wessex and latterly SK4 that would pick us up, our hearts sank if we heard a RAF cab was being sent; we then had to look forward to our yomp back into XMG or Forkhill.
Oh and from a grav's pov, when I was on the ground in South Armagh in the 80's and 90's with typical Norn Irish weather it would only be the junglie Wessex and latterly SK4 that would pick us up, our hearts sank if we heard a RAF cab was being sent; we then had to look forward to our yomp back into XMG or Forkhill.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Oh and from a grav's pov, when I was on the ground in South Armagh in the 80's and 90's with typical Norn Irish weather it would only be the junglie Wessex and latterly SK4 that would pick us up, our hearts sank if we heard a RAF cab was being sent; we then had to look forward to our yomp back into XMG or Forkhill"
If we'd known that at the time we'd have let you yomp back you ungrateful b@@s£rd. What did you do when your precious Junglies weren't there? The vast majority of the humpin' and dumpin' in Norn Ireland was done by the boys on permanent posting to the emerald isle and they were Army and RAF!!
If we'd known that at the time we'd have let you yomp back you ungrateful b@@s£rd. What did you do when your precious Junglies weren't there? The vast majority of the humpin' and dumpin' in Norn Ireland was done by the boys on permanent posting to the emerald isle and they were Army and RAF!!
Did you think you had the monopoly on childish inflammatory statements MGD?!
And the Merlins are still crap.