Junglie Merlins

[Evalu8ter]

No need for ASAC any more; the new Entente Cordiale with the French means we'll embark their far more capable E2. Pas de problem!

Merlin to CHF? Machinations abound. It will be nothing to do with capability and all to do with command positions and perceived "slice of the pie".

[Aynayda Pizaqvick]

If you are able to look outside the Jungly force for a moment you will see that High Spirits solution at least provides an overall increase in SH capability when compared to either leaving the Mk3s where they are or simply just moving them over to the Jungly Force.
If we are gonna have marinised Merlins lying about then lets use them!

[draken55]

Daft question from a non-rotorhead but as Merlin started off as a Naval design, did the RAF de-marinise their aircraft? As the Danish and Japanese cabs are as likely to be flown over the oggin as land, what parts have they changed and why. Please ignore the folding tail and beefed up floor in replies

[Tallsar]

DM - Bit late getting back to you...real world interevened - soz!

The points re some of the avantages of the MK3 design are indeed desirable attributes ....but that wasn't the point of my post.

That said, in SH, lift capacity is the name of the game in whatever form it appears.....outload capacity and the times associated can be critical to success, even more so if there are a limited number of deck spots, and therefore a limited number of aircraft available within the sort of littoral scenarios that the CHF is primarily there for. Furthermore, the reliability and availability of those cabs becomes a very significant factor too.

For the very strapped for cash UK.....the wisest options should never be dismissed for the sake of pursuing shiney new technology that does not neccessarily bring any substantial operational improvements against the essential spec, or cost effective improvements to the game. Is this the case for the Mk3/3a fleet.....on balance, I don't think there are any other practical options or choices, and clearly as a much more modern design it has many attributes that appeal......

The point of my post was merely to set people thinking and see what might be within the art of the possible and what might result. A fully Carson capable SK4 would be an impressive beast for the costs involved - and hence the major US investment in the S61T - and including the costs of ownership if the right processes are employed...and the Merlin 3 has its attributes too for sure. Sadly one of them is not a high payload margin when prepared for combat and with adeqaute fuel ...and its present reputation for low availability and high maintainance leaves a lot to be desired...its an expensive ac to operate at the moment..and this needs sorting above all else - particularly for the UK.

Given the UK SH fleet is to be reduced significantly by the withdrawal of the SK4s and a reduced CH47 buy, along with smaller Puma and Lynx fleets..there are no winners in this game and there will always be argument over how best to spend the money we do have. Given a different universe...many of us would not buy Merlin as a first choice to provide general SH capablity given the other options available. To me, in these circumstances, arguing over who should fly the Mk3s and which colour scheme they should have is tantamount to fiddling while Rome burns.

Cheers

[the funky munky]

From what I have gathered after chatting to the CHF boys n girls and various Merloids, the Mk3 came non-wet built so they fizz when at sea or even on land. They also don't have lashing points to stop them rolling over on board, there are also issues with maintenance at Eagle bases as the plastic pigs will not have staging to climb up.

The one thing that really worries me and always has is the fact they are composite, I recall attending the ASIC where the MASU repair office gave a lecture about the repair carried out to the Mk3 in Iraq. That is all I will say on that matter.

Yes the original 101 was a Naval design, but the MoD faffed about so much with the requirement that essentially the Mk3 is not a 101 anymore. The Japanese cabs are fully marinised so no problems. As for the Danish ones no freaking idea!
As for ignoring the folding tail and beefed up floor it's more fundamental than that. The Mk3 head doen't fold so along with the non-folding tail it means the cab can't be struck. Also the BERP4 heads can't fold and that is what the Merlin really, really needs.

[RTM]

funky munky,
The composite issue has not really been an 'issue' in practice. Or to be more accurate, like most airframes, it depends on where the damage occurs - despite the composite elements the Merlin is not all that unconventional in the way it is put together. MASU may have had a little more experience on the aircraft since...

I agree that if we were starting from scratch we probably wouldn't start with Merlin (either SH or possible CHF variety) but remember that there are still many aircrew and engineers from Course 1 still on the fleet - it is only human nature that they try to defend both the aircraft and the work they have done in the preceding 10 years and not relinquish them without even a whimper. Not of course that anything any of us on here say will make any difference either way!

Whoever ends up operating the aircraft and in whatever mod state, the basics are that: It is fundamentally a good helicopter, It has an already high APS, serviceability poor at home due to support issues, serviceability in theatre better than most. Excellent survivability, could do with more power. Now no realistic upgrade (in RAF or CHF format) is going to address this, so the status quo will remain.

And if the answer to all our SH woes is pure life, isn't the answer Mi-26?

[MaroonMan4]

I think I can see which posts on this thread have Wastelands input written all over them in a desperate bid to get some business.

Huge big assumptions and big holes if you scratch the surface on this suggestion ultimately benfitting only one party, Wastelands. But I am not surprised after being propped up by the MoD for many years and now being forced to be more competitive and realistic in their costings.

Back to the thread - if we do lose our new CH47s then the only way forward is a Joint Helicopter Force - CH47, Merlin and AH. We will go beyond the point of 3 single service viability.

We have been too busy fighting each other to realise what has happened, too little too late, and because we have been too busy trying to stop the Fisheads from getting their grubby mits on the Freaks, we have assumed that our sacred CH47s were a signed and sealed contract.

[high spirits]

JunglyDaz,
If IRR is MCT then consider that roping is currently off limits and you virtually have no capability any way.....
12 ac not enough to sustain one Sqns worth of amphibious capability? The current CHF plan divides the 25 Merlin Mk3 by 3 Sqns - 8-9 ac per Sqn...... Your figures, not mine. 2/3rds in depth, no, about 1/3 actually. 1/3 of the Mk3 Fleet or maybe slightly less is 'S' to fly on any given day(I include the Herrick Stats in that). CHF will shortly only have one platform to fly off, so why the need for more than one Sqn? That Sqn will as likely as not deploy onto the ship with a backup heavylift of CH-47 anyway, as Sierra Leone and GW2 proved.

Finally, at roughly £10,000 an hour to operate, and assuming 100 hours per crew to get you converted and competent on the ac - it's going to cost the taxpayer £42 million worth of flying hours. This is bought and paid for under AFT. However, it does not include travel and accommodation, simulator time, and I haven't even begun on a similar calculation to train the 35 Merlin crews on CH-47, if we get it(which I doubt). And it doesn't include re-training of maintainers or marinisation. Why the plan for the remaining ready marinised Mk1 airframes has not been looked at is staggering to me
Expensive eh?

[engineer(retard)]

If it is correct that the Mk3 is not wet build then it would be cheaper to build a new cab. To my simple mind, to achieve the required level of environmental protection while maintaining the bonding paths around the aircraft on an aircraft that was not designed for that purpose looks like a bag of frogs.

[draken55]

"the original 101 was a Naval design, but the MoD faffed about so much with the requirement that essentially the Mk3 is not a 101 anymore. The Japanese cabs are fully marinised so no problems"

"after chatting to the CHF boys n girls and various Merloids, the Mk3 came non-wet built so they fizz when at sea or even on land. They also don't have lashing points to stop them rolling over on board"

Question then is why the MOD faffed even more by choosing to de-marinise the MK3. Is this yet another problem of our own making? The Italians and Japanese have a versatile platform for both land and sea ops. We have a cab that can do the former but now needs to be re-marinised to work at sea

[engineer(retard)]

draken

Possibly a trade off. E3 protection is much easier to achieve with dry assembly. Shackle points and folding mechanisms all add weight and structural complexity.

I'm not taking sides on this but if I was CHF, I would not expect to see the cabs for years due to re-work.

regards

retard

[tucumseh]

Question then is why the MOD faffed even more by choosing to de-marinise the MK3. Is this yet another problem of our own making?

When debating this point, always bear in mind the original endorsement was for 100+ Dual Role Merlins - ASW and HC; the latter to augment the SK4 fleet, not replace it. (An implicit acknowledgment in 1984-ish that we lacked troop lift). Memory fades, but it was at least 103, maybe 108; formally announced and equipment contracts let early (practice of the day and why the Mk1 needed a partial avionics upgrade before ISD - which I'm not sure it got).

The HC buy was cancelled by Tories and the RN only got the ASWs. Then they turned down Merlin for the AEW upgrade.

The RAF requirement was entirely separate and it was presumably they who did not include marinisation; which may have been deliberate or just a case of the SOIU just not including it. The subject would almost certainly have been raised by Westland for clarification.

[Norfolk Inchance]

If IRR is MCT then consider that roping is currently off limits and you virtually have no capability any way.....
12 ac not enough to sustain one Sqns worth of amphibious capability? The current CHF plan divides the 25 Merlin Mk3 by 3 Sqns - 8-9 ac per Sqn...... Your figures, not mine. 2/3rds in depth, no, about 1/3 actually. 1/3 of the Mk3 Fleet or maybe slightly less is 'S' to fly on any given day(I include the Herrick Stats in that). CHF will shortly only have one platform to fly off, so why the need for more than one Sqn? That Sqn will as likely as not deploy onto the ship with a backup heavylift of CH-47 anyway, as Sierra Leone and GW2 proved.

Finally, at roughly £10,000 an hour to operate, and assuming 100 hours per crew to get you converted and competent on the ac - it's going to cost the taxpayer £42 million worth of flying hours. This is bought and paid for under AFT. However, it does not include travel and accommodation, simulator time, and I haven't even begun on a similar calculation to train the 35 Merlin crews on CH-47, if we get it(which I doubt). And it doesn't include re-training of maintainers or marinisation. Why the plan for the remaining ready marinised Mk1 airframes has not been looked at is staggering to me
Expensive eh?


High Spirits,
your point seems logical. Would it not therefore also be logical to:

1. Leave the Mk3 Merlin with 28 Sqdn
2. Scrap the Mk4 SK
3. Enlargen the lifts on Ocean to enable chinny to be hangared
4. Give CHF new CH47

You would save money by:

1. Having to train a smaller amount of personnel
2. Not throw money at an unproven conversion plan i.e Marinising Merlin
3. Buying off-the -shelf will always be the cheapest option when dealing in relatively small amounts
4. Might even be able to flog off the Mk4's to some dodgy developing country

[Footnote]

'Finally, at roughly £10,000 an hour to operate, and assuming 100 hours per crew to get you converted and competent on the ac - it's going to cost the taxpayer £42 million worth of flying hours.'

I appreciate that this is a rumour network, but if you make statements like that they need to be supported by fact. As an ex SK4 driver who has completed a Merlin 3 conversion course (8 hrs sim, 5 hrs flying) I can categorically state that 100hrs is absolute tosh. We are not talking about ab initio pilots, they have the all the skills of a (operational) SH pilot already. Conversion from one RW type to another is not an expensive or complicated process, particularly when it is the same role.

I believe that closer to 20 hrs per crew is more realistic.

[high spirits]

Norfolk,
Yep, agreed but I think that the CH47 buy may be under threat by the beancounters now aswell. It still does not excuse potentially scrapping or selling 8-12 airframes that are ready marinised though. The junglies should have got something akin to CH-47, or 53 in the first place.

Junglydaz - sorry, to clarify a point. Roping is currently off limits to Merlin Mk3 due to the frame. I didn't make that very clear.

Footnote,
You misread. I said to get converted AND competent. Conversion could be as much or as little as you suggest. Flying and fighting the ac is different. Corporate knowledge will stop you going down the wrong line of the monster FRC wiring diagram when the weather is sh*t, and its very dark and you are grobbling around below the icing cloud. It will enable you to make sensible captaincy decisions. You will have a good knowledge of the management computers and their menu structure. It will stop you going into an unusual attitude as you launch off the O-Boat into the inky black. 50 hours in the handling role and 50 hours as a non-handler is not unreasonable for full warfighting competency - even for a second or third tourist, trust me I've been there. The Merlin Mk3 has a lot of quirks, and going out to Helmand during the summer with your 8 hours of conversion flying would not stand you in great stead, believe me....

[Hilife]

So, we have a dry built, non-marinised platform, without a folding head or tail, which the CHF does not currently operate, but wants to take from the RAF - who has all the on-type trained flight crews and engineers – to replace their ageing Sea King Mk4 fleet.

The platform in question has since day one been plagued with very high un-serviceability rates and requires huge amounts of maintenance costs (reputedly more than twice that of the CH47) and yet only able to carry half the amount of external load at sea level (let’s not look at high density altitudes) or fully equipped troops.

As has been noted, it is already lacking in performance and offers a poor useful load – particularly at H&H OPS – yet in marinising it; the beast will get even heavier still. To regain these losses would likely require more powerful engines, which in turn would likely require a main transmission redesign and procurement........when does the good news come.

Let’s face facts. We purchased the wrong cab for the right reasons (UK jobs), but now the joke is over.

Terminate the Mk3 to Mk4 upgrade and look to sell the Mk3’s to a third party or remove from service when the LEP is due and run a competition to buy a battle proven, off-the-shelf, marinized utility platform that is NOT a bespoke solution for the Royal Navy, the RAF or the AAC even, but does 90% of what you want, as it is the last 10% that is always the killer cost wise.

When you have identified the off-the-shelf and combat proven solution, nail the manufacturer down to a through-life support program with high margin availability guarantees (anywhere in the world) and have them share the risk (say 50/50 in the per flight hour cost over-runs) if they are so confident in their product.

As I see it, the Mk3 for the Royal Navy just does not make financial or operational sense (nor for the RAF in the long term) and although noting the lack of funds in the kitty in these austere times, a mixture of ingenious financing (even for a military platform), termination of the Merlin Mk3 LEP and through life cost savings should offset a major part (if not even save money) of a new platform buy and with the Sea King leaving and transition of the Mk3 to the RN the plan, much of the new to type and additional crew/engineer training argument can be countered.

Let’s face it guys, the Merlin has been a bad buy and we are just throwing good money after bad, so less of the problem and more of the solution for an armed forces that needs to identify major cost savings - not just for today, but for its very future.

And all this before my Sunday bacon sarnie........just think what I could propose after a bottle of Pusser’s.

[Vie sans frontieres]

Footnote

Converted and competent. 8 hours sim, 5 hours flying. You may be awesome but mere mortals need a bit more than that chum.

[Finnpog]

????

This thread has got me a tad confused - and that is before either a Full English breakfast or a tot of rum.

There seems to be wide agreement that the CH47 is broadly the right answer, unfortunately no one is asking the right question.

I don't necessarily agree that the CHF would choose the have the green Merlins from the light blue element of UK Defense Forces, I think that they are just seeking a decent upgrade from the SK4s.

The Italians seem to have specced an appropriate amphibious 101. The crime is that we clearly had no one with the mental capacity at senior level to have drawn up one specification hocoplicter that could work easily across all SH environments.

It seems a common sense idea (it will never happen) to re-role any spare grey Merlins to the CHF, but that doesn't address the capacity issues even if it may seem better than going through the pain of taking the 3s from the air force or 'asking' a chunk of the RAF crews to travel across with them, perhaps pulling in an All Arms Commando Course on the way, just for the craic.

I do foresee another cunning, money saving and deeply scoped option from the MOD to attempt to "pluck low hanging fruit" ... Why not re-role the Pumas?

Alternatively the best of Joint Force Rivet Joint could be adopted and have Hornblower RN send some crews Tiltrotor-side (rather than just F/A-18)

[dangermouse]

incorrect assumptions

Hilife et al

please explain why the Mk3 isn't marinised?

The Merlins are all wet built, along with every other 101 as that is the default construction method, foldable MRH is available off the shelf, MGB has folding provisions blanked off, flotation gear is role fit, as are picketing points, MRB are foldable...what else do you need? (remember the shipborne requirement written for the aircraft?)

I know its flogging a dead horse to some posters here but 1990s survivbility costs weight, the SK doesn't have it, neither does the Lynx, Puma (Mk1 or Mk2) or Ch47, only one utility aircaft in UK service does, but I guess 'duty of care' isnt really that importnat

In theatre isnt the Merlin giving as good reliability as the CH47? in terms of mission readiness, or is that urban myth as well (like the 'mini' landrover 80ll0x spread earlier).

Draken, in a way you are correct in that the very original requirement was naval driven (RN and MMI SK replacement), however the design as built is a multirole aircraft that has naval usage as one string to its bow, the statement 'the original 101 was a Naval design, but the MoD faffed about so much with the requirement that essentially the Mk3 is not a 101 anymore. The Japanese cabs are fully marinised so no problems' is incorrect.

The basis of the 101 design concept (uniquely) is that you have a core airframe with packages fitted to it to change the variant, hence most of the bits on all 101 are common and changes can be made by installing other parts ( as mentioned above, MRH for instance)

Of course any changes to Merlin for CHF work will bring work to Yeovil, thats better than sending money abroad isnt it?

DM

[Tourist]

Plus everyone that talks on here about re-roling a Mk1 to an SH as if that is a cheap option is just demonstrating their total ignorance of the airframe