Junglie Merlins
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread has lost it's way?
Am I being dull here, but it seems that people are just posting random facts and statements about the marinisation and capability of the Merlin that go well beyond the usual PPrune rumour.
Either some are are just misinformed, others may be dramatising other aspects and clearly there are some from all camps just trying to ensure that their 'cause' is furthered at all cost to truth and rational argument.
As a hook driver that is more than happy with his capability lot, know that he delivers exactly what the guys on the ground want I remain impartial to this Freak show.
It remains simple, does the UK plc want a dedicated amphibious capability ready to employ the amphibious skill sets (and not just the pure flying ones) at a moments notice (i.e. No time for a PDT or sea survival, firefighting courses etc).
If it does then either we in the RAF will need a dedicated amphibious wing or we accept that CHF should continue to deliver this capability for defence.And if we in the RAF are going to do this amphib stuff then we have got to seriously get amongst it as it is not a secondary role and we will only end breaking aircraft/ships or worst case killing people. IF UK plc only want a virtual amphibious capability at about 6 weeks notice to do anything then we in the light blue can easily absorb this task after a bit of a dedicated and properly resourced training package and work up period.
Once UK plc have decided what kind amphib capability they want then we can start to talk airframes. If it is a proper amphib force they want then the question should be what airframe is best suited to delivering for CHF? We then can establish whether in the interests of Defence the new buy CH47 should actually go ahead, but for CHF not us. If the new buy CH47 is not affordable but we still want a dedicated amphibious capability then the only other airframe is Merlin, whether Mk3 or a marinised version - immaterial, they will just have to make it work (take on risk) until funding becomes available for any future upgrades.
But if the dedicated, short notice amphibious requirement is not there, sorry I do not see a requirement for CHF and the Junglies either and they should be absorbed slowly into the RAF over the years to ensure that when we do have to deliver a amphibious capability that we have some Fisheads that will help with the training, speak the lingo and do the embarked staff jobs (that I know none of us light blue want).
Either some are are just misinformed, others may be dramatising other aspects and clearly there are some from all camps just trying to ensure that their 'cause' is furthered at all cost to truth and rational argument.
As a hook driver that is more than happy with his capability lot, know that he delivers exactly what the guys on the ground want I remain impartial to this Freak show.
It remains simple, does the UK plc want a dedicated amphibious capability ready to employ the amphibious skill sets (and not just the pure flying ones) at a moments notice (i.e. No time for a PDT or sea survival, firefighting courses etc).
If it does then either we in the RAF will need a dedicated amphibious wing or we accept that CHF should continue to deliver this capability for defence.And if we in the RAF are going to do this amphib stuff then we have got to seriously get amongst it as it is not a secondary role and we will only end breaking aircraft/ships or worst case killing people. IF UK plc only want a virtual amphibious capability at about 6 weeks notice to do anything then we in the light blue can easily absorb this task after a bit of a dedicated and properly resourced training package and work up period.
Once UK plc have decided what kind amphib capability they want then we can start to talk airframes. If it is a proper amphib force they want then the question should be what airframe is best suited to delivering for CHF? We then can establish whether in the interests of Defence the new buy CH47 should actually go ahead, but for CHF not us. If the new buy CH47 is not affordable but we still want a dedicated amphibious capability then the only other airframe is Merlin, whether Mk3 or a marinised version - immaterial, they will just have to make it work (take on risk) until funding becomes available for any future upgrades.
But if the dedicated, short notice amphibious requirement is not there, sorry I do not see a requirement for CHF and the Junglies either and they should be absorbed slowly into the RAF over the years to ensure that when we do have to deliver a amphibious capability that we have some Fisheads that will help with the training, speak the lingo and do the embarked staff jobs (that I know none of us light blue want).
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all know your world revolves around the CH47 so why not leave it at that?!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist,
You obviously know AW well then - nothing comes cheap. What is more expensive? Fitting a strengthened floor and extra rear undercarriage wheels to a Mk1. Ramp aswell maybe - but the SK 4 never had one and the one on the Mk3 is debateable as to its utility v cost. I can't think of much else - but you probably can.
Or do you cut up the tail section of a Mk3, plus fitting a Blade Fold Head and motor? I'm not going to comment on whether the Mk3 construction is marinised or not cos I don't know. In fact, I don't know the answer to any of this... any engineer types out there? What would be cheaper?
MM4 - We still need a dedicated (perhaps scaled back CHF). With a suitable ac......
You obviously know AW well then - nothing comes cheap. What is more expensive? Fitting a strengthened floor and extra rear undercarriage wheels to a Mk1. Ramp aswell maybe - but the SK 4 never had one and the one on the Mk3 is debateable as to its utility v cost. I can't think of much else - but you probably can.
Or do you cut up the tail section of a Mk3, plus fitting a Blade Fold Head and motor? I'm not going to comment on whether the Mk3 construction is marinised or not cos I don't know. In fact, I don't know the answer to any of this... any engineer types out there? What would be cheaper?
MM4 - We still need a dedicated (perhaps scaled back CHF). With a suitable ac......
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear Wizard,
I fear I may have offended you somewhat-I am sorry.
My thoughts are purely that on this blogging website, but trust me have nothing to do with a blinkered solutionising that the CH47 is the only answer.
Far from it.
My thoughts revolve around the requirement, for Defence plc and not which service owns, flys or operates which airframe. I know that the CH47 is not the solution in all cases, I also know that we are not going to get NH90 or Blackhawks for the smaller lift requirements.
So trust me I do recognise the value and utility of both Merlin and Puma-remember I look across the same briefing table as you.
But if there is no requirement for a dedicated amphibious capability (on call to both HMG and British people at the drop of a hat, what I believe is in under approximately 6-8 weeks, then the whole Junglie Merlin thread is superfluous as any light blue SH driver will be able to deliver something very similar providing that we have a dedicated beat up training package.
And therefore in the current (financially broke) climate CHF is not required, let alone discussing Merlin ownership.
But if HMG and the British people expect an amphibious capability then we can discuss the best ( and sadly cheapest) way to deliver this capability. I do not see any light blue volunteering to go to sea or keeping current in all those extra sea going currencies, or volunteering for all those Fisheads staff jobs. Regardless of the CH47 new buy, it is all to do with delivery of the capability not single service parochialism or my airframe is better than yours.
Maybe too simplistic and too joint, but if there is a requirement for amphibious helicopter force then let's look at how best to support it, either with a CHF with CH47 or Merlin, quite frankly I do not care.
But if there is not the requirement then let's stop rafting around and make a massive saving by getting rid of CHF as quickly as possible (ideally by absorbing them into both CH47 and Merlin Forces) to ensure that we in the light blue can absorb some of the Fisheads corporate knowledge that is still floating around out there despite our little foray last decade into Iraq and Afghan.
Finally Wizard, I will stop referring to you as Freaks, that was a long time ago and much water has gone under the bridge- again I am sorry
I fear I may have offended you somewhat-I am sorry.
My thoughts are purely that on this blogging website, but trust me have nothing to do with a blinkered solutionising that the CH47 is the only answer.
Far from it.
My thoughts revolve around the requirement, for Defence plc and not which service owns, flys or operates which airframe. I know that the CH47 is not the solution in all cases, I also know that we are not going to get NH90 or Blackhawks for the smaller lift requirements.
So trust me I do recognise the value and utility of both Merlin and Puma-remember I look across the same briefing table as you.
But if there is no requirement for a dedicated amphibious capability (on call to both HMG and British people at the drop of a hat, what I believe is in under approximately 6-8 weeks, then the whole Junglie Merlin thread is superfluous as any light blue SH driver will be able to deliver something very similar providing that we have a dedicated beat up training package.
And therefore in the current (financially broke) climate CHF is not required, let alone discussing Merlin ownership.
But if HMG and the British people expect an amphibious capability then we can discuss the best ( and sadly cheapest) way to deliver this capability. I do not see any light blue volunteering to go to sea or keeping current in all those extra sea going currencies, or volunteering for all those Fisheads staff jobs. Regardless of the CH47 new buy, it is all to do with delivery of the capability not single service parochialism or my airframe is better than yours.
Maybe too simplistic and too joint, but if there is a requirement for amphibious helicopter force then let's look at how best to support it, either with a CHF with CH47 or Merlin, quite frankly I do not care.
But if there is not the requirement then let's stop rafting around and make a massive saving by getting rid of CHF as quickly as possible (ideally by absorbing them into both CH47 and Merlin Forces) to ensure that we in the light blue can absorb some of the Fisheads corporate knowledge that is still floating around out there despite our little foray last decade into Iraq and Afghan.
Finally Wizard, I will stop referring to you as Freaks, that was a long time ago and much water has gone under the bridge- again I am sorry
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM4
No offence to me as it is a long time since I was one of your 'freaks' but thanks for the apology although not needed!
I was just pointing out that your posts (whilst making valid points), hardly came across as impartial!!
For someone who writes 'frankly I do not care' you post quite a lot on the subject!
Whatever happens to the SH world I am sure it will be for the best.....
No offence to me as it is a long time since I was one of your 'freaks' but thanks for the apology although not needed!
I was just pointing out that your posts (whilst making valid points), hardly came across as impartial!!
For someone who writes 'frankly I do not care' you post quite a lot on the subject!
Whatever happens to the SH world I am sure it will be for the best.....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, High spirits.
For starters, a NVG Cockpit would be nice perhaps. A DAS fit would also be nice, armoured seats, vast reduction in basic weight, ground clearance would be a win too...........
For starters, a NVG Cockpit would be nice perhaps. A DAS fit would also be nice, armoured seats, vast reduction in basic weight, ground clearance would be a win too...........
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wizard,
We are in agreement-I post to try and gain greater understanding of the subject and as we both know there are some very informed unbiased posters.
I also post to attempt to prevent inter service bitching (not the good old banter) from taking place and as we both know this topic is causing many a slagfest that really really saddens me.
Whilst we all snipe away at each other the Treasury rub their hands with joy, and more importantly many a strong working relationship is put under strain by the hidden undercurrent of the whole UK helicopter force that appears to be either further back than the NAO report 10 years ago and the lessons learned through the loss of life within the last 5 year time frame.
That is why I post.
We are in agreement-I post to try and gain greater understanding of the subject and as we both know there are some very informed unbiased posters.
I also post to attempt to prevent inter service bitching (not the good old banter) from taking place and as we both know this topic is causing many a slagfest that really really saddens me.
Whilst we all snipe away at each other the Treasury rub their hands with joy, and more importantly many a strong working relationship is put under strain by the hidden undercurrent of the whole UK helicopter force that appears to be either further back than the NAO report 10 years ago and the lessons learned through the loss of life within the last 5 year time frame.
That is why I post.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: uk
Age: 50
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merlin MK2, re-roleable to limited troop carry. Who would like to bet that SK4 stays for the next 10 years carrying out MCT, local duties and the Merlin MK2 takes on Jungly crews to add another bow to it's cap. The MK2 is numbered for 2 CVS and how many CVS will be left in the next couple of years. If the Navy ( and i am one) wishes to keep these airframes they will have to demonstrate actual worth otherwise they are just keeping up the numbers down Kerno. The Sea King support structure is based at VL so no additional funding to re-position these workshops, they could take on additional work to justify there positions. SKIOS is up and running, just keep it going. I am not an accountant but even i can see the cost of re-training SK crews to Merlin and Merlin crews To CH-47 are just not justifable in our times. Even buying a handfull of new airframes to work alongside the MK2's would work and allows CHF to continue in amphib warfare. CHF is will become a much smaller entity whether it is willing too or not.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Misformonkey,
Anything we do to solve this problem is going to be expensive, however you look at it.
Tourist,
I had forgotten that your barnacled lunatic Mk1 cousins flew around sans NVD. Fair point. All solvable issues though. I still think that making the Mk1 fit for purpose with NVD and DAS and all the other things you mentioned is a better option than selling it to Johnny Foreigner for peanuts if ASAC does not happen.
Anything we do to solve this problem is going to be expensive, however you look at it.
Tourist,
I had forgotten that your barnacled lunatic Mk1 cousins flew around sans NVD. Fair point. All solvable issues though. I still think that making the Mk1 fit for purpose with NVD and DAS and all the other things you mentioned is a better option than selling it to Johnny Foreigner for peanuts if ASAC does not happen.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The plan as briefed today is the transfer of Mk3 to the RN is dependant on 14 new buy Chinooks along with Puma Mk2 however as we all know those two projects are at risk. So its not over yet then!!
Ahhhh!!! but the Merlins are only nominally going to the RN. Actually, as part of this increased jointery that's coming out of Lord L's study, they will be operated FOR the three services by a new body:
Agency
for
Services
Support
Helicopter
Operations,
Logistics
and
Engineering
Agency
for
Services
Support
Helicopter
Operations,
Logistics
and
Engineering