CHF - Merlin Mk 4
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But what I'm saying is that you move sufficient numbers across from CHF and these become your SMEs initially. Over the passage of time and with sufficient embarkations, the experience breeds across to the RAF and in the future the tradition and skillset is back up to the necessary levels. If the RAF made littoral move one of it's roles then over time they would make it work in the same way that knowledge and experience gets passed on to new personnel through training in every branch of the armed forces.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the experience breeds across to the RAF and in the future the tradition and skillset is back up to the necessary levels.
Expeditionary ops remains the mainstay of Govt policy with Carrier enabled strike and amphibiosity the central pillars - until they change the policy it is where the priority will now go and transferring Merlin is part of that policy. I assume the Govt are prepared to pay for it as they keep telling us it is going to happen.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pheasant,
For Gods sake stop banging on about career structure. You are going to have one QE class carrier, plus LPH at sea with a few single deck amphib vessels. Stop talking like it's some huge branch, and not just a specialisation for the few. I have seen a full LPH op and a CVS op. Impressive, yes. Rocket science, no. Flyco on Ocean was manned by a failed aviator last time I was on it.
For Gods sake stop banging on about career structure. You are going to have one QE class carrier, plus LPH at sea with a few single deck amphib vessels. Stop talking like it's some huge branch, and not just a specialisation for the few. I have seen a full LPH op and a CVS op. Impressive, yes. Rocket science, no. Flyco on Ocean was manned by a failed aviator last time I was on it.
Whilst he may be a "single issue fanatic" he does have a very valid point. Imagine how you'd run an airstation (RNAS or RAF with CHF just flying in every so often and taking over for a week or two at a time, from their principle base at sea. I've no doubt there'd be howls of outrage about how the MAA/RAF/FAA would need to uphold standards ashore....
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alfred,
Agreed, I'm not putting my Service up as a solution, far from it. I also won't sit here and put up with guff about 'growing' carrier SO's as if it is some sort of preferable career choice for right minded RN Officers.
Agreed, I'm not putting my Service up as a solution, far from it. I also won't sit here and put up with guff about 'growing' carrier SO's as if it is some sort of preferable career choice for right minded RN Officers.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would be interested to hear how things are going on Ocean atm. Is it an unworkable solution as some on here are saying or is everyone just getting on with it and doing a good job?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We must be careful.....
Although I totally agree that amphibious 'gumpf' is not rocket science and that any service can do the flying element of it, we should be aware that after Afghan there is every intent to return to the set up that many of us remember from the late 90s and early 2000s where we did spend alot of time at sea in the Med, and by the end of it we became quite good at it (apart from the odd wheels dropping off the back every now and again
)
But it takes practice, focus and resources to do it properly - of course we can take it on risk (i.e. cuff it), but lets just look at what the knock on effect has been for the guys/capabilities that have been asked to endure in the Med.
If we in the light blue are saying on these forums that with the right training any Service can do amphib then we need to be prepared to put our money where our mouths are. I say this selfishly as I hate the morale vacuum of the O Boat, and 6 months on an amphibious exercise/deployment just fills me with dread. But having taken the Queen's shilling I will go where I am told, but please do not expect me or my colleagues to tick off bare deck landing currencies and then call us Very High Readiness Maritime CR.
If you want me to do it properly, then I need to train regularly with the customer, know the whole amphibious doctrine and TTPs stuff, and actually integrate properly - which we do not do at the moment, looking at the earliest opportunity to disembark.
And in doing this amphib gumpf we have to be very aware that signing up to taking airframes away for months on end will mean that they aren't on the line for training the rest of the field army and the new guys coming through the OCF. Unless someone makes a big change in policy, the Support Helicopters in the RAF are primarily there to support Army operations on the land, not being wasted bobbing up and down at sea.
I agree flying from a deck is not a black art, but it cannot be cuffed otherwise we will be found severely wanting if god forbid there is an accident, let alone actually have to do the job properly as per Al Faw.
Although I totally agree that amphibious 'gumpf' is not rocket science and that any service can do the flying element of it, we should be aware that after Afghan there is every intent to return to the set up that many of us remember from the late 90s and early 2000s where we did spend alot of time at sea in the Med, and by the end of it we became quite good at it (apart from the odd wheels dropping off the back every now and again
)But it takes practice, focus and resources to do it properly - of course we can take it on risk (i.e. cuff it), but lets just look at what the knock on effect has been for the guys/capabilities that have been asked to endure in the Med.
If we in the light blue are saying on these forums that with the right training any Service can do amphib then we need to be prepared to put our money where our mouths are. I say this selfishly as I hate the morale vacuum of the O Boat, and 6 months on an amphibious exercise/deployment just fills me with dread. But having taken the Queen's shilling I will go where I am told, but please do not expect me or my colleagues to tick off bare deck landing currencies and then call us Very High Readiness Maritime CR.
If you want me to do it properly, then I need to train regularly with the customer, know the whole amphibious doctrine and TTPs stuff, and actually integrate properly - which we do not do at the moment, looking at the earliest opportunity to disembark.
And in doing this amphib gumpf we have to be very aware that signing up to taking airframes away for months on end will mean that they aren't on the line for training the rest of the field army and the new guys coming through the OCF. Unless someone makes a big change in policy, the Support Helicopters in the RAF are primarily there to support Army operations on the land, not being wasted bobbing up and down at sea.
I agree flying from a deck is not a black art, but it cannot be cuffed otherwise we will be found severely wanting if god forbid there is an accident, let alone actually have to do the job properly as per Al Faw.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember, flying from sea is more than just "getting airborne from a moving airfield".
Imagine saying to a RAF SH Squadron: There's a ship - operate from it! The art of moving, maintaining, launching, recovering, securing and any other 'ing you can think of it totally different from doing it ashore. The RN has specialist branches to deal with the unique aspects of this, so safety is assured.
To achieve the same standard of assurance, the RAF would require a Fleet Air Arm to facilitate embarkations - full circle once again!
Imagine saying to a RAF SH Squadron: There's a ship - operate from it! The art of moving, maintaining, launching, recovering, securing and any other 'ing you can think of it totally different from doing it ashore. The RN has specialist branches to deal with the unique aspects of this, so safety is assured.
To achieve the same standard of assurance, the RAF would require a Fleet Air Arm to facilitate embarkations - full circle once again!
Originally Posted by high spirits
Pheasant,
For Gods sake stop banging on about career structure...
Just out of interest, what do RAF pilots and navigators do when not assigned to flying duties (which their FAA equivalents don't)?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the 1SL did say post the SDSR announcement that it might be easier if the Air force provided the aircraft and the RN provided the ships!!! Anyway non of its insurmountable. The RN wants to retain its embarked ops experience ready for the carrier(s) so they could provide the chock heads, air traffic etc etc. Look at it as jobs for the boys. The only thing stopping any of this working is inter service bickering which to be honest needs to nipped in the bud. Jointery and good senior management would resolve this is in a a heartbeat.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neartheend,
Sadly Jointery achieves exactly the opposite. it exacerbates inter-Service rivalry, is expensive in terms of staff effort and attempts to achieve a common base for standards and practices (usually the lowest common denominator). One could argue that Haddon-Cave, and thus the MAA, has raised the bar on assurance - in particular in terms of "competent authority".
I would argue that in order to be assessed a competent authority to safely assure operations from the sea you would need to be able to assure each aspect - from stoker providing the fuel, to the Officer of the Watch on the Bridge, to the team manning flyco etc, to the aircrew manning the aircraft and thence to the CO of the ship authorising the flight. I would go on to argue that the only way to guarantee that assurance is to have an embedded capability in the RN. Such an embedded capability could then assure the occasional visit by a CH47 etc, effectively by surrounding it in "cotton wool" of expertise of the host organisation.
This host organisation needs to be grown (ie career managed) with maritime experts who live and breath ops from the sea.
I don't think it has anything to do with inter-Service rivalry, just common sense. In these constrained times capability needs to be embedded where the best level of assurance can be given. I simply do not believe the RAF have the interest or culture to embrace true maritime operations from the deck of a ship.
But then I would say that wouldn't I.
Sadly Jointery achieves exactly the opposite. it exacerbates inter-Service rivalry, is expensive in terms of staff effort and attempts to achieve a common base for standards and practices (usually the lowest common denominator). One could argue that Haddon-Cave, and thus the MAA, has raised the bar on assurance - in particular in terms of "competent authority".
I would argue that in order to be assessed a competent authority to safely assure operations from the sea you would need to be able to assure each aspect - from stoker providing the fuel, to the Officer of the Watch on the Bridge, to the team manning flyco etc, to the aircrew manning the aircraft and thence to the CO of the ship authorising the flight. I would go on to argue that the only way to guarantee that assurance is to have an embedded capability in the RN. Such an embedded capability could then assure the occasional visit by a CH47 etc, effectively by surrounding it in "cotton wool" of expertise of the host organisation.
This host organisation needs to be grown (ie career managed) with maritime experts who live and breath ops from the sea.
I don't think it has anything to do with inter-Service rivalry, just common sense. In these constrained times capability needs to be embedded where the best level of assurance can be given. I simply do not believe the RAF have the interest or culture to embrace true maritime operations from the deck of a ship.
But then I would say that wouldn't I.
Can someone explain why the RAF wants to maintain three separate SH fleets (Wokka, Merlin & Puma LEP), none of which (for various reasons) are fully capable of sustained embarked ops?
Just don't get the Puma LEP at all.
Just don't get the Puma LEP at all.
FODPLod, remember that RN Pilots/Observers can be asked to carry out watches on the Bridge at sea as THE OOW or 2nd OOW whenever they are embarked. They don't just do it when they are too senior to fly on ops. RN Pilots/ Observers are Seaman Officers first & aviators second (whether they like it or not!)
Indeed they are often REQUIRED to carry out Bridge watchkeeping duties to keep themselves current iaw the requirements of maritime law & the watchkeeping certification requirements. If nothing else this helps them maintain their whole ship knowledge & contributes to a whole ship "aviation-maritime mindset".
I have no doubt that the RAF Merlin force could transfer to the CHF, perhaps with a few RN/RM aircrew bodies to help their assimilation to the role but they would have to immerse themselves the CHF role fully, become ship aware & safe (members of fire fighting and damage control parties, even get involved with storing ship & replensishing at sea etc - Yes, Officers do that too) and when embarked they may be expected to help out in the Ops Room, FlyCo or on the Bridge when not flying. Effectively they would become the FAA & undisputedly orphoned from the RAF. Do you want that? Fine if you do, welcome.
Indeed they are often REQUIRED to carry out Bridge watchkeeping duties to keep themselves current iaw the requirements of maritime law & the watchkeeping certification requirements. If nothing else this helps them maintain their whole ship knowledge & contributes to a whole ship "aviation-maritime mindset".
I have no doubt that the RAF Merlin force could transfer to the CHF, perhaps with a few RN/RM aircrew bodies to help their assimilation to the role but they would have to immerse themselves the CHF role fully, become ship aware & safe (members of fire fighting and damage control parties, even get involved with storing ship & replensishing at sea etc - Yes, Officers do that too) and when embarked they may be expected to help out in the Ops Room, FlyCo or on the Bridge when not flying. Effectively they would become the FAA & undisputedly orphoned from the RAF. Do you want that? Fine if you do, welcome.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Afraid you are very wrong Andyy, Seamen Officer has been out of existence for years and years. Pilots and Obs are indeed Warfare Officers, but unless they have a Bridge Watchkeeping Qual they are as much use as a YO (albeit vastly more experienced) and therefore do not keep watches on the bridge unless they volunteer. In addition, only having 1 P and 1 O on board (unless a P2 or O2 are gaining experience with that Flight), means that to try and stay within credible limits for rest and fatigue coupled with about 8 secondary duties each results in a shortage of time that would certainly not be helped by standing a 4 hr watch on the bridge for which they are not qualified or embarked for that purpose.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loathe as I am to post in this thread, I feel strangely drawn to it.
Still waiting for the reply about ops off Ocean. Is the ship suffering with all those AAC types on it who can't do OOW?
On that subject, I totally agree that in a frigate or destroyer the OOW piece is true, but I wonder if USN/USMC aircrew do OOW on US aircraft carriers? I'm pretty sure they don't - once you get above a certain ship size (crew size) it is neither necessary nor desirable, just inefficient. This doesn't mean that everyone on board shouldn't do fire party / damage control etc - that is a given. Similarly with divisional cdrs etc.
My second point is that for both CHF and JSF, a considerable (vast majority for JSF) of time will be based on land. If we look at the past 20 years there has been some demand for maritime basing but plenty for land basing and given future resources (ie sod all) a fleet can only do one job at once and can't be held somewhere in reserve in a niche capability.
Last - I find the "pilots join the RAF to fly not go to sea ergo the FAA should fly" argument quite amusing. If you are a fan of that logic then sailors join the RN to sail a ship so shouldn't fly aircraft!
Best we just get on with it as a mix and use the differing areas of expertise to do the job properly.
Mind you, I still think the RAF should give away all SH to the RN/Army and operate all the combat air.
Still waiting for the reply about ops off Ocean. Is the ship suffering with all those AAC types on it who can't do OOW?
On that subject, I totally agree that in a frigate or destroyer the OOW piece is true, but I wonder if USN/USMC aircrew do OOW on US aircraft carriers? I'm pretty sure they don't - once you get above a certain ship size (crew size) it is neither necessary nor desirable, just inefficient. This doesn't mean that everyone on board shouldn't do fire party / damage control etc - that is a given. Similarly with divisional cdrs etc.
My second point is that for both CHF and JSF, a considerable (vast majority for JSF) of time will be based on land. If we look at the past 20 years there has been some demand for maritime basing but plenty for land basing and given future resources (ie sod all) a fleet can only do one job at once and can't be held somewhere in reserve in a niche capability.
Last - I find the "pilots join the RAF to fly not go to sea ergo the FAA should fly" argument quite amusing. If you are a fan of that logic then sailors join the RN to sail a ship so shouldn't fly aircraft!
Best we just get on with it as a mix and use the differing areas of expertise to do the job properly.
Mind you, I still think the RAF should give away all SH to the RN/Army and operate all the combat air.
IO, yes, yes, yes, I'm not that out of the loop, I'm well aware that Seaman Officers became Warfare Officers, I was one, but I'm afraid I prefer the old term. FF/DDs will only have one Pilot & Observer normally from the flight but embarked aircrew in CVS/ Ocean etc will be expected to volunteer to keep watches to keep their BWC currency and help maintain the aviation-maritime mindset amongst all depts. If CHF is mostly light blue & they do not contribute to the whole ship practices where does the whole ship aviation maritime knowledge come from. "Them & Us" is no way to operate. Unless the embarked squadron are inculcated in the true nature of shipboard operations then "they'll be trouble ahead...."
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andyy,
How many embarked Aircrew in CVS/Ocean have a BWQ? Let me suggest less than 5%. And I really do believe that is accurate. How many CHF Pilots have BWQs? And are current? Less than 5%.
Is it really worth discussing ratios of that ilk?
How many embarked Aircrew in CVS/Ocean have a BWQ? Let me suggest less than 5%. And I really do believe that is accurate. How many CHF Pilots have BWQs? And are current? Less than 5%.
Is it really worth discussing ratios of that ilk?
IO, the point is that the RN does need aviators who have shiphandling experience & "ship drivers" that have aviation (inc Littoral) experience. With just small ship flights & the Culdrose Merlins, the RN & CHF will both be a lot poorer without it.
As I've said, if CHF remains largely light blue, fine, but they will need to become immersed in the maritime functions to a great degree.
As I've said, if CHF remains largely light blue, fine, but they will need to become immersed in the maritime functions to a great degree.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same old story with the RN re' OOW duties etc is that we've always done it that way and 300 plus years of tradition stops us from doing it any other way. BTW the damage control and fire fighting courses at Whale Island and deck handling at CU were all quite straight forward and weren't that bad even for us crabs. Whats a fearnought suit, soft wood wedge and running lashing between friends, I've even been known to get involved with the donkeys d*ck during RAS evolutions. The hardest part of embarked ops is learning to drink CSB and avoiding the 1st Jimmy during rounds!!! People aren't born master mariners or airmen they evolve/develop. As for jointery, 360 Sqn was a great example of how it could/should be done if the worker bees are allowed to get on with it without influence from the career driven city fathers. Just think if the transfer of Merlin debate wasn't going on and there was a push to embark Chinook and Apache onto OCN without any input from the CHF then I doubt our RN mates would be searching for so many lame excuses as to why it couldn't happen. Let the 'black catting' begin
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lot's of banter on this thread! Been away for a while and without wishing to drift.....
BPLT,
I think you will find that with cats and traps the JSF will spend a whole load of time at sea. And if one CVF is deployed there will be cries for the other one to be brought forward for training, either that or the JSF guys will join a US CV for training. You will not generate a high sortie rate by just bouncing on and off occasionally.
a considerable (vast majority for JSF) of time will be based on land.
I think you will find that with cats and traps the JSF will spend a whole load of time at sea. And if one CVF is deployed there will be cries for the other one to be brought forward for training, either that or the JSF guys will join a US CV for training. You will not generate a high sortie rate by just bouncing on and off occasionally.