CHF - Merlin Mk 4

[Pheasant]

ignoring reality will often help solve difficult problems

Which realty are you talking of? Is it the CAS/RAF reality of ostrich head in the sand or the reality of being told to get on with it?

"Off you go to war in Falklands/Bosnia/Kosovo/Sierra Leone/Gulf/Afghanistan/Libya"
"OK, Sir no problem. How many years for Sir? Lots of aircraft, Sir?"

or

"Transfer Merlin Mk 3 to the Junglies, old chap"
"Ooh. That's very difficult, Sir. Lots of problems with that one, Sir. Doesn't match our Trenchard policy, Sir. Is that a lawful order, Sir?"

"XXX!!!$$%%!"

[Neartheend]

There goes the neighbourhood, this thread has officially gone to pot so I'm going over to the 'bonkers harrier' thread, where theres far better class of bullshi*e and self gratification getting posted.....

4thright - We must have worked together in the early days of Merlin Mk3. I'm glad to say the DPA/DLO divide still exists despite name changes and the invent of IPTs. The words 'wall, over, throw and it' are still the DPA (DE&S) mantra when transferring support. Good news though, the moving map you lost, we got back in 2006 ish.

[engineer(retard)]

Not at all Pheasant. How about "Right we'll put together a business case but put the mods to one side because we cannot afford that and they'll render the capability near useless" reality.

Stay with it though because all of the best procurement programmes started with something similar.

[chinook240]

So why doesn't this work?

Merlin remains RAF = RN redundancies (but with the prospect of some CH47 slots)
Merlin to RN = RAF redundancies (but with the prospect of some CH47 slots)

i.e. 15 all

We've had many Junglies on the Chinook, indeed many have and still are jumping ship to join the light blue - ah, hold on a minute, I've just seen a flaw!

[Pheasant]

We've had many Junglies on the Chinook, indeed many have and still are jumping ship to join the light blue

Somewhat overstating the case, methinks.

Your proposal relies on the RN trusting the RAF with good and honest behaviour...please show me where history leads the RN to such acceptance? Certainly not with recent or current top of the shop.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

With all that's going on, according to various threads here on PRune it would seem the simple solution to all of this is as follows.

The RAF have a functioning aircraft in the Merlin so let them keep it.

The RAF also have more than enough folk cheesed off with their lot about to PVR so simply let them go.

The Navy have no helicopters to play with so let all those that really want to fly change the shade of blue they wear, take their experience etc and fill the Merlin, Puma and Chinook seats left empty by the dissatisfied RAF folk.

Tell the remaining Navy guys it's light blue or the highway and have a fully manned fully functional cross pollinated Rotary Force fit for SH/Naval purpose for years to come

[andyy]

One of the problems with the Merlin is that it was a compromised design from the start & beset by the political imperative to have a 50:50 split in workshare on a MANHOURS basis between Italy & the UK. Thus, when the design work was done there was almost as much need to place the work with the appropriate country to even out the manhours as there was to deliver the best capability, hence the reason why Agusta got the MRGB when they had never designed one before whereas Westlands had. Every design change also had to be considered in the light of the manhours workshare, too. Barking but true.

The MRGB that was delivered was unable to handle all the power that the RTM 322 could deliver & they had to be down rated as a result. Also, the RTM322 Specific Fuel Consumption was not as good as forecast meaning that more fuel was required for a given range. So, a heavier aircraft with less power than expected = lower pay loads.

We also have to remember that the a/c was originally designed as an ASW aircraft & the original (RN) staff requirement called for an aircraft with 4 hours time on station, with the sonics capabilty of the Sea King (or better) & the agility of a Lynx so that it could operate from Type 23s in a sea state 6. 3 engines were deemed necessary to give the power & redundancy for small deck operations, particularly as UK indistry did not have an engine on the books that could do the same job with 2 (RR were VERY keen on the Merlin using 3 x RTM 322s!!!)

Because of the afforementioned power/ gearbox/ fuel consumption problems the Mk1 could never achieve the 4 hours time on station in a sea state 6 and was due to be upgraded to Mk2 standard with a new MRGB able to handle the power at a later stage. This Mk2 upgrade never happened due to whichever defence cuts were necessary at the time.

The procurement of the Merlin is a book in its own right and there are lots of other examples of cock ups that I know of (mainly conmcerning the ASW variant) but we are where we are!

[4thright]

Indeed andyy....and given the lack of extra cash....the best niche for the 3s is as a dedicated component of the RN Amphibious Force (CHF), whoever ends up flying them.
As someone who got heavily into what tne Advanced Engineering Gearbox would have done to tne Merlin ( ie.made it the ac it always should have been), it is a shame the plans lie in the virtual dustbin. If only we could turn back time, or someone could find the cash now to take it forward....the 101 would then truely get its wings.

[Neartheend]

One of the worst things you can hear in the office is 'it's an Agusta workshare' item. You then know whatever has gone wrong will stay wrong for a very long time.

[dangermouse]

not quite true Andyy

I think you will find that Agusta designed the A101, A102, A109, A129 etc MGB prior to the EH101 so to say they had no experience is quite incorrect.

ralso remember that the EH101 MGB is one of the very few that HAS demonstrated a true 30min dry run capability so I guess they do know a little about MGB design.

When the aircraft was designed and developed the RTM322 was never in the picture. The Integrated Development programme that launched EH101 always intended to have 3 off Engines specified as GE T700s. ONLY when the RN changed the specification of the 101 to include dipping sonar with associated increase in AUM thereby making it a 'Merlin' rather than an EH101 did the change in engine come about. As much as anything to ensure that the UK helicopter engine industry survived and to provide a UK source of an expensive part of the aircraft (legitimate concerns for a Govt)

The 3 engine requirement was driven by CIVIL concerns regarding Class A t/o performance capability that was felt to be very important in the light of the BHAB recommendations following several North Sea crashes. Remember the target market was civil and military from the start and it was a judgement call that the two companies made at the time to 'compromise' the aircraft so that both types of market could be addressed. In hindsight this seems to have been a sensible decison as the crashworthiness and survivability driven by Civil rules has benefits for all users (sadly missing from CH457 and Puma) whilst still having a very impressive OEI flyaway capability (quite useful when hovering over the oggin)


DM

[Neartheend]

so I guess they do know a little about MGB design

Shame they made it out of pasta strips though. According to the AW transmissions man, the Holborn foundry produced gearboxes from the Sea King and Lynx appear far more robust.

[dangermouse]

appearances

similarly you appear to know what you are talking about

but appearances can be decieving

[Neartheend]

DM, I know nuffin' I just listen to the what people tell me at a secret helicopter factory on Lysander Road somewhere in Somerset. Names can also be deceiving (note the spelling) as I bet you don't really look like a cartoon mouse.

[ramp_up]

Has anyone one actually heard the transfer deal from the horses mouth. Or is it because of a Janes article written by CO CHF, who would clearly then back up his story by telling his Sqn's that its a done deal. Only asking because I have heard a different story from an equally credible source. Next issue is the training, whilst all 3 services train their QHIs using the CFS standard course at Shawbury, rear crew training is something of a crock of ****e. If the Chiefs can agree on a transfer of equipment, please can they enforce the same standard of rear crew selection and instructor training across the board regardless of platform too. Eg Rear crew are seleted at OASC and instructors qualify through the CFS.

PS that doesn't mean completing a 15 week course teaching me how to fire a wide variety of infantry weapons that I will never use and open and close a wildcat cabin door.

[jamesdevice]

just remember the only gearboxes actually DESIGNED by Westland were for the Lynx / WG30. And thats what killed off the WG30 - when they started crashing

Besides which the Westland Foundry was at Hayes, not Yeovil and was transferred to Normalair-Garrett in the 1970's when Hayes was shut - Normalair moved it to Chard and eventually sold it out of the Westland Group completely. Last heard of in Liverpool from memory...
Do Westland now have the plant or skills to actually MAKE a gearbox?

I seem to remember that at one point in the 1970's there were doubts even about the Sea King gearboxes and Westland were considering using Italian ones
As for the Merlin gearbox - just checked Derek James history of the company. the entire transmission is a Fiat design / build


Quote from Dangermouse:
"ONLY when the RN changed the specification of the 101 to include dipping sonar with associated increase in AUM ...."
What?????
The EH101 / Merlin evolved from the WG34 which was ALWAYS intended as a direct Sea King replacement with dipping sonar. In fact Westland were "ready to go" with the WG34 design in around 1977-78 and then had to hold back to allow Italian input and for the MOD to make its mind up. They'd actually been working on it for several years - and then had to hold off for five years or more while everyone else ripped the plans apart. With the further delays in building the prototypes you ended up with something that could have flown in 1980 not appearing till 1986. And then came the Westland crisis...

[4thright]

Hi JD
I think its fair to say that Westlands gearbox design heritage is just a bit more comprehensive than your rather dismissive comments. Some of it, of course, having come from other companies prior to the enforced mergings of the late 50s from Britol, Fairey, Saunders Roe etc.

That said, the award winning conformal gearing design made for the Lynx was quite a triumph in the way extra power could be transferred across the gear teeth thus allowing the gear box height and overall dimensions to be substantially reduced. This is not possible in the Fiat sourced "sun and planet" style box (a la Sea King) which inherently means a more vertical orientated design and lower power to weight ratio.

While the accident rate of the W30 certainly contibuted to its demise , I think mostncommentators would also point to Westlands poor perfromance in commercial product support at the time..certainly in the civilian arena.

What your message also misses is reference to the major potential impact of the world beating WEstland Advanced Engineering Gearbox ( AEG) design which aimed to make fundamental changes in how power and torque was to be transmitted through the MRG components. The casing design (made of composites) aimed to transfer most of those stresses through that casing rather than at the gear teeth. This in turn meant a significant increase in power to weight potential, as well as much reduced fatigue loadings and hence safety improvements. Further benefits would not only be a smaller MRG for the given power but also a much shorter one. The rig prototypes as far as I understand it, were well on the way to proving the concept - I witnessed one of the runs myself, and of course, the RAF's version of the W30....to meet ASR404 (Puma/Wessex replacement) in the mid 80s was to have this MRG design.

I also Understand that the WG34 concept envisaged using the AEG at a later stage, and as has been said earlier in this thread, when the RN ASW version was envisaged, use of this AEG was seen as offering a route to full mission performance as originally specified. A combination of bi-national workshare allocation and the gross early 101 cost overuns put paid to a later Merlin Mk2, this had beem sign posted with the earlier cancellation of the RAF W30-404, which would have been the first use of this world beating MRG design.

Had EH101 had the AEG in its design (and it had worked!) then we would not be discussing the 101's low payload ratio at all, as the gearbox itself would have been much lighter than the MRG design used, not under as much component stress, and the RTMs could have been used to their power potential at better sfcs. Oh and another bonus is that the overall height of the beast would have been several feet less! Problem is that the several £100M to get it sorted was never forthcoming.

....now anyone want to discuss which squadron numberplates will survive the transfer?

[Unchecked]

"...after September this year....". Hardly unequivocal, is it? I mean, the year 3000 is "after September this year". Also, as stated previously in this thread, you can always rely on the word of a politician to be gospel and any decision to be set in stone and irreversible, can't you?

[Pheasant]

Regarding rear crew training, what in gods name makes you believe that the RAF process is the correct/best route. It's certainly the most drawn out!!!

As the RN are now the sole owners of officer rear crew training, why should the RAF have any say at all?

But this is thread drift,so let's get back to the proper discussion on CHF. Transfer the capability to the RN as instructed and let the capability managers worry about future improvements.

[Unchecked]

Instructed when, by whom and most importantly, within what budget ?

As for your garbled ranting about officer rear crew, that's relevant how? We're talking Non-commissioned aircrew here. Do keep up.

[high spirits]

Unchecked,
The idea is to transfer the Mk3 and then bleat for the funding later. By that time it will be solely RN. There will then be an outcry that it cannot go to sea without more money being thrown at it, and hence the funding will appear. It would be cheaper in the long run to buy brand new airframes that will last longer, are already Marinised and convert the junglies to that airframe. This is simply an exercise in which Service takes the redundancies in a time of reduced budget.

One Service has simply been shafted at the expense of another.....before I get lots of puffer jet guff, please remember who lost cockpits there, and in the Tonka GR force too during SDSR.