Puma, Merlin etc
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Puma, Merlin etc
Interesting article in DT this morning:
MoD balances books first time in four decades, Defence Secretary to announce - Telegraph
To quote a section....
....The Navy’s ability to conduct substantial on amphibious operations will be restored with the MoD paying to convert all 22 of the RAF’s Merlin troop transport helicopters for sea movements. The Fleet will also receive funding to start building its fleet of advanced Type 26 frigates.
At least £200 million will be made available to upgrade the fleet of Puma helicopters that are likely to play a role in ferrying special forces around the Olympics.
The Eurofighter Typhoon, that had limited success over Libya, will now receive funding to allow it to carry a full array of armaments including the Stormshadow and Brimstone missiles.
Good news all round? Of course only after such speculation is announced but it may put to bed the acrimony over who has what SH........but I doubt it!
MoD balances books first time in four decades, Defence Secretary to announce - Telegraph
To quote a section....
....The Navy’s ability to conduct substantial on amphibious operations will be restored with the MoD paying to convert all 22 of the RAF’s Merlin troop transport helicopters for sea movements. The Fleet will also receive funding to start building its fleet of advanced Type 26 frigates.
At least £200 million will be made available to upgrade the fleet of Puma helicopters that are likely to play a role in ferrying special forces around the Olympics.
The Eurofighter Typhoon, that had limited success over Libya, will now receive funding to allow it to carry a full array of armaments including the Stormshadow and Brimstone missiles.
Good news all round? Of course only after such speculation is announced but it may put to bed the acrimony over who has what SH........but I doubt it!
The Navy’s ability to conduct substantial on amphibious operations will be restored with the MoD paying to convert all 22 of the RAF’s Merlin troop transport helicopters for sea movements
Lets hope the ministers actual statement, rather than the 5th floor "leaked" sound bites, is a bit clearer.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will definitely go ahead now. I'd like to add though (and perhaps continue the 'acrimony') that just because some money has been found and the books are balanced, that spending it in this fashion is still not necessarily the right thing to do with it. It's never been a cheap option and doesnt suddenly represent value for the taxpayer's money just because the money is there.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but it rather neatly resolves the "you can't have Merlin if we can't keep Puma" argument. And with RN crews about to join Benson the announcement (if it happens) will be timely.
Now, about the 3As.......they would solve a thorny VERTREP problem for the RN.....
Now, about the 3As.......they would solve a thorny VERTREP problem for the RN.....
Ah yes, the VERTREP or HU problem. Not sure trashing 6 perfectly good "potential" Junglie airframes is the best way forward on that - surely they should just end up with CHF along with the Mk 3s.
What is desperately needed is for someone to articulate clearly the VERTREP requirement for both QEC and the wider fleet. If I were a requirementeer, I might want to include a planeguard/utility element to that requirement as well.
Not at all sure the solution to that requirement looks like a Merlin. It looks to me like something with about 6000lbs USL, cabin space for 6/7 (winchman, swimmer plus up to 4 or 5 inadvertent swimmers), minimum required avionics (assuming no-one is thinking JPR/CSAR) simple airframe with simple log support and able to tolerate repeated sorties in one day.
Don't know what that looks like, but I don't think it's this...
Kaman Helicopters | KMAX Aerial Truck
unfortunately, don't think it's this either....
File:Wessex 1982.JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What is desperately needed is for someone to articulate clearly the VERTREP requirement for both QEC and the wider fleet. If I were a requirementeer, I might want to include a planeguard/utility element to that requirement as well.
Not at all sure the solution to that requirement looks like a Merlin. It looks to me like something with about 6000lbs USL, cabin space for 6/7 (winchman, swimmer plus up to 4 or 5 inadvertent swimmers), minimum required avionics (assuming no-one is thinking JPR/CSAR) simple airframe with simple log support and able to tolerate repeated sorties in one day.
Don't know what that looks like, but I don't think it's this...
Kaman Helicopters | KMAX Aerial Truck
unfortunately, don't think it's this either....
File:Wessex 1982.JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 17th Feb 2012 at 15:51. Reason: Obvious response to the Wizard
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure that 'if we can't keep puma you can't have merlin' was ever the argument. The argument was always why go to the expense of heavily modifying an airframe, training umpteen crews on it and them retraining another umpteen crews on something else. The cost of accommodating the crews near to benson is an eye watering waste in itself. Still don't see why the new chinooks won't be able to make their way down to yeovilton. The same amount of boots on the ground in half the number of airframes and crew. Now that's balancing the books !
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was watching this with interest - yes our airships did some extremly clever work to ensure our Puma II cockpits were saved, but despite being poorer than church mice were the politicians really going to do (another) political U turn, this time on SDSR. They didn't with the kipper fleet or with the carrier/harrier debate.
For the Prime Minister to stand up just over a year after publishing an SDSR report (that wasn't rushed!!) saying that the UK was going to have an amphibious capability and then say that the report got it wrong, and actually the nation does not need it (but will continue to fund many other inefficient HMG departments instead), was I think just not going to happen. He would be laughed at not only openly by Labour, but the nation. Just as we use the Battle of Britain to invoke memories, the Fisheads have the Falklands that continue to bubble away in the nations pysche - especially now.
As I have always posted, if UK defence wants an amphibious capability then quite rightly it should go to CHF and the Fisheads, and any other JHC dreaming of spreading maritime expertise throughout its forces is pure nonsense (just as all our Air Component TLT NITEX experience spread between the forces is now so watered down it is virtually invisible).
But if the Prime Minister really is going to stand up in Parliament and say that he got it wrong (or atleast his then SofS Def did ) then maybe he will get away with a U turn on getting rid of a UK amphibious capability, in which case who cares which service flys the Merlin, and then cost really does come into it and you might as well leave it with us. We can all do a best effort on the rare occasions that we might have to do something from the sea if really pushed, where the increased risk is accepted, but it would have to be the exception and not a normal expectation from defence and the nation.
But please, if this Telegraph report is true, then thank goodness as this has undoubtedly been the worst year for joint relations that I can remember, including going back to before the JHC days and RAFG. In my personal opinion it has been shocking, with poor leadership by our airships, with some bad behaviour all round and politicians that have been financially focused on years 1 to 4 at the detriment of capability and through life costs. Poorly briefed with incorrect or mis-information, no wonder in 10 years time we will probably be looking back at these years with disbelief.
I will say though to be fair the saving of the Puma was some extremely clever work by our senior leadership, well done and this decision, combined with our new buy wokkas should enable AMP's team to lead a managed path from Merlin cockpits to our shiney new aircraft. Speaking to those up the road, it is the basic fear of job security which is driving this under belly of resentment, not any real hatred of CHF. The airships might be looking to save station commands and how to grow the next CAS, but all the shop floor is interested in is their jobs, when are they going flying next and do the young keen thrusters have a career ahead of them?
For the Prime Minister to stand up just over a year after publishing an SDSR report (that wasn't rushed!!) saying that the UK was going to have an amphibious capability and then say that the report got it wrong, and actually the nation does not need it (but will continue to fund many other inefficient HMG departments instead), was I think just not going to happen. He would be laughed at not only openly by Labour, but the nation. Just as we use the Battle of Britain to invoke memories, the Fisheads have the Falklands that continue to bubble away in the nations pysche - especially now.
As I have always posted, if UK defence wants an amphibious capability then quite rightly it should go to CHF and the Fisheads, and any other JHC dreaming of spreading maritime expertise throughout its forces is pure nonsense (just as all our Air Component TLT NITEX experience spread between the forces is now so watered down it is virtually invisible).
But if the Prime Minister really is going to stand up in Parliament and say that he got it wrong (or atleast his then SofS Def did
) then maybe he will get away with a U turn on getting rid of a UK amphibious capability, in which case who cares which service flys the Merlin, and then cost really does come into it and you might as well leave it with us. We can all do a best effort on the rare occasions that we might have to do something from the sea if really pushed, where the increased risk is accepted, but it would have to be the exception and not a normal expectation from defence and the nation.But please, if this Telegraph report is true, then thank goodness as this has undoubtedly been the worst year for joint relations that I can remember, including going back to before the JHC days and RAFG. In my personal opinion it has been shocking, with poor leadership by our airships, with some bad behaviour all round and politicians that have been financially focused on years 1 to 4 at the detriment of capability and through life costs. Poorly briefed with incorrect or mis-information, no wonder in 10 years time we will probably be looking back at these years with disbelief.
I will say though to be fair the saving of the Puma was some extremely clever work by our senior leadership, well done and this decision, combined with our new buy wokkas should enable AMP's team to lead a managed path from Merlin cockpits to our shiney new aircraft. Speaking to those up the road, it is the basic fear of job security which is driving this under belly of resentment, not any real hatred of CHF. The airships might be looking to save station commands and how to grow the next CAS, but all the shop floor is interested in is their jobs, when are they going flying next and do the young keen thrusters have a career ahead of them?
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 17th Feb 2012 at 16:23.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Angleterre
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking impartially and without prejudice; I sincerely hope that bodging aircraft designed to be land based into a 'marinised' fleet in austere times does not conclude with an aircraft unfit for purpose that is dangerous. A job well done is never done without cost, and cost cutting usually costs lives.
Not said to provoke willy waving and in ignorance of the differances between the present grey fleet Merlin and the SH variant. Aware though that the transition could be a step too far. Is Joint Force Merlin still an option? If not, we may as well chin the JHC concept and put RAF SH back under command of AIR.
Not said to provoke willy waving and in ignorance of the differances between the present grey fleet Merlin and the SH variant. Aware though that the transition could be a step too far. Is Joint Force Merlin still an option? If not, we may as well chin the JHC concept and put RAF SH back under command of AIR.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by hulahoop7; 17th Feb 2012 at 17:30.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yozzer,
The days of bespoke aircraft for niche jobs have long gone - maybe with the exception of Attack Helicopters. Look around at NH-90 and all its variants and roles, the new AW family of aircraft, and even the old Sea King was designed as a maritime aircraft, but by all accounts is used effectively and safely by many customers in land roles.
Although not an expert on the Merlin LEP, I think the majority of the costs were in the upgrading and modernising the aircraft, not the marinisation bits, but I do know that other nations are safely using it in a land and maritime role.
As to all SH under Air Command, I believe that this is seriously being looked at as under the new MAA rules and regulations it is believed by many that CAS is really the only person that has the qualifications and experience to be a proper Senior Duty Holder.
Unchecked
Now do not go putting silly ideas like that into the centre's mind, you will only start this whole thing off again. How many times do I have to say that although the twin TQ monster is awesome, it is not the panacea and cannot do everything and does have limitations (I know, I find it hard saying that!).
Aside from that, DE&S will most certainly not go for a split hub, and again why train Fisheads on a completely new aircraft when we can transition our own crews across with all their experience levels. At least Merlins keep it all in the same Fishead family.
If memory serves me correctly (and we do have to be honest and fair here) there is not that much extra cost to defence for the Merlin transition as we would still have to train our own crews anyway over the next 4 or 5 years. The bean counters do not care what the colour of the cloth is of the student - the bean counters are colour blind and just see 'pilot under training', do you think they care which service actually flys it at the end of the course, and what his/her specialisation is.....nah.
The days of bespoke aircraft for niche jobs have long gone - maybe with the exception of Attack Helicopters. Look around at NH-90 and all its variants and roles, the new AW family of aircraft, and even the old Sea King was designed as a maritime aircraft, but by all accounts is used effectively and safely by many customers in land roles.
Although not an expert on the Merlin LEP, I think the majority of the costs were in the upgrading and modernising the aircraft, not the marinisation bits, but I do know that other nations are safely using it in a land and maritime role.
As to all SH under Air Command, I believe that this is seriously being looked at as under the new MAA rules and regulations it is believed by many that CAS is really the only person that has the qualifications and experience to be a proper Senior Duty Holder.
Unchecked
Now do not go putting silly ideas like that into the centre's mind, you will only start this whole thing off again. How many times do I have to say that although the twin TQ monster is awesome, it is not the panacea and cannot do everything and does have limitations (I know, I find it hard saying that!).
Aside from that, DE&S will most certainly not go for a split hub, and again why train Fisheads on a completely new aircraft when we can transition our own crews across with all their experience levels. At least Merlins keep it all in the same Fishead family.
If memory serves me correctly (and we do have to be honest and fair here) there is not that much extra cost to defence for the Merlin transition as we would still have to train our own crews anyway over the next 4 or 5 years. The bean counters do not care what the colour of the cloth is of the student - the bean counters are colour blind and just see 'pilot under training', do you think they care which service actually flys it at the end of the course, and what his/her specialisation is.....nah.
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 17th Feb 2012 at 17:10.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: here, there and everywhere
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it must be 6 months since the last well the FAA should have the new Chinooks gag. I would suggest that you work out how operate with 2 Crewmen first before attempting to ask for even bigger toys. No offence meant but learn to walk first before running.
I am also lead to believe that the transfer is reversible and dependent on it being cost effective and in the public interest.
Notwithstanding this, I do hope the transfer takes place without hitch, however just don't hold your breath. Be assured though that it won't be the shop floor that try to upset the apple cart.
I am also lead to believe that the transfer is reversible and dependent on it being cost effective and in the public interest.
Notwithstanding this, I do hope the transfer takes place without hitch, however just don't hold your breath. Be assured though that it won't be the shop floor that try to upset the apple cart.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM,
I was interested in the statement you made in your last post:
As to all SH under Air Command, I believe that this is seriously being looked at as under the new MAA rules and regulations it is believed by many that CAS is really the only person that has the qualifications and experience to be a proper Senior Duty Holder.
Having read the MAA RA1020, which states that:
Each Service COS shall be an SDH by virtue of position, and shall personally appoint by name ODHs and DDHs within their AoRs.
my take is that CNS, CDS and CAS are SDHs by 'virtue of position', and that the 'qualifications and experience' bit comes in at ODH/DDH level. What do you think?
Best Regards as ever,
Engines
I was interested in the statement you made in your last post:
As to all SH under Air Command, I believe that this is seriously being looked at as under the new MAA rules and regulations it is believed by many that CAS is really the only person that has the qualifications and experience to be a proper Senior Duty Holder.
Having read the MAA RA1020, which states that:
Each Service COS shall be an SDH by virtue of position, and shall personally appoint by name ODHs and DDHs within their AoRs.
my take is that CNS, CDS and CAS are SDHs by 'virtue of position', and that the 'qualifications and experience' bit comes in at ODH/DDH level. What do you think?
Best Regards as ever,
Engines
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines,
Yes, I agree what the current MAA rules say, but don't you think in the future that it just makes sense to have an air minded senior officer, that has grown up in an air environment, with experience and qualifications in the air, as the person accountable and responsible to the SofS for the safety of military things in the air, not one that is used to digging trenches or sailing on boats?
Back on thread, ramp_up, couldn't agree more, and although I can buy into (forgive the pun) Merlin transition not costing the tax payer that much, it does have to be in the public (national strategic) interest.
As per SDSR currently there is a declared requirement for an amphibious capability, but if we really are that broke and the NHS or Welfare budgets require the dosh, then I can conceivably see a U turn and that is why CHF and Merlin would go. Not because of any single service agenda, quite simply because we as a nation cannot afford the number of helicopters and especially the niche capabilities offered by specialist organisations like CHF.
I have been quite open given my experience of the wokka on board in that any number of Chinooks embarked would not truly satisfy the amphibious requirement, and that is ignoring my body shuddering at the thought of deploying at sea for any longer than I have to, but if we really are that broke and cannot afford all the 'clubs in the golf bag', then now we have Puma and a new buy of Chinooks, we really don't need Merlin if the amphibious stuff is no longer required.
Yes, I agree what the current MAA rules say, but don't you think in the future that it just makes sense to have an air minded senior officer, that has grown up in an air environment, with experience and qualifications in the air, as the person accountable and responsible to the SofS for the safety of military things in the air, not one that is used to digging trenches or sailing on boats?
Back on thread, ramp_up, couldn't agree more, and although I can buy into (forgive the pun) Merlin transition not costing the tax payer that much, it does have to be in the public (national strategic) interest.
As per SDSR currently there is a declared requirement for an amphibious capability, but if we really are that broke and the NHS or Welfare budgets require the dosh, then I can conceivably see a U turn and that is why CHF and Merlin would go. Not because of any single service agenda, quite simply because we as a nation cannot afford the number of helicopters and especially the niche capabilities offered by specialist organisations like CHF.
I have been quite open given my experience of the wokka on board in that any number of Chinooks embarked would not truly satisfy the amphibious requirement, and that is ignoring my body shuddering at the thought of deploying at sea for any longer than I have to, but if we really are that broke and cannot afford all the 'clubs in the golf bag', then now we have Puma and a new buy of Chinooks, we really don't need Merlin if the amphibious stuff is no longer required.
Charlie Time,
"There are no 'extra' Wildcats as far as I'm aware."
Time to be a little more aware mate, there are four additional Wildcats, to go to SF as LUH, thought to be for 657 Sqn, along with four that were originally destined for the Army in the original role. So it's now 28 for the RN, 30 for the Army and 8 for SF, hence four extra Wildcats.
"There are no 'extra' Wildcats as far as I'm aware."
Time to be a little more aware mate, there are four additional Wildcats, to go to SF as LUH, thought to be for 657 Sqn, along with four that were originally destined for the Army in the original role. So it's now 28 for the RN, 30 for the Army and 8 for SF, hence four extra Wildcats.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MaroonMan
Don't overlook the fact that, if you're suggesting the MoD decide to ditch the amphibious capability, it's slightly more complex than just CHF. You're suggesting the LPH (including the CVS currently covering the role), all of the supporting assets and...oh, yes.....the Royal Marines. Plus the fact that it's a core national capability as defined in SDSR, it's not quite as simple as just saying that we made a mistake and don't need it to resolve some bad relationships between services over a few helicopters.
Don't overlook the fact that, if you're suggesting the MoD decide to ditch the amphibious capability, it's slightly more complex than just CHF. You're suggesting the LPH (including the CVS currently covering the role), all of the supporting assets and...oh, yes.....the Royal Marines. Plus the fact that it's a core national capability as defined in SDSR, it's not quite as simple as just saying that we made a mistake and don't need it to resolve some bad relationships between services over a few helicopters.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....and of course amphibiosity is of greater value, across the range of operations the Government may wish to undertake, than many of the RAF and Army capabilities. So I think the amphibious case is here to stay....as is CHF, indeed one could see the maritime capable helo element expand.
Bismarck,
You are quite correct that Amphibeous Ops are here to stay - they offer an effective way for govts to influence, deter, fix or, ultimately, engage with hostile forces. To be effective you need the correct shipping and trained staff officers; you don't need CHF....though it is doubtless more efficient with them. The LitM RW capability will not expand; TAGs will always seek to draw in components that offer complimentary capabilities (esp CH47 and AH) so any "uplift" will be from existing JHC fleets. I'm sure a large chunk of the post-Afghan "regeneration" will be spent trying to get the CH47 and Puma 2 fleets back up to speed for LitM (not to mention a large % of CHF who've never embarked due to the Herrick focus...).
MM4; I don't see any issue with a 4* soldier or sailor being the SDH for air assets under their command. One could argue that what does a FJ CAS know about the issues of RW or AT fleets? The answer is a robust chain of ODH/DDH/SO to provide that expertise, as happens now.
You are quite correct that Amphibeous Ops are here to stay - they offer an effective way for govts to influence, deter, fix or, ultimately, engage with hostile forces. To be effective you need the correct shipping and trained staff officers; you don't need CHF....though it is doubtless more efficient with them. The LitM RW capability will not expand; TAGs will always seek to draw in components that offer complimentary capabilities (esp CH47 and AH) so any "uplift" will be from existing JHC fleets. I'm sure a large chunk of the post-Afghan "regeneration" will be spent trying to get the CH47 and Puma 2 fleets back up to speed for LitM (not to mention a large % of CHF who've never embarked due to the Herrick focus...).
MM4; I don't see any issue with a 4* soldier or sailor being the SDH for air assets under their command. One could argue that what does a FJ CAS know about the issues of RW or AT fleets? The answer is a robust chain of ODH/DDH/SO to provide that expertise, as happens now.