But then ................... George Osborne decides to make a PFI initiative out of it and the 25 year costs escalate by £15Bn and Liam Fox goes for a ride in one and decides it would be better than Puma and so he cancels the Puma upgrade (after the last cab is complete) and buys a shed load of 169s, which then need massive changes and the only way to pay for it is bin all the Chinooks!

:ugh::ugh:

Old Duffer

No, thats become garador. Their products last far longer than AWs and seem to go up better.

Not only do they also come down under a greater degree of control, you can get spares quite easily too.

So how can you take a helicopter designed with folding blades, folding tail and tie down points, remove these features and then make it expensive to put them back.

Afik. the Italians operate or have ordered a Naval tail ramp version - the design solutions for the requisite combination of features must exist.

I would have thought that after the Falklands it would have been sensible to specify all helicopters as marinised - to provide maximum flexibility in specific operations as well as major equipment reshuffles such as is being discussed.

The Italian model Mk 410 and 413 with ramp, but folding bits total eight frames.

You would indeed have thought that post Corporate, aircraft should have been specified to be ship compatible. HOwever, on that basis, why is the Puma upgrade going ahead? "Surely" all future aircraft (inc f/w) should be deisgned to at least consider going to sea.......

Given that Yeovil was formally designated as AgustaWestland's military center of excellence by Sig. Orsi during the FLynx launch event in '06, presumably all 101s, all mil 109s, the 129 and the 149. Plus Wildcat and MCSP. Si?

Blandy 1 - in answer to your question re' taking blade fold off a design with it on. Simples it's weight. Mk1 carries little but mission kit plus limited external weapons such as torpedoes or with the Mission kit removed pax. Mk3 needs to carry troops and/or external loads. To get a resonable lift performance and range something had to come off the basic weight to get within the max all up weight. Blade and tail fold weighs a lot, fold management unit, several actuators, tail hinge frame etc. Removing it frees up weight for more load. Would you be surprised to hear that the internal paint finish was left off mk3 to help meet the weight requirement, a saving of a whole 6kg!!

Have to come in here. The RAF had a massive input to the Mk3. The RN Special Maintenance Party (SMP) at Yeovil looking after the Mk1 was 5 people. The RAF put 24 people in there for the Mk3.

There was practically no part of the airframe or systems that did not get reviewed and have its specification changed or uplifted. Very talented Westlands engineers were in private despair at the weight growth taking place all over the aircraft to add a seemingly unending list of 'must haves'. Don't get me wrong, some of them really were must haves. But quite a few weren't. Amazingly, blade fold wasn't, as there was no requirement to go to sea. Same for lashing points. (Joint? You're 'aving a larf....) We have ended up with one of the best protected, best equipped helicopters around - but its lift margin, already hit by the gearbox issue, was eroded by the process I described. And it can't go to sea.

Same guys then had to watch the same thing happen to the VH-71 programme, where the 'SMEs' from Pax river drew up their own list of 'must haves' and added tons to the weight.

Basic lesson - powered lift aircraft always have a weight challenge at some point in their lives. You always have to trade requirements for weight. In the Mk3's case, happened right at the start and was hampered by unchecked requirements creep. Getting these back to sea will take some tough decisions, but the Junglies can handle them.

Best regards as ever

Engines

This is all very interesting, but why does the UK need the CHF and why don't we just make the AAC soely responsible for all RW? As already stated, AAC manages to operate off ships already.

Engines, as I remember it the RAF team wasn't just for Merlin but also Sea King Mk3a hence it's apparent size. If I try really hard I just about name all the Merlin Mk3 guys. Some of the SMP are still about.

Odigron

Well done.
I thought this thread, despite Engines attempt to inject knowledge and sanity, was the epitomy of classic Pprune "talking out of the hoop".
I thought it could not sink to any lower depths.
I was wrong.
Well done.

Tourist, a pleasure.
I am finding the stove piped debates a little boring. Maybe we should bin the whole lot (CHF, AAC & RAF SH) and start again.

Engines, I think the more important point to address is why a helicopter with 3 engines delivers such poor performance?:rolleyes: It seems the margins were tight from the get-go, let alone accounting for any middle age spread that we all know seems to happen. (Just look at Mildcat)

Obviously you need 3 engines to lift the weight of 3 engines..... I think:)

Engines, marinising the Mk3 would have been requirements creep when there was no requirement to go to sea. The down side of the wet assembly is poor bonding paths and a struggle to hit the EMC spec, followed by weight growth.

regards

retard

Engineer,

The baseline common Merlin design was marinised. The Mk3 requirement was written to remove the marinised features, to save weight, to make room for other stuff. Not having to go to sea made sense from an RAF perspective, but was (IMHO) nonsense at the time - UK was already short of aircraft then.

Wet assembly is a standard, known and straightforward set of processes that have been around since the 1940s when the US started making aircraft from mag alloys and found they needed corrosion protection. EMC and bonding is not hard and doesn't add much weight. The big problem for newer aircraft is handling composites and other materials that don't conduct and don't provide the shielding metal does.

Best Regards as ever,

Engines

Marinisation
 

My understanding is that all of the talk about how expensive the marinisation of the Mk3 to Mk4 will be contains more than a little bit of smoke and mirrors....the cabs already need an upgrade programme that they're planned to recieve and the marinisation is a relatively minor part of it. The normal POV from those trying to keep the aircraft is to focus on the cost and claim that this is the cost of transferal. It's not, we're already planning to spend most of that money anyway, irrespective of whose cap badge is on the pilots!

But in this world of cuts and frugality, do we still believe that any money for a planned upgrade is still there? Do you not think that if it's recognised that the Mk3 in it's current form is getting along nicely, then the beancounters may decide that the money allegedly set-aside for an LEP may be better spent elsewhere?

Snafu,
What is not 'smoke and mirrors' is that we, and I mean we, not RN and not Army or RAF, are currently £38 billion in the dwang...

Why, and how can we afford an x million marinisation programme plus the cost of re training 70 odd helicopter crews based in 2 different parts of England. Did I mention Merlin in Afghanistan, SK 4 in AFghanistan and Ellamy, no home resource to transfer from one service to another...Etc

Apart from that, things are rosy....

Oh deary me......

Is this what Jointery has really become? Is this is what purple looks and smells like after all these years?

A Secretary of State signs off on a decision, converted into a military order at 4* level and we still continue to vent our frustrations on the world wide web.

I view the Harrier thread with the same sadness - whether a right or wrong decision Navy, just get on with it.

And however much we perceive that the transfer of Merlin to the Fisheads is an injustice, we too must get on with it, otherwise this will result in many years ahead of bitterness and a painful transition (including to the new CH47), where only the troops in contact being supported will suffer.

Of course we are broke, and of course making the Merlin fit to go to sea will cost extra on top of its already required upgrade, but lets be realistic here in that over the next 10-20 years we are not just going to stop buying kit and doing 'stuff'.

As I have always maintained, if UK plc wants an amphibious capability, then the Fisheads are the best placed to deliver that capability, and money will have to be found to deliver that capability. If Defence does not want an amphibious capability, then lets take it on risk, keep the Merlins with us and we can work ourselves up to deliver a 'best effort' when and if required (I think we all recognise that in this world of Haddon-Cave that doing the full gambit of amphibious operations is a specialist task requiring a bit more than a few deck landings every now and again!).

It appears that the decision last week has meant that our lords and masters believe that they want an amphibious capability. Whether they can afford it who knows, but that is the politicians and the Cap boys/girls problem and I am pretty sure that it is not going to be a perfect solution and I do not envy the Fishead Merlin drivers in the years ahead.

I know that it is tough and for many of us it looks a crass decision, but as per the Harrier, the Army's 20,000 and the Navy's reductions in all of its small ships for its big Carrier, we have either got to get on with it or vote with our feet. If we do not, then I really do believe that we are in peril of having some of people sacked or quietly removed from their post.

Through DRR the politicians have displayed a strong desire for Joint , what they are seeing at the moment at all levels is the exact opposite.
:(