"Due to its simple and rugged design, the Sea King rarely suffers any significant maintenance issues, and, when it does, it is relatively easy to repair." :p Really? could have fooled me! Mind you, I'm sure Merlin will be much better.:cool:

Good luck to the Junglies, they're a good bunch, but the SK4 was totally out of its depth and unsuited to SH operations in Afghanistan, which given the helicopter is a maritime effort designed in the Fifties, is not an enormous surprise. That they muddled through is to their credit.

Whatever happens, it's only right that somebody from either MoD, Govt or the RAF starts to make a definite plan for it's loss and begins to tell those at Benson exactly where their futures could lie. Stringing them all along whille the clock ticks down to 2015 is grossly unfair on a large, committed group of guys and girls who dragged that aircraft kicking and screaming into 3 theatres and gave it the success it's had. I don't expect this to happen, of course.

It won't really matter when all the rotary assets and personnel become The Defence Helicopter Force

Joint Force Merlin.

Agree with unchecked and MM4 wholeheartedly.

MM4

Right or wrong, and that is something we will never agree on, you are deluded if you think our opinions have anything to do with the course of events.

The RN RAF etc will do as they are told.

This "we will allow" stuff smacks of a false sense of your ability to influence events.

Tourist,
Quite right, we follow orders.....

But doling out orders without doing a proper analysis of cost versus benefit smacks of incompetence.

"But doling out orders without doing a proper analysis of cost versus benefit smacks of incompetence"

And by god our polititions have done a lot of that...........

Amen to that, Tourist.

FWIW IMHO, i think this is all too far gone now to be reversed. It's come out in public, the outrage that would come from telling the Junglies that they're not going to have a shiny new helicopter after all would probably be a bit too much for the govt to stomach - not sure a new Def Sec would want any bad news in the first few months of his term. The cost vs benefit is probably outrageous but they can easily offset that by not marinising Mk3 to Mk4 and just making the Junglies make-do with an aircraft that they can't even send below deck on their flat-tops. This is an outrage in itself but easier to convince the public it's for the best than making the CHF redundant. It's a stinking fudge but that's what they do, right ?

At best, we'll see something like MM4's proposal. When is the new RW Strategy due to be published ?

Decision to erode years of Merlin operating knowledge and experience at a ridiculous and unnecessary cost is bonkers.

Surely the effectivness of a Support Helicopter force is dependant on the individuals in the force, their training, experience (in role) and ability. Providing it is planned and delivered correctly a change of aircraft type should only improve this effectiveness. The government have decided that there continues to be a requirement for an SH force with expertise to operate in the amphibious environment. When the RAF took on the Merlin they utilised the existing SH expertise from within their organisation to provide an SH capability in a very short period of time. The Junglies will do the same by learning the relevant lessons from their RAF brethren and then molding this and their own style to amphibious operations. This is after all only a change of aircraft type - yes it has a few more bells and whistles but lets not over egg it. The upshot is that there will be no loss in effectiveness by transferring the Merlin and the governments requirement for a continued Amphibious capability will be met - ultimately regardless of whether the Mk4 upgrade takes place or not. It seems to me that the key point here is that it is the government that decides the capabilities that it wants and not the CAS or FSL.

"a change of aircraft type should only improve this effectiveness"

Interesting to compare that comment with the views of many of the guys I knew who were on the Commando squadrons back in the early 1980's. They were in the middle of the transition from Wessex 5 to Sea King 4,. (from memory 846 was SK4, 845 Wessex 5 though I may have that the wrong way round) Almost universally they felt that despite the improved performance, the change was retrograde. Why? Three reasons:
1) You could mount a range of rockets guns and missile on a Wessex 5, turning it into a gunship and giving it a significant degree of self defence.. The SK4 was lacking in the required wiring,
2) The Wessex 5 was more reliable and less likely to break (and easier to fix)
3) In their words, the Wessex 5 was "squaddie proof"
I'm relaying this second-hand, its not from personal experience but I find it interesting that a perceived "upgrade" may not really be so.

Admittedly my statement does require the new aircraft to provide an upgrade in capability ... but thats probabally a debate for a different thread!

i'm not saying the Junglies aren't capable of converting, like you say it is only an aircraft change. That's not to say that Merlin won't be a bit of a frustration for you guys !

My main point is it all leaves a bit of a bitter taste because if Mk4 doesn't go ahead, the RAF is effectively losing trained operators all for the sake of RN having an aircraft that isn't really what they require. The whole point of it going, as briefed, was that it had to be marinised and if that doesn't happen then why not just stop the whole process and give them something else (eg 14x new chinooks) thereby reducing the cost of retraining 2 sets of crews ?

Of course it is only my opinion that Mk4 marinisation will not happen because the money isn't there - if i'm wrong and it does then the full cost needs to be made fully transparent.

Money?
 

"Of course it is only my opinion that Mk4 marinisation will not happen because the money isn't there - if i'm wrong and it does then the full cost needs to be made fully transparent."

The money may, or may not, be there- there are several planning rounds to go before any serious quantity has to be spent on marinisation, and if cash is too scarce to do everything it may not be necessary to marinise all the Mk3's to deliver the CHF capability the Government (on decision day) wants.


However the driver about the money is as (probably more) likely to be industrial and political as it is to be military. As mentioned i this thread, Westlands will need something to do after they have nailed together the Wildcats. Vince Cable and David Laws think (hope) this will be the AW 169, but actually supporting a civil aircraft to the standard a civil customer can get elsewhere is new territory for WHL and will require much money at least.

Additionally, Yeovil for some reason has been a key constituency for Governments of all flavours so they won't want to see Lysander Road jobs disappear or move to Italy and will either find work to supplement the AW169 or provide profits to ensure that AW169 is able to stand up successfully from Yeovil.

Finally, There may even be 'strategic capability' voices raising the need to be able to maintain RW design and integration capability in UK. That will depend on the new industrial strategy, whenever that appears.

N

Bengo,
Correct, there are plenty of planning rounds to come. But if you are not going to marinise all of them, what is the point of giving up 2 sqns and 10 years worth of corporate experience on Mk3?

Vs three squadrons and fifty years of experience in amphibious and SH ops?

4 sqns, not 3(845,46, 47, 48?)50 years? not on SK 4... How many carriers to fly off in future? How many frames will be Marinised? Why the need for all Merlin Mk 3 to go to the RN if we can only foot one carrier at sea, at once.? I have never denied that we need a CHF, but this plan to retrain two sets of aircrew is bolleaux and does not stand any scrutiny, either financial or military.

TWO squadrons - 845 & 846
848 is a training / headquarters squadron and in a more honest time would have been numbered 7xx
847 is the old 3 CBAS and flies armed reconnaissance Lynx. Presumably one day they'll get marinised Apache.....not Merlin
Only time 845/6/7/8 were all Commando squadrons together was during the Falklands war when the Wessex 5 training squadrons were renumbered from 7xx to 84x overnight in an attempt to play with the Argies minds over how many front line squadrons we had.
If memory serves me correct, wasn't 849 also formed at Culdrose using spare stripped out SK Mk2 cabs which were awaiting conversion to Mk5?

As far as I can remember ALL the SK4 cabs were in 846, the other squadrons were Wessex 5. So effectively one squadron then held the entire current CHF SK4 fleet. now spread over two front line and one training squadrons. To me that sounds like a hidden reduction in capability

James,
I'm talking about CHF as a whole. Is it not 4 sqns? It looks quite a large organisation for one, maybe 2 pretend aircraft carriers...

To put the record straight the squadron that used the stripped out HAS2's in the Falklands was 825NAS

I have read somewhere that 847NAS are due to convert to the Wildcat and that 848NAS have a 8** number rather than a 7** one is due to thier MCT role.

I can't see your point. CHF comprises only 2 x SK4 Front Line Sqns (845 & 846), 1 x SK4 Training Sqn (848) and 1 x Lynx Mk7 Armed Reconnaissance Sqn (847).

Possible operating platforms/lily pads include 2 x LPH (OCEAN & ILLUSTRIOUS), 2 x LPD (BULWARK & ALBION), 3 x RFA BAY CLASS LSDs (LYME BAY, MOUNTS BAY & CARDIGAN BAY) and 6 x RFA POINT CLASS sealift ships (HURST POINT, HARTLAND POINT, EDDYSTONE, ANVIL POINT, LONGSTONE, BEACHY HEAD) plus any other RN warships/RFAs of course.

I think what high spirits is trying to make clear is that if Mk 3 remains so, and it can't be folded up to put on a ship, then why go to the expense of retraining 2 sets of crews when you could possibly retrain CHF onto the new Chinooks ? Gives them a new aircraft and a frame that will do everything they need - ok, the numbers are less but the lift capacity evens it all out. I read somewhere that the lifts on the new carriers are to be big enough for a Chinook anyway, if this is true then there is no requirement for a Merlin Mk4.

but as often as not, the CHF is deployed on ships other than the carriers, ones which simply don't have the deck space for a Chinook

I'm sure it wasnt you FOD, but one of your RN cohorts said on a similar thread that lily padding doesn't count(or some such words). 1 LPH and a legacy CVS. That is all you can embark on for a sustained period. LPD has no hangar, the rest are just the hanger-on vessels....

Fact, you have less ships you can embark on for a sustained period, but just as many sqns. Fact, the marinisation is not yet funded(and may not be). Fact, the Mk3 will rot if not put down below. Fact the mk3 isn't very suitable for the proposed role (at the moment).

"but just as many sqns"
But thats where the statistics get distorted
During the Falklands war the navy was able to send around 55 Wessex 5 south, plus they had enough for at least a 12-strong "squadron" still at Yeovilton (admittedly two were gaily-painted admirals barges, and one was still in 1960's brown/green camouflage).
At the same time, the SK4 fleet would have been around 23 - not including the two Mk4X trials aircraft. (Contrary to what I thought earlier, the last 18 were built after the Falklands)
So, around 100 available CHF aircraft, for a nominal strength of two squadrons (845 & 846) though as we know, a number of "extra" squadrons were created overnight.
Thats rather a lot more than a few hand-me-down Merlins. For the same number of cut-down carriers (two) , 2x LPD amd Engadine (plus whatever the RFAs could carry)

Ah, halcyon days!

Oh, almost forgot. Did I mention that our collective UK wallet is emptier than a witches brassiere?

you're changing the argument
Your implication was that the same number of current CHF squadrons as in the past implied the same number of aircraft, and the same capability. Far from it: the actual number of helicopters has dropped. Yet the load they are supposed to lift - 3 Commando Brigade - hasn't really shrunk in size.

How many RAF Merlins are there? 28? When transferred to the Navy, what does that translate to in terms of front-line aircraft?

James,
No, you simply make mine and the argument of Unchecked quite clear. Less platforms to embark sustained ops on, but the same load, ie 3Cdo = a better cab with greater lift capacity. It comes with a tandem rotor and is not a Merlin Mk3.

so who pays to design and engineer the folding rotor blades?
and presumably it would also need full marinisation - just as required by the Merlins.
The Chinook is no more marine capable than the Merlin Mk3 - and at least converting that is (or should be) a known quantity

Now if cost is a problem, maybe someone could ask Columbia Helicopters to knock up a quick batch of updated new-build Sea Knights. Columbia now own the construction rights.

If the lifts are big enough on CVF, they could take a fully spread chinook or Merlin as they are almost the same length and rotor diameter. But less chinook needed for lift = less cabs in the hangar below. At least the chinook (x4)could do a company lift in a oner. I don't see a wheezing Marinised Merlin (or six) being able to achieve the same capability.

LPH can't take either below without ripping blades or pitot tubes off.

How much longer will 3Cdo remain a sacred cow...? :\

3Cdo has never been a sacred cow.

A sacred cow is something that is revered for no particular reason apart from faith.

3Cdo are the UKs consistently most flexible and effective/cost effective force.

....do the guys in suits, who go to expensive lunches, know/believe that.....

Personally I don't think that they know what the hole in their arse is for, but people on here refering to 3Cdo as a sacred cow don't really help.

And if 3 Cdo are that flexible, to remain so requires the correct aircraft for the job. Step forward, 14 Chinooks.

Do a straw poll of 3 Cdo, see what they'd prefer to get the job done based on their experiences of working with both types.

Less platforms to embark sustained ops on, but the same load, ie 3Cdo = a better cab with greater lift capacity. It comes with a tandem rotor and is not a Merlin Mk3.

Mr Sikorsky's biggest product?

If only.

The CH47 is without a doubt one of the most capable and versatile helicopters ever devised but the danger here is that after 10 years of Afghan we have ended up in the corporate position of the the answer is always chinook. Experience from a numerous ops over the past 20 years shows that there is a clear requirement for medium lift ... even on todays Afghan centric (necessarily) force there are times when CH47 is not the answer and something smaller is required.

and the medium helicopter is called Puma 2. Especially as it has a better capability that the 101. Well at least on paper.

Jungliebeefer
Agreed. Use the money to convert Mk2 Merlin cockpit to NVD, or upgrade the 12 mk 1 orphans, rather than marinise Mk3=cheaper. After all, mk1 mates talk about a 16 seat capability for anti piracy. Launch mk2 from LPH and chinook and or merlin from CVF. Lynx can launch from either.

Simples