but however you look at it, 14 Chinooks or 28 Merlins do not equal the 38 (??) or so surviving SK4, or the 110+ CHF fleet of the early 1980's

Beefer,

In terms of footprint and downwash, Merlin is almost the same as Chinook, so it doesn't really fit into the medium bracket i guess you're talking about - Puma 2 is probably the more sensible suggestion ?

James,

Yes, 14 Chinook for 38 SK4 in terms of pure numbers doesn't go, but in terms of lift capacity it probably evens out. At MSL, you'd be lifting a company in 4 or 5 airframes. Merlin would be 7 or 8. How many Sea Kings would that take ? Genuine question.

The cost just for the aircraft work is £0.5 Billion. Not sure the money is available with the UK stuck in recession and runaway inflation. If a order for that much was around the corner would HMG really let AW ditch 300 plus jobs at the worst possible time for jobless stats and especially after getting a 'job saving' loan of several millions from the nice Mr Cable not many weeks ago. The RW 2* eluded to Mk3 struggling in H&H at his brief today. The cab is a white elephant and the best thing would be is for it to be retired gracefully post ops in 2015, if the aircraft lasts that long.

I suppose that depends on all of your future ops being conducted in hot and high conditions. It performs admirably in other scenarios. Op Telic can vouch for that.

Sorry for commenting on an old post, but please do come on. Does the general public really give 2 flying farts what happens to CHF when they are fighting for their own jobs and financial security. In fact Joe public would be happy to hear that money wasn't going to be spent on defence at all. Lets be fair, in the current climate, unless you are in the job, have been in the job, related to someone in the job or work for AW, BAE or Boeing etc then you won't really care about the MOD or defence.

Can't really argue with that. Although i can be sure that the public do care about where their taxes are spent and spending the £0.5billion you've quoted, and more on top, won't sit favourably with them.

Just a few things (personal opinions) I want to add.

The potential for the green Merlin to corrode more than the MK1because of its construction is actually cobblers, to put it mildly. The actual process of bolting them together is/was the same. I visited the build shed in the 1990s as part of my M Sup course and was surprised to see not a lot in the way of JC5A, Polycast, PRC, being used and if you speak to the people in the know, they will tell you that whilst this “appeared” correct at the time, it was (as we now know) was due to processes not being followed down the tortuous route of AP links to where is said, “apply jointing compound XYZ”.
The corrosion of embarked aircraft is a constant problem, whether it’s a Merlin or a Seaking, or an Apache. The biggest problem on the Invincible class ships is the lack of fresh water available to the flight deck for washing procedures. The modern sailor has little or no concept of water rationing; a concept put into practice regularly on the old steam ships. It’s now common place for priority to be given to the comfort and facilities available to the crew rather than think about the consequences of not washing the aircraft after a days flying. Ask anyone who served on that class of ship, the fresh water supply on the flight deck was essentially a garden hose on the island bulkhead.
The Ocean is no better, it is a nightmare of a ship, with no support for embarked flights and an obvious priority given to the troops it carries. The poor stokers struggle to keep the thing moving and to be frank, couldn’t give a toss if the WAFUs can’t wash their petrol pigeons; why should they?
If the basic concept of using jungly cabs at sea is to embark them, sail to the scene of the fight, and use them to disembark the troops ashore; then in real terms the inability to fold is actually a red herring (and yes I have supported the Junglies as AED and operated with them on RFA and Navy ships). Ocean was originally designed as a “30 day ferry”, hence the lack of maintenance facilities and flight support problems on board her. If you know the Merlin aircraft, you know that it is child’s play to pull the blades off (two pins), so make up a shed load of aircraft covers, pull the blades off, and deck park them covered up. Leave one or two to carry out mail and stores runs to the accompanying RFAs and ships (or a couple of old MK4 SK), and wash the flyers daily. When you get within a day of the baddies, fit the blades and off you go! They should stay with the troops as they move inland, so what’s the fuss?
To quote the armedforces.co.uk website with reference to the new carriers;“Each of the two huge lifts that move aircraft from hangar to flight deck can carry two fighter-bombers. They're so big one of them could carry the weight of the entire ship's crew”.
So with that in mind, does the tail need to fold? In fact does the aircraft need to fold? Just how big are these lifts?
As for the problems that are caused by the Junglies learning about a new aircraft, well firstly, the MK 3 Merlin ain’t that complicated. Secondly, the problems solved by having one force (RN) operating the aircraft to one set of standards and very importantly managing the logistic support in one way (RN) will increase the availability of spares that are common to MK1 and MK3 Merlins (lots).
(Got rid of the last statement so I don't get shot!!)

Grubber,
I have no doubt that what you say about the PRC etc is true. The bit about parking up covered cabs minus blades on the flight deck is utter hoop. The deck is busy enough with exercising bootnecks and flight ops without the hazards of more ac than necessary rotting away on the deck.

The new QE class lifts, if they can take fully spread chinook or Merlin are the answer. Chinook, a better solution than Merlin, as less are needed for the same capability. Therefore, less storage space in the hangar. Especially if lynx or AH are embarked too. Get rid of the 'O' boat. I agree with you, it's rubbish.

As for the complexities of flying Merlin versus SK, how do you know? I personally think that although it's a helicopter at the end of the day, the systems do represent a step change. It will take circa 100 hours before a typical crew feels themselves back into the comfort zone.

Whatever the decision, the answer is not Mk3 Merlin. It makes no financial or military sense........

Cheers grubber, you've just confirmed what I've been saying along then. Give the chinooks to the CHF.

Marinisation - not required.
Deck space - not an issue
Time at sea - limited
Retraining TWO sets of aircrew - expensive (in money and experience terms)
Lift capacity - better with a chinook for less airframes (which are being purchased anyway)

Why are the RN, JHC, MoD and the Govt failing to see this?

So is the argument buy new Chinook vs. marinise Merlin Mk3? What are the differences in cost there? Is the £0.5 billion to simply marinise the Mk3, or does that include an upgrade similar to MCSP and growth capacity?

I believe that Chinook would still have to be marinised if it wants a floating home. Marinisation is not just about treating the airframe and folding blades. I'm sure that Merlin and presume that Chinook has an option to manually fold. The equipment fit required for nautical operation (or at least littoral operation) has to be considered. EMC is a massive consideration with the numbers of high power transmitters and highly sensitive recievers on board, what is the current EMC clearances for the Chinook? Merlin equipment is designed to work near maritime radars. What are the current ship handling operating limits for the Chinook? Merlin was designed to be operated at sea.

Operationally it is necessary to occasionally "lilypad" what is the smallest deck the Chinook can do this to/from if the flat top needs to be cleared? Or if you are involved in large scale SAR.

There are merits to both solutions, to be honest the answer is not simple, if it was the matter would already be decided. I just wanted to express an opinion on some of the negative things that have been said about Merlin and skipped over for Chinook.

Why is it necessary to 'lillypad' ? Genuine question. And why can't that be done by the Lynx/Wildcat element ?

WRT Chinook deck clearances and EMC, it surely has them as it has operated from ship before ? Merlin Mk3 has no such clearance as it was not designed to be operated at sea - that was the Merlin Mk1, of which i believe there is about 40 gathering dust in storage throughout the country.

Old Grubber said: 'Secondly, the problems solved by having one force (RN) operating the aircraft to one set of standards and very importantly managing the logistic support in one way (RN) will increase the availability of spares that are common to MK1 and MK3 Merlins (lots)'......................................So thats why over 50% of the Mk1 fleet are on the ground for spares and snags at any given time. The logistics route is the same for both fleets. AW, DE&S and Defence transport. The only single service logs input is from the supply R&D or gang plank to the customer, with a bit of EMBAV thrown in for good measure. If you have no spares the logs route can be as good as its likes but still won't overcome the basic lack of spares issue. BTW there is only 45% commonality between the two fleets - not really lots - so thats not really a valid point as most of those are not the important 'makes it fly' bits. Lastly Mk3 is hugely complicated due to its integrated systems. Everything goes through two very clever but unreliable computers./ Its a pinkies nightmare when it starts playing up as it can report snags on 'S' systems and not report on U/S ones. I've worked both and SK is far simpler in almost all respects.

Hi-Med-Low Mix
 

Gents,

Various Navies/Marine Corps around the world are arguing that same point about lift, may I suggest that the bits of kit under construction/use were not designed (initially) with current roles in mind.

Why spend billions of dollars/pounds reinventing the wheel when the largest user of maritime ship/shore helicopters (USMC) has this capability in development already;

Home

The original '53 was a good unit as long as the logistical chain and support elements followed it, is any other ML system different?

Just wondering why so much time and energy is spent on adapting a frame(s) that were not initially designed for such when a MOTS systems might be available..

Not built here perhaps?

Unchecked As nothing ever goes to plan, there are scenarios where it is of tactical advantage, or necessity, to land on something other than your Carrier or LPH. I agree it may not be a high priority requirement, but it is a major advantage in high tempo environments where things have gone wrong.

EMC clearance is not a simple YES/NO. Almost all aircraft will have their limits, and operations will take them into account. Some limitations are more acceptable than others. Merlin Mk3 is based around similar equipment to Merlin Mk1. Therefore the EMC marinisation of Mk3 is likely to be simpler and less risky as there are more knowns than unknowns.

I'm not aware of what the Chinook has in terms of startup/shutdown limits in terms of wind strength and directions and how they compare with the Merlin.

Neartheend As for SK4 vs Merlin Mk3. How do the capabilities of the AFCS, Digi Maps, FLIR, Comms, etc. compare? Not disagreeing with you, sometimes simpler is better depends on your mission requirements.

Does the marinisation option of Mk3 include more equipment common to the Merlin Mk1 update?

MERLINS TO WAVE their magic for the Commando Helicopter Force

It is full steam ahead for the engineers and aviators of the Commando Helicopter Force (CHF) as they make preparations for the planned transfer of RAF Merlin Support Helicopters to replace its ageing Sea King Mk 4 helicopters, which are due to be withdrawn from service in 2016. The CHF Merlin Mk 4 will be derived from Merlin Mk 3 airframes currently in service with Number 28 Sqn and 78 Sqn Royal Air Force at RAF Benson. A small number of Royal Navy aviators are already at RAF Benson and will be joined by 12 aviators and 35 aircraft engineers in the new year.

The planned modification programme for the RAF Merlin transition includes new cockpit and avionics systems, using open system architecture which will ‘future-proof’ the aircraft to keep step with, and enable embodiment of, evolving technologies over the next one to two decades. This aircraft update will be conducted through a Merlin Life Sustainment Programme which will be necessary to address critical obsolescence issues that will start to affect the current Merlin Mk 3 fleet in the middle of this decade.

The new cockpit will be based on the same cockpit design that is being installed in the Merlin Mk 1 as part of its own Capability Sustainment Programme which is currently being undertaken with Agusta Westland and will deliver its successor - the Merlin Mk 2. In this way Defence will see improvements in the support and management of the Merlin Fleet by having common spares for the Merlin Mk 2 and Mk 4 fleets; this will also deliver efficiencies in training for both maintainers and aircrew.

As part of the Merlin Life Sustainment Programme, the aircraft will also be modified to adapt them for operations in the maritime environment. This will include fitting a powered folding main rotor head and tail pylon to enable stowage and maintenance of the aircraft in the hangar of the Landing Platform Helicopter HMS OCEAN - or the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier. The Merlin Mk 4 aircraft will also be fitted with maritime enablers such as a Radar Identification system, flotation gear, Telebrief and lashing points for flight deck operations at sea.

Commenting on the future Captain Matt Briers RN, CO CHF added, “Once the planned transfer of the Merlin Mk 4 to the Commando Helicopter Force is complete the aircraft will be a key enabler in the insertion and sustainment of a Commando Group ashore. This contingent capability will deliver high readiness, flexible, multi-role forces, whether for diplomatic, humanitarian or military tasks; a key capability identified in the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review. There will be many challenges ahead, but the combination of CHF and the Merlin Mk 4 will offer a new direction and increased value for money for Defence”.

Neartheend,
As you say the MK1 fleet are suffering with unserviceability; why is my statement that placing all the supply and usage of assets in one forces area of responsibility going to affect that detrimentally? Don't forget that Benson are not the supply point for Merlin spares, the "Depth" facility for aircraft and components, Culdrose is. The IOS Warehouse is the conduit for the vast majority of "in scope" spares to anyone who uses the MK1 and 3 aircraft and that is in Culdrose. The Transmission bay, MDMF, Workshops, MAWS etc, etc, all exist at Culdrose, as does the RTM Engine bay (which also supplies Apache).
I would take issue also with the fact that the interchangeable assets are not the "makes it fly" bits, come on now, be honest, tell that to the transmission bay!
I agree with your list of organisations involved in supplying spares, but the comment I wrote and then deleted last time (because I didn't want to upset people) would have clarified the main problem (other than lack of sufficient assets) facing the fleets. For reasons I suspect you know about as you seem "in the loop", there is a real lack of "confidence" in usage history and that costs money. Lets leave it at that.
As for the Seaking, she was good though wasn't she!
High Spirits,
The deck parking of aircraft (including Chinooks) and vehicles on the CVS's is standard when carrying out embarked troops operations ("Bored Winter", "Purple Helmet" and so-on), so if they can manage it on a little "through deck cruiser", I reckon the POW could do it and land fixed wing aircraft too! Remember we are talking about a "transit" and unload scenario, for sustained ops from offshore to land you are right, they need to be struck into the hangar. Not ideal but not "hoop" either.
How do I know (re. complexity)
Well mechanically I completed my conversion and taught others for years, including aircrew and have done other Merlin jobs since. So whilst you are right that I have no aircrew experience, I have spent many hours talking with retread and ab initio pilots, who all told me that it almost (and I quote a senior pilot), "flies itself".

Cheers

O-G,
Looking forward to watching it fly 'by itself' at night, at low level into that dust landing......
Almost as much as I look forward to watching £0.5 billion being prised from the Treasury. (if indeed that is the cost, which seems to be a rumour). The article seems to promise 'value for money'. Hope that includes new engines, tail rotor and main gearbox....

The key word in all of this is clear to see.

Yeah, all bar the funding, which has neither been calculated or allocated.

To update and prolong the life of Merlin Mk3 costs money, and gives capability. To buy more CH47 costs money, and gives capability. To prolong the life of SK4 costs money, and gives capability. To not spend money, you have to lose capability. Whether the decision is correct can be debated for a long time. In reality very few people have access to all the costs and capability assessments. But I hope we can agree that it is better that something happens rather than the cheapest option of do nothing and gradually remove the SK4 from service with no replacement. Or is that naive of me?

Of course it's not naive - we all want what's best and in an ideal world we would supply our Armed Forces with nothing but the best equipment in adequate quantities for all the roles they are required to fulfill - but there is no money for this so we're fudging along with a plan that makes very little financial or military sense. With that in mind and considering the treasury has committed to buying the CH47 anyway, then surely that is a better and cheaper option than refitting an aircraft that does not require it and losing a wealth of experience in operating Merlin and the expense of retraining those that are lucky enough to escape the inevitable redundancies.

Of course, in an even-more-ideal world, the Navy would sail all of the ships and boats, the Army would drive all of the vehicles and fight on the ground, while the Air Force would do all the flying. If our services were that clearly defined, there could be no inter-service bickering over who should be flying what or land-grabs for equipment from their warfighting brethren.

With the risk of thread drift, the above is utter b****cks. Why would the so called make the RAF the Air Operating Authority of choice for operations from the sea? They have neither the will nor interest to be such a beast and is why the FAA was wrested from their grips in the late 1930s and has been the status quo ever since.

Unchecked, the real reason the Merlins are going to CHF is because there is no more money(well certainly not for a new type), Defence has come down on the side of amphibious capability and carrier enabled strike), the CHF are currently the lead operators in this environment, the RN is the AOA thus CHF is to survive. QED.

So if defence is coming down on the side of amphib, why are they not ensuring that amphib has the best possible platform to fulfill the role ?

If the plan is to have CVF as an amphib operations launch platform then it is known that they will be large enough to fully operate chinook from, above and below deck. Chinook is the better option in terms of capability and finance - the budget has already funded them.

If the plan is to take Merlin because Ocean will continue in it's role,which even by the admission of some Dark Blue posters in this forum is not up to scratch, then that's not exactly investing into the best equipment is it - that's just 'making do'.

QED
 

Of course, if you are going to spend circa half a billion marinising what you have, then you might as well spend that amount on brand spankers airframes for CHF.

If you only plan to marinise a handful of the 28 and save cost then why train up 2 RN sqns when the land SH element can be done by the existing crews from the RAF?

It's cheaper.....QED

Because all that is certain is that there is an endorsed policy for Amphibious and CEC.....and an endorsed policy to transfer the Mk3 to the RN (and forget what the then ACAS had written into the SDSR book and CAS's SDSR briefing notes cos iit was fiction).

Well, I have been following this thread for a few weeks now, and I need to say that most of you are seriously wrong.

It's not less Chinooks to deliver the effect, it's fewer.

Now I've got that out of my system:

I honestly believe Merlin Mk 4 for CHF will be the best solution for defence, and Merlin Mk 3 the second best. It's a great aircraft (I have flown it in RAF service and I'd like to hear those who dismiss it as 'wheezing' describe the performance of SK4!)

Much as my instinctive reaction is to side with the boys and girls at Benson who have made this aircraft a resounding success, if Defence is so strapped for cash and so forgetful of previous NAO reports on helicopter lift that it won't buy enough SH for both the SH force and the CHF then a Chinook/Puma SHF and Merlin CHF makes some sense to me. Also I am an admirer of 3 Cdo Bde, which manages to produce as much if not more in a 1 in 4 rotation as any Army unit does in a 1 in 5 (20% saving potential there perhaps?).

I must correct people who say the Merlin has the same 'footprint' as Chinook - although the dimensions are similar if you look at the area on the ground you need for the wheels and ramp, just have a look at where the rotor mast is - right in the middle of the Merlin, so the overall area taken up by the fuselage and the disc is actually not that much different from the Sea King - Chinook, with its rotors at the extremities of the fuselage needs a much bigger area. Downwash is bigger on Merlin than Sea King, but not as big as Chinook and over a smaller area (BERP affects this).

Also, I cannot agree more with a previous poster that marinisation is much more than just getting the blades to fold. Merlin is at least developed from a programme to produce a maritime helicopter - even if it doesn't use as much sealant as OG would like, there are designs for tiedown points etc as well blade fold, 3 hydraulic systems etc.

I loved flying the Merlin and I hope CHF do too.

I've been told that a 1* brief the other day confirmed treasury issues with Mk3 upgrade.

Well put post OA, my argument still stands though that if 3 Cdo are to operate from the CVF, it is big enough to accomodate Chinook in all aspects and taking the 14 new and already budgeted frames away from the RAF to the CHF provides them with the best and cheapest capability.

We also love flying the Merlin - hence my opposition to the plan. I'm sure anyone here can empathise with that.

If the 'planned' tranfer takes place what excellent reasons you have just given for moving the CHF to Culdrose under the future basing options project. Now let's see the VL old and bold be quite as quick to want Mk3/4.

Apart from Culdrose being a Merlin Deep base I can't think of one valid reason for CHF to operate from there. The first one being no trees or training areas!

OA - I like your pedantic semantic point - have you noticed in Waitrose the signs to the quick check-out now say "fewer than x items", not "less than x items"

OK, thread drift: The misuse of less, when fewer is meant drives me up the wall. I only went to a rubbish comp which has ceased to exist but I was taught correctly. I see the misue everywhere, including on adverts when they've had time to correct everything.

Anyway, back to thread: BBC Points West said this morning that the RN were getting the RAF's Merlins. It must be true!

OA - a most balanced and unemotive post. Something of a rarity in this thread! MG being pedantic? Never...!!

However, a few comments if I may. The Merlin does "wheeze" if Afg (compared to Chinook or Puma 2) but will be a revelation to the CHF at Sea Level and near ISA temperatures. The Merlin is a huge fuselage and, yes, does have a slightly smaller footprint than Chinook, but LitM is all about punch per deck spot - you may get 5 CH47 instead of 6 Merlin on a CVS in the LPH role but those 5 Chinooks will be packing 40+ marines or underslinging the Viking - and to be frank, no amount of fettling the Merlin engine/Xmsn system is going to get the Merlin there. WRT downwash - I've flown the Chinook embarked and it was most uncomfortable being on the deck with a Mk1 Merlin landing on in front of me - subjectively it was far worse than another chinook; perhaps a function of disc loading?

Perhaps the biggest point I'd make is that nobody was really complaining about Transition when the RAF were getting 24 new CH47s and 30ish Puma 2s - everyone got what they wanted. The reduction in CH47s in effect robs the RAF of an SH Sqn (and the valuable SO1 command position) and may lead to a few pilots being without chairs when the music stops. The reason for an upsurge in angst is the uncertainty over Puma 2; the RAF will be vehemently opposed to losing another 2 sqns if it's scrapped. The arguement will be why pay the costs to, potentially, make 2 sqns of trained Merlin aircrew/maintainers redundant and then pay to convert CHF crews to the ac? What's harder - teaching crabs to float or SK4 crews to fly Merlin? Having gone through the former with the CH47 (and being a graduate of the AOPC) it's probably the latter. Whisper it quietly, but landing a powerful, controllable modern helicopter on 20 000 tons+ of steel actually isn't that hard...took me a couple of sim trips and a day/night qual. Within a couple of weeks we were doing AR5/NVG decks. Don't get me wrong, landing a grey lynx on a T42 in the middle of the Atlantic is completely different - but the essence of LitM is that you're close to shore in calmer waters, flying modern ac off large platforms. Speaking to my CHF mates, it seems that there is a massive gap in deck time for anyone who's spent less that 5 years in the force due to Afg - so there's less of a current capability to transfer. My biggest concern, however, would be losing the senior CHF staff's experience in planning LitM ops - how willing will my fellow crabs be in learning the complexity of unpacking an Amphib group's holds in the right combat configured order?

So the arguement distills to how much Defence values a 24/7 LitM capability and the (hoofing) ethos of CHF to deliver the capability. If the answer is "nice to have" then CHF goes and StOM/LitM is delivered by a TAG of RAF CH47s/Merlin and AAC Wildcat/AH. DRWCS will report soon and, hopefully, all will become clear. However, there comes a point when whatever decision is made we in the military need to come to attention, snap a salute and carry on.

Someone has to make up for your gashness!! Shouldn't you be at work today?!
- Not if they let you near it. It'll never get there, you'll lose it on the way.

Evalu8ter
 

:D

Great post - sums up everything more than nicely. Shame no-one else is listening.

Guidedweapons
 

And it would appear that with all the apparent press releases just lately, the RN are doing their utmost to fight their corner. Fair play, but I do wonder why they feel the need.

Because (a) so much of their work is 'invisible' compared to the other services and (b) no one else will.

As a typical example, this recent photo in a national daily shows Cheryl Cole surrounded by Royal Navy personnel beside a Royal Navy Sea King in Afghanistan. It's obvious to you and me from the type of salute but the picture is captioned 'Star salutes with brave troops' and the accompanying article doesn't contain a single reference to the Naval Service although it mentions both the Army and the RAF.

I'm with you on that one FOD, we Crabs can fully empathise - for many years now we've been flying Army helicopters in the press. Even our own RAF News rarely reports on anything we do. My point though is it seems that maybe the RN are bringing the transfer issue out into the open, maybe in a fairly clever attempt to sway any potential decision that is to be made in the future ? I don't know. Maybe the conspiracy theorist inside me is making a bid for freedom ! But SK4 doesn't go OSD until what, 2016 ? Why make the fuss now, when DRWCS is just around the corner ?

Oh, and i've just read the article - its disgustingly inaccurate.

The bit where it says she was flown around by 663 Sqn AAC, the picture of her behind a GPMG with the caption telling us that she is in the cockpit, and the photo of '663 Sqn AAC'. I suppose it is written by idiots for idiots though.