UK Defence Forum

Jensy wrote:Though of course we'd then probably be short of cabs for the Royal Marines..

There has been quite a shift towards Chinooks, and the carriers coming 'on-line' will only reinforce it
- with the hardhat area of the hangar making the handling and maintaining them 'like back at home'
... why {btw] is the highest area of the hangar called the hardhat area, when the chances of banging your head have been much mitigated against?

You are effectively taller when you wear a Hard Hat?

Only if you're a lumberjack that wears high heels, suspenders and a bra.

Sounds like a “battle-axe” to me.

The RN have decided to operate the ASaC and ASW Merlins from just one Squadron, an enlarged 820 NAS. 849 NAS was decommissioned on 21 April, with its personnel moving to 820 NAS.

This decision is to allow the RN to maximise the output from its fleet of 30 Merlin HM2.

From Jane's.

Makes sense... as we are repeatedly told (here) that Sqdrns are just administrative 'shells'.

Aethulwulf wrote:The RN have decided to operate the ASaC and ASW Merlins from just one Squadron, an enlarged 820 NAS. 849 NAS was decommissioned on 21 April, with its personnel moving to 820 NAS.

This decision is to allow the RN to maximise the output from its fleet of 39 Merlin HM2.

From Jane'es.

Where does 39 Merlin HM2 come from ,I thought only 30 Merlin's were converted

Can’t speak for Aethulwulf, but I guess it was Big Finger syndrome (on small keys)! Whilst talking of numbers, I wish that the remaining HM1 Merlins had been upgraded to HM2 and brought back into service!

To combine ASAC and ASW operations under 820NAS for HMS QE is understandable to avoid having separate crews for each function. They will need to be Masters (Not Jacks) of both Trades!

Does this not point to a Separate (Combined) Squadron for HMS PoW also?

Sorry, as suggested 39 was a typo. Should be 30.

I've corrected the post.

So just confirming what we all said, should have used new airframes.
Well done MoD

Wonder how late and expensive the pods would of been !! So much for the cheaper/easier to integrate version Perhaps they are only doing an interim job until the V22 osprey asac arrives....

Or the need to convert the remaining Merlin HM1 to HM2 to gain additional airframes is finally recognised.

Does anyone expect the CROWSNEST kit to be swapped between airframes anywhere but during maintenance and even then probably during major overhauls in the cycle?

Probably more chance of getting a third QEC should of been dedicated ASAC airframes, minimum of 5 and wire up another 3-4 as back up just incase. don't get me wrong we do need these but...

just a ploy to say we have X amount of availiable ASAC merlins, I can understand why they want more wired up just incase but at the expense of ASW capability, just seems like smoke and mirrors again to do things on the cheap,

Short term thinking again

IMHO its like buying an MR 2 with a body kit and pretending its a ferrari !

Another parallel might be having a fast rally car and a slow service vehicle. The powers that be decide that it would be better to put the mechanic in the rally car and the racing driver in the service vehicle because that way rally car and service vehicle will be closer together.
The point is (in fiction as in reality) that the powers that be are MISSING THE WHOLE POINT OF HAVING A CAPABILITY!

Click to enlarge:

(NavyLookout/@NicDibNick) 7th August 2020

Against the clock… development flying for CROWSNET system continues. Merlin Mk2 ZH833 seen over Somerset 4/8/20

Was it commented on (at the end of the competition) why the old radome 'style' won over the two AESAs (to match the coverage)?

Can anybody tell me I believe when deployed next year they will be not fully ready (initial operating capacity) what does that mean ,not all the functions on the system work or what ? Thanks

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Was it commented on (at the end of the competition) why the old radome 'style' won over the two AESAs (to match the coverage)?

Because this solution was the cheapest option chosen, Thales UK did have AESA antenna produced as a development contact, but MOD Decided not to proceed with it(cost reasons as usual)

It was never disclosed why the competition was reopened - and the the same winner 'won' again
- unethical cost squeezing? (this is idle speculation, mind you)

cyrilranch wrote:

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Was it commented on (at the end of the competition) why the old radome 'style' won over the two AESAs (to match the coverage)?

Because this solution was the cheapest option chosen, Thales UK did have AESA antenna produced as a development contact, but MOD Decided not to proceed with it(cost reasons as usual)

The Lockheed Martin proposal which was competing against Thales was very technically immature, it would not have made the required in-service dates because of the extensive development needed. Ironically, the Thales version didn't meet the date either but good reason to believe that LM would have been years late instead of months.

Funnily enough, LM made the call to go with Thales and ditched its own product in the process.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:It was never disclosed why the competition was reopened - and the the same winner 'won' again
- unethical cost squeezing? (this is idle speculation, mind you)

Because Thales fucked up the development and pissed off the lead contractor LM and MoD. At one point LM engineers were sent in to "help" Thales. The MoD asked whether it would be better to ditch Thales and start over hence the re-opening of the competition. I think it was just a scare tactic. The long and gory tale was told someplace, maybe STRN.