No indeed, Lynx is a bit snug with two, a pair of Merlins won't fit without a few alterations to the hangar (like taking a reciprocating saw to the sides)
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
kev 99
Member
You think? looks fairly roomy to me, when I first heard that 2 Lynxs had been trialled I was expecting them to be 'shoehorned' in with one cab first and the other tail.
mikehotwheelz
New Member
How about one of each?
Well, yeah, I suppose they do fit in side by side with a bit of room to walk around them which isn't bad I guess.All good benefits of larger hulls I suppose,
Ian
Looking at a few figures, the folded length of a Merlin HM.1 is 15.85m [1] and then from the RN website the total length of a Lynx Mk8 is 13.4m [2] so if the Lynx requires it's tail to be folded to fit then the Merlin's going to have some trouble, but the main issue would be the width. Looking at more figures, the width of a Merlin is around 4.55m [1] and the Lynx is around 3m [3] but i dunno how reliable that info is. That last Lynx puts the folded length of the Lynx at around 10m, so a folded Merlin with 5m more tail to fit could have some issues. The hangar is big, but not that big.
Looking at that picture, an extra 1.5m added to the width of those Lynx would create some pretty tight spaces.
Don't see 2 Merlins getting in there, at least not practically.
I wouldn't like to see a Merlin AND Lynx. I'd much rather have it deployed with 2 Lynx if I was given the choice.
[1] Navy Matters | Archived Projects
[2] Lynx Mk8 | Royal Navy
[3] LYNX (WESTLAND)
Looking at that picture, an extra 1.5m added to the width of those Lynx would create some pretty tight spaces.
Don't see 2 Merlins getting in there, at least not practically.
I wouldn't like to see a Merlin AND Lynx. I'd much rather have it deployed with 2 Lynx if I was given the choice.
[1] Navy Matters | Archived Projects
[2] Lynx Mk8 | Royal Navy
[3] LYNX (WESTLAND)
Anixtu
New Member
With two complete sets of spare parts, tools, aircrew and ground crew.
FASGW(L) is already developed & the first production batch is on order, & it's a lot lighter & cheaper than Brimstone. It uses components of the Starstreak SAM, with a new warhead & seeker. 13kg, IIRC, so a Wildcat will be able to carry quite a few of them. It's called LMM at the moment, though doubtless it'll be given a real name in due course.
The first batch includes part of an order for Starstreak, which was converted into an order for LMM.
The issue about size is very apparent in the pic of x2 Lynx's, side by side.
There is NO WAY you could squeeze x2 Merlin's in there !
There just isn't enough room, even with the folding tail booms.
The issue is also about the support side.
x2 Lynx's work as the support kit is brought onboard in modules. The Lynx uses 'X' number of modules for all it's spares, specialist parts & tools. It's not that much of a stretch to bring on maybe 'X' + 1, +2 modules to support x2 helo's, as the bulk of the kit is there & you'll only need particular items.
However, to support the Merlin is more like 'X' +5, if not more !
Then there's the reasoning behind the helo's required.
Lynx can be used in some roles that Merlin can't & Vice-versa. Their weapons load-out is different too. Merlin can't fire sea skua, for instance.
Finally, the x2 different helo's (1 of each) won't work. You'd need x2 sets of mechanics, x2 sets of flight crew, (as not many RN helo pilots are trained up on all airframe types) & then your screwed for space as 'X' modules for Lynx and 'X'+5 for Merlin, won't fit into the storage area for the modules.
That's why x2 Lynx's work & X2 Merlin's or x1 Lynx & x1 Merlin, won't.
SA
NOPE !
Merlin was designed to be a troop carrier & submarine chaser, not a sea skimming rock hopper, that can shoot-n-go, at top speed.
With Skua being replaced soon with FASGW, there's no point in qualifying it, at this time.
Add to this the fact that there are more Lynx than there are Merlin's (so it's more likely that a ship will carry a Lynx, then it makes sense not to use that cash attempting to.
SA
kev 99
Member
Not a hope, Merlins are huge.
kev 99
Member
Not Sea Skua, but FASGW(L) makes some sense in the future, but you would have to have the sensors for it and I believe Merlin doesn't surrently, maybe as part of the upgrade they will.
Something as big as the Merlin could conceivably fire a much larger longer range missile, just look at the Exocet on Super Puma and Sea Eagle on Sea King. I suppose the issue would then become one of magazine space.
Helo launched NSSM, JSOW or JASSM would be interesting, though JASSM likely would be too big even for a beast like Merlin and the fact that the USN no longer operate large ASW helos the chance of the US developing a helo launched option is probably nill.
Last edited:
kev 99
Member
I can't honestly see the point, I think fitting Merlin for FASGW(L) makes sense as it's what we'll have anyway and it does then negate the chances of having the wrong helicopter on board for scenarios as mentioned on the previous page.
Photos of ASM armed Super Pumas and Sea Kings come to mind every time I see posts about fitting Merlins with missiles. So long as the magazine was suitable it would give any Type 23, 26 or 45 carrying a Merlin a very considerable anti surface punch.
That said, I am a fan of the Lynx and belive the RN has done very well out of supporting the development of this aircraft through its various iterations. It is too bad there wasn't some consideration given to designing a larger, or even a second hanger on the Darings, not just to support a Merlin / Wildcat combo but in the future something like the Firescout. Imagine a Merlin and two or three Firescouts, you could have 24/7 coverage.
Funny you mention that, a while ago it seems like this route was being considered. In the attached image you can see a second hangar with what looks like a Firescout poking out.
Although now - from designs released by BAE in January - it seems the idea is now defunked. But here's something i've been told about and not noticed before.
The lifeboats on the T45 are positioned directly next to the hangars (and thus decreasing the internal volume of the hangar), however in the designs released by BAE in January it appears the lifeboats are further towards the bow so this could suggest a larger volume hangar than that of the T45 (if similar dimensioned structures were used) so there could be the potential for 2 Merlins?
But would similar sized hangars be used? I mean AFAIK theres about a 2000 ton difference between T45/T26, or would the difference in the height of the superstructure that houses SAMPSON compared to that of Artisan be enough?
Last edited:
More F35B/C leaking.
The Times today (behind a paywall alas), under the headline "Military tells Cameron to retreat over new jets", alleges that the Forces Chiefs are united in a recommendation that we should switch back to the F35B. The story was the lead item on the front page of the digital edition this morning.
Some highlights:
The interesting bit for me is the report that RAF and RN Chiefs are united on the need to switch back to B.
WillS
The Times today (behind a paywall alas), under the headline "Military tells Cameron to retreat over new jets", alleges that the Forces Chiefs are united in a recommendation that we should switch back to the F35B. The story was the lead item on the front page of the digital edition this morning.
Some highlights:
- A CATOBAR carrier would be unlikely to be fully operational until 2023 earliest, compared to 2018 with the F35B.
- Delays to the Gerald Ford class would mean that the UK would be the first to try to fit EMALS bringing "unbounded technical and financial risks".
- Interop with the French is unlikely with the F35C as it is "too heavy" for the CdG's deck (? is this possible, do they mean too heavy for the traps?).
- The running costs for F35C are actually higher than with the B as the cost estimates didn't anticipate higher training requirements for air and deck crews.
- F35C = one carrier and 65% availability. F35B = two.
The interesting bit for me is the report that RAF and RN Chiefs are united on the need to switch back to B.
WillS
Neutral Zone
New Member
That bit about the F-35c being " too heavy" to fly off CdG really got my attention. How do the operational weights of F-35c and Rafale M compare? The availability issue can be solved by converting Queen Elizabeth to CATOBAR, something that's been speculated about as what may happen after SDSR 2015 I really doubt they would announce it now even if they wanted to.
However what may finally determine the decision won't be military needs, Cameron made such a point of criticising the previous government over STOVL that backing down will be a humiliation and given the coalition's other problems another self inflicted wound is the last thing he needs. Sydney Camm's observation about how modern aircraft have 4 dimensions, the final one being politics, is as true now as it was at the time he said it!
However what may finally determine the decision won't be military needs, Cameron made such a point of criticising the previous government over STOVL that backing down will be a humiliation and given the coalition's other problems another self inflicted wound is the last thing he needs. Sydney Camm's observation about how modern aircraft have 4 dimensions, the final one being politics, is as true now as it was at the time he said it!
Well, from the DMC website, the position officially remains unchanged.
"The Strategic Defence and Security Review set out a strategic view of our defence requirements and took the decision to reintroduce carrier strike capability as part of Future Force 2020. This government is committed to implementing that decision.
We are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the Equipment Plan. As part of this process we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed. The Defence Secretary will announce the outcome of this process to Parliament in due course."
That's the latest feed today - I'll hold my breath on the whole thing - it's nuts that we've taken such a random trajectory to this point.
F35C has an empty weight a shade over 1.5x that of Rafale-M so I'd suggest getting Dave-C on and back on CdG would be a demonstration capability only with low fuel and air to air weps only perhaps.
Daily Telegraph report (no paywall)
MoD 'reconsidering aircraft carrier changes' - Telegraph
Again... no compatibility with French carrier.
MoD 'reconsidering aircraft carrier changes' - Telegraph
Again... no compatibility with French carrier.