Martlet achieves progress in operating capabilities

CR there is no 10 round launcher. The initial design was a 7 round launcher, but that was ditched (I suspect due to clearance to ground issues) for the 5 round launcher which is the dedicated launcher now and in the future. 10 rounds per wing is by having 2 x 5 round launcher.

Martlet recently engaged a Banshee air target from a Wildcat in a trial, which was never one of the aims of the programme…so I suspect the RN have increased the requirements for Martlet to include UAV’s as a target set.

Ah, thanks for the clarification Rudeboy.

I knew there could be 10 rounds per wing… memory playing tricks again!

Adapting the requirements between IOC and FOC was exactly what I was thinking. I wasn’t aware the RN had actually done that, being able to engage UAV’s with a small and relatively inexpensive missile such as Martlet is quite an important upgrade I recon – thanks for info.

Cheers CR

Where are you guys getting the information from? Officia secrets act?

It wasn’t really jury rigged. As it was used issues came to light and mods where put in place to overcome them.

Now…it would have been a none starter due to Duty Holder risk management.

I see – chinagraph in the windshield.. doesn’t sound improvised at all and that silver tape is the ultimate MILSPEC solution!!

Adapt, improvise, overcome!

It did mean that Speed tape was in plentiful supply onboard instead of just being available for battle damage repair. Neptunes Wife, Amphitrite, had a lovely silver scaled mermaids tail for crossing the line!

👍👍👍😄

Hence the “sorry” in my next post….

Tbf you hadn’t posted that when I replied. The link threw my post into moderation hell.

The wonders of the internet… in my case tis sometimes hard to see where a thread finishes and the next starts on a phone screen. 🙂

Exactly.

Apache was deployed from Ocean, Invincibles and has been tested from QEC. I think they are cleared for Albions and Bays too……but I’m going on foggy memories…..

I agree and definitely worth having to support amphib ops and force protection if you have some at sea but in response to (the apparently tongue in cheek, sorry) comment about being better to replace wildcat/martlet with a few more apaches, you wouldn’t want to do it.

While you can probably get an apache onto a decent size ff/dd deck i would assume the sea state limits are somewhat less than a wildcat (which still has the deck harpoon and ability to push down with the rotor etc). Also the inability to usefully get it in the hanger would be another issue for permanent or even medium term attachment.

So just to firm up on my other comment. AH can operate from all the platform types that you mention. As long as we still have 656 Sqn operating ‘D’ model they will do (not for very much longer unfortunately), they are still operating the small number of marinised ‘D’s that we have. As no ‘E’ models will be marinised they won’t operate from ships.

Worth bearing in mind that AH was only really put on board ship because the withdrawal of Harrier meant that there was no ship-borne strike capability. Now I’m not going to argue the if’s, what’s and but’s of having an Attack Helicopter on board ship. In an ideal world we’d have Royals flying something Cobra’esq from them but its never going to happen. As we’re now operating F-35, the powers that be believe we now have the base covered.

Foggy memory? I resemble that remark!!

‘E’ model will not deploy on ship as it will not be marinised. We still have marinised ‘D’ model operating with 656 Sqn, I think it was 10 that were marinised originally. These platforms will not be going back to Boeing to be converted to ‘E’ model. My understanding is that the processes used to marinise them makes conversion to ‘E’ model difficult and costly. The ‘D’s that have been done were done by Westlands/Leonardos. It’s not a process that Boeing do on Apache.

This is interesting. Assumed 656 would continue its maritime role. I did not know about the E’s inability.
So assume 4 AAC will now support the Field Army in full like 3 AAC?
Regards 4, assume 664 still has the SF support role as and when required and 656 will go all in with 16AA?
HMGs inability to give 849 a proper attack heli is a failure for 3 Cdo.
Does the E version have arctic capability to support 3 Cdo ashore if needed?

Hi mate, 3 Regt (662 & 663) will be aligned to 3 Div and 4 Regt (656 & 664) aligned to GRF/SF. Now this is very loose as they obviously all sit within 1Avn BCT, and is likely a hangover of still operating ‘D’ model. I suspect that once the Corps has fully converted to ‘E’ model the Regt’s will cycle through the roles.

‘E’ model hasn’t yet been cleared for arctic operations but it will be. The issue is that arctic operations almost always seem to go hand in hand with maritime operations which ‘E’ wont be anywhere near.

Had we gone down the path of Cobra (which was an option) instead of Apache then I think 3 Cdo Bde would still have their own Atk Avn Sqn. As it is Apache is a far more potent platform so the right choice, unfortunately it means no more maritime. Re-raising another Sqn and keeping hold of our marinised ‘D’s would be a fantastic solution, however the cost of maintaining another smaller fleet means that this would never be an option.

Thanks. Much as we were then, just nothing for 3 Cdo beyond any Northern flank, arctic deployments.

After the reduction from 3 to 2 Sqns, and this “binary” nonsense, what has happened to 653, the OTS Sqn? Are they still around?

Yes mate, 653 moved from Wattisham to MiddleWallop last year. They work alongside 673 in 7 AAC. 673 conduct conversion to type (CTT), essentially teaching how to fly/operate the aircraft and 653 conduct conversion to role (CTR), how to fight the aircraft (tactics, weaponearing etc). Makes sense as they have their own dedicated training pool of aircraft, whereas when they were at Wattisham they were pulling aircraft in from the operational fleet.

I have a close relationship with 653 as I used to run the final test exercise for CTR.

Ah, good info for me. I still had them located at Wattisham, I’d missed that they’d moved.
Yes, that move makes sense.

So Project Belvedere came to nothing, thank God, and Wattisham and MW live on.

Absolutely, thankfully.

Another that many would like to see is that 1 AAC folds and that 652 Sqn (OCU) move to Wallop so that all our flying training comes home. 659 and 661 would then move to Wattisham, 1 to each Regt so that we can return to having 2 full Attack/reconnaissance Regts with 3 flying Sqn’s each, that way we then really start to work on Atk,Recce teaming.

The down side is that we would lose another Regt and the associated Command structure.

Oh God, then down to 2 front line regs….no. Just 3 is already a joke.

I thought 1 AAC went there to group all the Wildcat in one place for logistic reasons, doubt they’d change that now.

Oh for 9 Reg back, teamed with 1, then 3 and 4 restored to 3 Sqns each.🙄

Assume 5s days are numbered too.

You’re correct, placing all the WC in place was to reduce the log and maint burden. Unfortunately it means that platforms are spread across the fleet. 1 Regt never have their full compliment of aircraft, serviceable or not. the problem is that the whole Attack/Recce concept is massively compromised due to the 2 types been located so far apart. Also Yeovilton has really odd airfield operating hours that has proven really restrictive for OCU training and just to support the day to day flying of the other 2 Sqns.

Strangely enough 9 Regt still exists but not as we’d want, part of No1 FTS at Shawbury, again only consists of 2 Sqns, one of which is crab.

I don’t think we’ll lose 5 Regt but have to accept that it is now an ‘a bit of everything else’ Regt. It has been designated an ‘Aviation Support Regt’. I suspect that NMH, when it arrives, will fall under 5 Regt. Sadly our ‘Front-line War-fighting Regts’ are reduced to 1, 3 and 4 and they are now a shadow of what they were previously.

Thanks SB.
One final question, back in the days, around mid 2000s time frame.
1 AAC in Germany had only 2 Sqns, while 9 at Dishforth had the standard 3, as did 3 and 4.
Always wondered why.
Even 5 then also had 3, Lynx, Gazelle, Fixed.

651 were part of 1 Regt, along with I think 652 and 661 but re-roled to become the AH Fielding Sqn. I think there were a number of reasons why it was 1 Regt that lost a Sqn.
Aviation support in the Balkans was drawing down, BFG was slowly beginning to draw down, 16AA Bde was the CofG for UK aviation and with 3, 4 & 9 all being part of the Bde and Op Banner still being a thing so 5 Regt still almost fully active, the only remaining Regt was 1 so they took the hit. There wasn’t enough of a manpower pool available to form a new fielding Sqn for AH.

That makes sense. Now I know. Thank you.

Change the subject, I’m bored 🥱

I’m not. I’m learning from an expert on all things AAC. So please ignore.

DM, just had confirmed mate that ‘E’ is already cleared for the Arctic.

Good, thank you.

Plastic tarpaulin and a few bungee chords will be enough protection for such a small object

Because that is not their role. They are a top tier ASW capability so why waste money from a budget that is fully committed?

Hi Daniele, I agree it’s not their main role, but if a Merlin is the sole helo on a ship a bit of secondary capabilities could be very useful. The other option is to put an armed UAV onboard too. Monies for extra Merlin’s would be very welcome too.

I agree, it seems insane we have two helicopter models that cannot do much ASW if a Wildcat is embarked on an escort, & cannot do Anti surface if a Merlin is embarked. This nonsense seems unique to the RN/MOD, while most other navies embarked helis do both anti surface & ASW.
All the more so when we have so few escorts & a tiny fleet of embarked helicopters.

The easiest solution is to use APKWS on Merlin. We are buying it for Apache. And Merlin has trialled rocket pods (FN Herstal ones) in trials in the past. APKWS would be easily compatible with Merlins Wescam turret.

Wildcat does ASW via VECTAC.
It cannot dip.
Wildcat could drop buoys as we used to do that for Lynx. The receiving and analysis gear was fitted onboard the ship. Ok it was a special fit for specific operations, but it worked. Doesn’t take much to lob a buoy out of the door.

Merlin not having ASuW…no but it can provide OHT using its radar and EW fit for ship launched weapons or Helo / Aircraft launched weapons.

Thanks GB. Is there any onboard procesing on T31s to receive process sonar bouy data if Wildcat deploys them anyway? It worries me that if there’s no ASW sonar & the ship obviously sometimes operates alone, there may be little or no ability to detect subs in range. If T31s can detect/process Wildcat sonarbouy data(If Wildcats carry them as standard) & if Wildcat happens to be operational & available, carrying ASW torpedos at the time, then they have a chance.

Otherwise it seems a criminally reckless vulnerability.

That is presumably why we are buying 11 sets of AShM – NSM – to do the anti ship piece?

That’s the way I read it. NSM is the keep it rapid and simple solution to giving T31 credible anti ship capability. Integrating a heavyweight AShM onto scarce Merlin or Wildcat would be the hard and expensive way to go,

Its not just the helo.
Shipboard Magazines would need altering along with handling gear.
New handling equipment to get the store from the mag to the deck. Loading and electronic equipment for the helo.

Fitting Skua to a Lynx meant lots of black boxes going inside the cabin reducing space and increasing the dry weight. The trade off was reducing fuel capacity and range unless you fitted the cabin fuel tank which meant you couldn’t fit other kit.

Gulf Mod Lynx had all the bells and whistles.
M130 Chaff and flare launchers
IR Jammers
Yellow Veil Jamming Pod
HMG Pods
Video Camera Turret
Skua
Torps
Depth Charge
7.62 Mg in the cabin
Improved EW
Radar
GPS
Secure Comms
Demon mine hunting Camera

The all up weight when fitting just some of that kit reduced range and the operating SHOL for take-off to a very narrow arc facing fwd. Unless you had gun Pods when you could only land at 45 degs Port and Stbd due to the weapon being forward firing. Not all of it could be carried at once and it took ages to re role from say Skua AsuW or Yellow Veil Fit to ASW or Gun Pods.

In short there are always trade-offs in the real world fit of systems.

Thx for that insight into reality !

Nail on the head mate.
I’ve seen so many comments that suggest we just ‘fit this because they have it and its brilliant’. No understanding of the realities that exist when re-roling a cab. The faff we used to have when removing TOW booms to replace with a GPMG ARD or switching the GPMG to an M3M was nothing short of painful. Add to that the time it would take then obviously the change to the flying characteristics.

The assumption seems to be that if there are 5 roles for the platform then the platform can do them all at once with all the associated equipment fitted.

I thought it as much for littoral land targets as ships.

A Merlin can do both roles has capability and size for that. Italians do it.

Sure. But does it need to?
Merlin is allocated to tailed T23s in the Ships Flights Sqn, the other escorts use Wildcat.

Our ASW T23s war role is to be out in the Atlantic looking for subs, not trading missiles with Russian ships that would be dead as soon as they moved beyond the Norwegian sea, and quite possibly before.

The RN, and NATO, do not operate like a high seas fleet facing off against the Russian fleet, it does not work like that. Assets complement each other according to the threat that intell, which is extensive, more than I suspect most realise, provides.

Honestly, the furore on here about ASM that must be fitted to every escort and helicopter….the experts above in SB1 and GB have explained the issues.

Don’t forget we have a reasonable Merlin Fleet that isn’t tasked with ASW 😉

😳

Ok but that is another argument. It depends, will global CSG do not need ASM missiles in helicopters, i think it does. If it is only for North Sea i agree the need is a bit less. But F-35 needs to get also anti-ship OTH weapons.

God yes. An ASM on our fast jets has been my NO 1 priority for some time. Ships do not usually attack other ships with ASM.
Fast jets do.

It has them. In Sea Venom and Martlet on escorts furnished by Wildcats. And if needed, CAMM from the escorts.
NSM coming of course, but for me, more of a TLAM capability with the ASM nice to have.

They do – just not in RN use. 😚

Are you referring to Italy, Poland, Japan, Portugal or someone else?

Italy – but if they can the AW101 is capable of ASM whoever uses it.

Italy have had historically the Marte missile family even in AB212 since 80’s.

Now an heavier modern version 100km range is in the NH90 and AW101.

yes but adding brimstone to it and martlet means we get economies of scale for the manufacture of our missiles (minus the integration costs) and also potentially sell it other apache customers.,and are not paying USA manufacturers instead. You know using same missile family across our helicopter types etc 🙂

🙂👍

Afternoon Klonkie, I think you’re right and these were then updated to the current Penguins which the RAN’s Seahawk’s also still have I believe. Read the other day (somewhere) that the Philippines two Lynx/Wildcats have Spike NLOS (in think the same as Korea?) so that’s another option too.

Yes Philippines and Korea Wildcat have Spike NLOS and Torpedoes.

I would think the crew were OK Klonkie-it was only a few hundred metres offshore and the prop was churning up white water so hopefully they can refloat on the tide. I will update as soon as news available. This info was from an amateur video forwarded to me. Speak later😎

Dankie Marius. There is so much malicious false news on social media. I thought something was strange as the water from the prop end was clean !!

cc Klonkie😉

cheers Geoff – a big relief