RAF Puma Replacement?

CJGibson said:


It was the EC225 that had the problems not the Super Puma.
Click to expand...
I'll admit I actually meant "whatever Airbus are calling the current generation this week"
 
Last edited:
Here's an idea:

According to the Drive "SIGAR previously reported that 37 Black Hawks that had been destined for Afghanistan were still at an unspecified location in the United States when the country's government collapsed in August."

So there are 37 brand new blackhawks needing new owners sitting un-loved in the US.

How about the Australian army and or RAF share them and can then replace there kit fairly quickly?????

www.thedrive.com

Dozens Of Afghan Helicopters Have Now Arrived At The U.S. Air Force’s Boneyard

More Russian-built Mi-17 Hips and a number of smaller American-made MD 530F Little Birds have been airlifted to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
 
bob225 said:
Here's an idea:

According to the Drive "SIGAR previously reported that 37 Black Hawks that had been destined for Afghanistan were still at an unspecified location in the United States when the country's government collapsed in August."

So there are 37 brand new blackhawks needing new owners sitting un-loved in the US.

How about the Australian army and or RAF share them and can then replace there kit fairly quickly?????

www.thedrive.com

Dozens Of Afghan Helicopters Have Now Arrived At The U.S. Air Force’s Boneyard

More Russian-built Mi-17 Hips and a number of smaller American-made MD 530F Little Birds have been airlifted to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Click to expand...
UK procurement would insist on their being only 36 aircraft, even if the 37th was free, they would not want the costs of storage, painting it for 40 years.....even if it was the deal of the century......just watch it happen.....
 
Hood said:
LM have finally gotten around to offering the Polish-built S-70i....

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/black-hawk-helicopters-offered-to-uk-as-puma-replacement/
Click to expand...
Maybe its just me, but is bringing all these different fleets into 1 deal, actually helpful?

We are trying to replace 24 full 'combat' ready aircraft, in UK/ Europe.

Plus a handful in Belize, and another handful in Cyprus?

In a european conflict your not going to have time/be bothered to ship a handful of choppers from Belize to UK, you would just borrow from Bristow or whoever.

Seems to me we want 24 real, solid aircraft with global support(i.e. standardisation with our ally(ies)) and 12 cheap, basic aircraft, without defensive aids, weapons pylons, for the general purpose locations.

Standardisation helps where your jet aircraft are zooming around between bases, these aircraft wont, they stay local.

As Australia seems to be 'correcting' a 20 year old error, I hope the UK isnt going to make a similar error.
 
Fluff said:
Maybe its just me, but is bringing all these different fleets into 1 deal, actually helpful?

We are trying to replace 24 full 'combat' ready aircraft, in UK/ Europe.

Plus a handful in Belize, and another handful in Cyprus?
Click to expand...
It is strange I agree, I would have thought the Belize/Cyprus needs would have gone the same way as the 667 Sqn AAC 212s operated in Brunei - private operator contract.
I'm not sure when the Brunei contract comes up for renewal, maybe when it does then a larger deal will be struck to cover all these overseas needs and the NMH fleet will become solely UK based? (cue another battle in the everlasting RAF Vs AAC war)
 
Volkodav said:
Just curious, was additional Merlins ever a serious or sensible option?
Click to expand...
As Chris mentioned in Reply #294, they're too big to replace the Puma directly. Apart from that, the RAF did have a squadron of Merlins, but eventually binned them in favour of using their Chinooks more, with the Merlins being transferred to the Royal Navy.
 
zebedee said:
Couple of related developments...

RAF Pumas to replace Bell helicopters in Brunei and Cyprus
Can't help but think this is an attempt to save some money by not having to lease the Bells from Draken (Cobham as was)...

Meanwhile...
UK selects H135s to replace British Army’s elderly Gazelle helicopters
Given the existing use as a training asset and with the NPAS this is almost a sensible move...

Zeb
Click to expand...
assuming they have hit a break clause on the 2 contracts. Maybe they just want to burn up the last hours and spare parts for the Puma's, outside of a need to be combat operational.....
 
Fluff said:
assuming they have hit a break clause on the 2 contracts. Maybe they just want to burn up the last hours and spare parts for the Puma's, outside of a need to be combat operational.....
Click to expand...
Possibly... although it is pretty close to the OSD of the Bells (September 2022 for the 212s and March 2023 for the 412s) the current current support agreement with Airbus runs until March 2022 so I would hope they have something else in place...

Zeb
 
This is a genuine surprise to me, I would have thought private contracted fleets would have grown rather than shrunk.
Presumably the RAF would have to pick up the maintenance tab and restart its own RAF maintenance and logistical support in Belize and Brunei too.

This feels like either someone has dropped the ball on these two contracts to arrange a new contract in time, or some other procedural snag has arisen or the MoD simply still hasn't decided the policy of what it wants to do.
 
Hood said:
This feels like either someone has dropped the ball on these two contracts to arrange a new contract in time, or some other procedural snag has arisen or the MoD simply still hasn't decided the policy of what it wants to do.
Click to expand...
The other option of course is that Draken want out... new management taking a good look at all the old FBH/Cobham contracts and deciding whats worth hanging on to...

Zeb
 
CJGibson said:
Volkodav said:
Just curious, was additional Merlins ever a serious or sensible option?
Click to expand...
Too big to go where Pumas go, too small to lift what Chinooks lift.
Click to expand...
Weirdly, for shipboard use, a Chinook actually takes up less hangar space than a Merlin. I didn't believe it either when I found out, but the numbers don't lie.

Yeah, it needs a bigger flight deck spot and a stronger deck, but not by as much as you'd think.
 
Leonardo playing their Made in Britain/Export Potential cards again... given they already played this with the SAR AW189s and then didn't really follow it through I wonder just how much currency it has...

Leonardo Helicopters pans ‘pop-up’ production plans of NMH rivals

Of interest is a new entrant in the race, an unnamed company proposing to refit ex US Army Blackhawks at teeside Airpot... Draken perhaps?

Zeb
 
Interesting. Is Teesside Airport within Boris' freeport area?

Could be Cobham as they operate the Falcons from Teesside.

teesvalley-ca.gov.uk

Cobham Aviation Confirms Long Term Future At Teesside Airport - Tees Valley

Cobham Aviation Services UK, which operates and maintains a fleet of specially modified Dassault Falcon 20 aircraft from their base at Teesside International Airport has announced a major new long-term deal which will keep them stationed in the Tees Valley for years to come. Teesside Airport has...
teesvalley-ca.gov.uk teesvalley-ca.gov.uk

Chris
 
Chris, Draken Europe is the former Cobham operation... Advent, the private equity company that bought Cobham in January 2020, sold the Cobham Aviation Services unit to Draken in September 2020... They're still flying Falcons from there though and looking to base L159s as well if this job is anything to go by...

Fleet Captain L159

Zeb
 
Blackhawks? Refurbs? Really? Might as well just keep the Pumas, at least we have personnel current on them. What's the point of spending millions to stand up another unit to walk with dinosaurs? If we haven't got in on the ammaaaazzziing S-70 at any point in the last 40-odd years, why would we choose now?

Build 'em in Somerset (even if it's just collating sub-assemblies), buy new and kick everyone else to the curb. Every other offer is an order of magnitude less satisfactory. Oh and get on with it! Chop, chop.
 
New Black Hawk would kind of make sense even now. The progressive upgrades have really improved lift capability, and the ability to piggy back on the US Army logistics pipeline could be helpful. But even built in Poland, they can't come cheap.
 
TomS said:
New Black Hawk would kind of make sense even now. The progressive upgrades have really improved lift capability, and the ability to piggy back on the US Army logistics pipeline could be helpful. But even built in Poland, they can't come cheap.
Click to expand...
If the new GE T901 lives up to its claims, 50% more power, 25% better fuel consumption and reduced life cycle costs, would bring substantial increase in capabilities to Black Hawk. Not sure if the time cycle for the T901 ISD of 2024? would match Puma replacement schedule. End of last year Boeing awarded $240 million contract to integrate the T901 into the Apache.
 

Attachments

  • T901_blackhawk.jpg
    T901_blackhawk.jpg
    42.8 KB · Views: 22
...and how many £s will be retained in UK coffers with the selection of the ....new (scoffs in c minor) Blackhawk? That much eh? Oooo, where do I sign?

Why would anyone turn down industrial offsets in favour of an age-ed platform thus far rejected, how many times? I'm sure the above lipstick is impressive enough to some but a pig is a pig. Don't get me started on the prospect of someone else's 2nd-hand tat. I'd also be leery of taking RAF combat rotary-wing sole-source. Not when other options are available. A mixed-source fleet is always to be favoured where possible. Less bite-marks down the road that way.
 
Opportunistic Minnow said:
...and how many £s will be retained in UK coffers with the selection of the ....new (scoffs in c minor) Blackhawk? That much eh? Oooo, where do I sign?
Click to expand...
And what work will the Leonardo (Westlands) factories have going into the future...its a Conservative constituency, but has been Liberal Democrat in the very recent past. Close down Yeovilton or not give it work and its up for grabs...
 
RLBH said:
Weirdly, for shipboard use, a Chinook actually takes up less hangar space than a Merlin. I didn't believe it either when I found out, but the numbers don't lie.
Click to expand...
It's true...
It's marginally shorter (15.75 folded Merlin vs 15.54 CH-47), slightly taller (5.2m Merlin vs. 5.8m CH-47) and widthwise is thinner (5.46m Merlin vs 3.65m CH-47).

But....thats assuming it hasn't got the fat tanks for width...and it's also with a blade fold that is impractical for shipboard use apart from for transport. You could manually unfold the blades in the hangar (you don't want to do it on the deck) but you'd be occupying a space, presumably near one of the elevators for ease of movement, for a considerable amount of time.
 
Last edited:
timmymagic said:
Opportunistic Minnow said:
...and how many £s will be retained in UK coffers with the selection of the ....new (scoffs in c minor) Blackhawk? That much eh? Oooo, where do I sign?
Click to expand...
And what work will the Leonardo (Westlands) factories have going into the future...its a Conservative constituency, but has been Liberal Democrat in the very recent past. Close down Yeovilton or not give it work and its up for grabs...
Click to expand...
I've lost count how many times I've said "aerospace engineers vote too you know". Politics, cost and capability drive defence procurement. Not equally by any stretch but you will almost always find all 3 dimensions at work on any given project.

I'm too young for TSR.2 but I remember Nimrod MRA.4 well enough and I'm still bitter (bite me). If Broughton gets selected, I'll be annoyed but simultaneously somewhat mollified. If Westland gets sold down the river for Poland and the USA's benefit, I've still got a few decades left to let my ire be felt and I know I won't be alone.

If people want to continue extolling the benefits of Blackhawk ownership, please, by all means do so but for me it fails on cost, is meh on capability and really, really fails on politics.
 
Opportunistic Minnow said:
...and how many £s will be retained in UK coffers with the selection of the ....new (scoffs in c minor) Blackhawk? That much eh? Oooo, where do I sign?
Click to expand...
Don't disagree, it been said up to 50% of spend in country will be recouped in taxes and so always to be remembered when procuring foreign kit, but think the new capabilities of Black Hawk should be an important metric to judge if home country kit viable and cost effective option, you could argue home option viable so long it was less than 50% over and above cost foreign kit. Congress has imposed in law very stringent controls so that all current foreign kit in the new Constellation frigate based on the Italian FREMM will be built in US eg the Renk MGR etc, etc
 
timmymagic said:
But....thats assuming it hasn't got the fat tanks for width...and it's also with a blade fold that is impractical for shipboard use apart from for transport. You could manually unfold the blades in the hangar (you don't want to do it on the deck) but you'd be occupying a space, presumably near one of the elevators for ease of movement, for a considerable amount of time.
Click to expand...
Many years ago I had access to some drawings which featured multiple Chinooks with folded rotors in a below-deck hangar. The implication there is that someone - and I don't know who - thought that a fully navalised Chinook (including powered folding) was a good idea.

Whether it was a serious proposal, or if Boeing even knew anything about it, I don't know. One think I'm pretty confident of is that if it ever became a serious proposal, Sikorsky and the USMC would try very, very hard to kill it.
 
I'd think it was more of an aircraft ferry situation. Helicopter stowed with rotors folded/partially demounted for stowage, then unfolded, raised to the flight deck, and flown off. After that, they might bounce back to the flight deck or one at a time in the hangar for maintenance. That's how they worked as far back as the Falklands.
 
Cordy said:
TomS said:
New Black Hawk would kind of make sense even now. The progressive upgrades have really improved lift capability, and the ability to piggy back on the US Army logistics pipeline could be helpful. But even built in Poland, they can't come cheap.
Click to expand...
If the new GE T901 lives up to its claims, 50% more power, 25% better fuel consumption and reduced life cycle costs, would bring substantial increase in capabilities to Black Hawk. Not sure if the time cycle for the T901 ISD of 2024? would match Puma replacement schedule. End of last year Boeing awarded $240 million contract to integrate the T901 into the Apache.
Click to expand...
Do the stats on the graph make any sense?

Is the range with 9 troops really just 100km? I've seen a quoted UH-60M combat range of 590km...
And how can you fit 10 extra troops into a cabin only large enough for 11 troops? Even a 9 + 10 case wouldn't fit.

I assume they're using human figures as a physical description of the additional payload capacity but even so its misleading, they could have just said "we can carry 3,650lb more load" and even then that's mostly going to be slung loads given the cabin size.

I must confess I have no feelings in my bones how this will go:
a) Leonardo to keep Yeovil open to align with all the MoD industrial strategy guff we keep hearing about
b) Airbus to keep some UK workshare but at least its shiny new kit
c) S-70i to keep in with the Poles (who knows what BoJo promised them this week?)
d) Refurbed UH-60s cos its cheap
e) Trotter Aviation Puma Mk.3 cos its even cheaper, lovely jubbley!
f) Scrap the whole thing, spend another 12 months thinking up new specs and issue a new a goldplated spec

I'd hope for a or even b, but given the MoD track record any option seems likely.

RLBH said:
Many years ago I had access to some drawings which featured multiple Chinooks with folded rotors in a below-deck hangar. The implication there is that someone - and I don't know who - thought that a fully navalised Chinook (including powered folding) was a good idea.
Click to expand...
I think those comparisons were done during the SKR work.
Of course it's quite odd because the Chinook was nearly acquired under ASR.358 for the ASW role in the mid-60s so presumably back then some naval bod must have been tasked with working out exactly how much hangar space was needed. So it can't have been a secret, probably lost in institutional memory fade...
 
I can understand not wanting to trade a 50 year old platform for a 40 year old one. That would be is not very desirable in my opinion. If the Leonardo platform can keep up with the logistics (something I am told they occasionally have trouble with), the offset would seem to make it more desirable.
As to the numbers, I suspect the "extra" troops in the back of the Blackhawk is in reference to "seats out" option. i have been told of a recent occurance where fifteen troops were piled in back. There have been a number of claims for teh T901, to date I have seen no validation.
 
Hood said:
Do the stats on the graph make any sense?

Is the range with 9 troops really just 100km? I've seen a quoted UH-60M combat range of 590km...
And how can you fit 10 extra troops into a cabin only large enough for 11 troops? Even a 9 + 10 case wouldn't fit.
Click to expand...

That's Hot-High (6000 feet @95F) where the basic Black Hawk is pretty much out of lift.

See about half way down the page here: https://www.geaviation.com/military/engines/t901-turboshaft-engine

The Black Hawk cabin has always had volume for more than 11 bods --14 is high density and 20 is barely possible (if they're friendly and not carrying packs). Puma certainly has more cabin volume than the S-70, but not as much more as you might think.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom