Jump to content

UK's Puma replacement


Slater

Recommended Posts

On 4/1/2021 at 8:43 AM, Agent K said:

Wasn't the Mk 2 a (relatively) recent upgrade with new engines and a glass cockpit? notwithstanding the structure and a lot of the mechanical bits would still be original (design) I suspect.

Puma HC2 was very much the late life update that should have occurred 20 years earlier.  The main reasons were to get an effective engine control system and replace some very old wiring and avionics.  Puma was chosen for upgrade in part as it was designed for hot and high, rather than Sea King which was optimised for sea level (and yes ,the Carson blade upgrade did make SK better but Puma HC2 has lots of excess power from its Makilas.  This gave the UK a better mix than just SK and Chinook.  Ideally, the RAF and Junglies would have had a modern medium SH cab in 2012, and Merlin HC3 would have specialised in CSAR.  However, money...    Lets hope that the funding allows better than do minimum this time.

Regards

Tim

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TimB said:

Puma HC2 was very much the late life update that should have occurred 20 years earlier.  The main reasons were to get an effective engine control system and replace some very old wiring and avionics.  Puma was chosen for upgrade in part as it was designed for hot and high, rather than Sea King which was optimised for sea level (and yes ,the Carson blade upgrade did make SK better but Puma HC2 has lots of excess power from its Makilas.  This gave the UK a better mix than just SK and Chinook.  Ideally, the RAF and Junglies would have had a modern medium SH cab in 2012, and Merlin HC3 would have specialised in CSAR.  However, money...    Lets hope that the funding allows better than do minimum this time.

Regards

Tim

Agree 20 years late. Was Sk optimised for sea level hmm Afghanistan would say not ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
3 hours ago, Britman said:

Would the AW189 be a better option? I see the Coastguard examples floating around here in East Kent. 

 

Keith

The AW189 is the civil version developed from the military AW149.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2021 at 12:40 AM, junglierating said:

Agree 20 years late. Was Sk optimised for sea level hmm Afghanistan would say not ?

 

Let it go! While the Sea King was pretty good at its intended role, it was aggressively average at everything else. Funny old thing, the qualities which make a good ASW aircraft don't really suit various other roles. And like every type apart from the Chinook it struggled with hot and high operations - to claim it was optimized for anything other than sea level is absurd! I'm not saying that it couldn't or didn't achieve anything - far from it - but that is down to the skill of the crews more than the ability of the airframe. The Puma has always been a much better battlefield helicopter design (as it should be - that was the main military role from the outset) but until the HC2 upgrade, it suffered from several vices which limited its effectiveness. As it is now, it's really very good at what it does. The only thing it can't do much of is deck operations - although most Puma crews would put that on the list of pros rather than cons... 

 

Returning to the thread, the right answer is emphatically not more Chinooks. As others have pointed out, the Chinook is big (NB still a medium lift helicopter, fact fans), noisy, possessed of terrible downwash - and hideously expensive to run. Look at the fleets which are being replaced and then look at a Chinook! Having just ordered more Chinooks to replace the very tired original batch, I cannot see any further order for Chinooks in the short to medium term.

 

Another suggestion which I cannot envisage for many decades is the unmanned route. While many roles in military flying can be done effectively by RPAS (or will be able to before long), moving troops on and off the battlefield is not one of them. The problem is not the technology, but the moral aspect - similar to the self-driving car quandary, but more complex and even less likely to be resolved. If I was an FJ or ISR pilot, I might be looking into alternative employment, but I don't think that helicopter crews need worry any time soon. 

 

The answer may of course be nothing at all - not my idea of fun, but to a bean counter, JHC will still possess three types of helicopters of different sizes with passenger seats even after the Pumas have gone. The finer points of supporting the Army are likely to elude those who make the decisions.

 

Of the list of the four most likely contenders, none of them is ideal (some things never change) but the AW149 is probably the best, and also the most likely. Frankly, I would take any of them over not getting a replacement at all (even NH90s - and I hear there may be some low hours pre-loved examples coming onto the market soon...), but I'll believe it when I see it. Time will tell... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let it go 😁😁I did in 2016 when we got those cast offs from the RAF still a helicopter is better than no helicopter and for its faults Merlin has legs and speed but not really a battlefield helo.

As for Puma well up until the engine mods etc it really was a mediocre battlefield helo ...could bearly lift more than a section ...that said it has good ideas like doors port and starboard and the lift frame through the gearbox...Sea king could still lift and carry more kit and people.

A lot of what you say j agree with infact we have been subjected to the same propaganda. 

My fear is that as always the Puma replacement will be a compromise and perhaps not the best one ....not sure any of the options are the answer ....I hope for my LH friends its the Yeovil choice I guess (far too complex not agricultural enough but....) if only to stave of redundancies. NH90 er no ,Blackhawk old, S92 ....what do the coastguard say?.Ah well its above my pay grade and I dont have to fix em anymore 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Interesting debate - only just spotted it.  My first real exposure to the Puma 2 was in the first week of my last job in uniform where I had a joint service rotary wing role with a responsibility that affected every UK military helicopter type.  At the end of that week I got my boss to sign a certificate to say that I was SQEP (suitably qualified and experienced person) on Puma so that I could attend an HC2 meeting the following week.  I then walked into my Puma team's office and said to the senior desk officer, "Right, so I'm supposedly now SQEP on Puma.  What do I need to know?  All I currently know is that I built a Airfix model of one in about 1976"!  I learnt quite quickly!

 

As for the Chinook downwash, I got caught underneath one when in the hover in a Lynx in the early 90s and the Chinook we were working with overshot its approach to its hover alongside us and flew straight over the top of us about 20 feet above.  We seriously overtorqued both engines (about 160% IIRC) keeping our aircraft out of the oggin.  On that same exercise we had to do a joint night SAR with one of the Chinooks to find an overturned RIB.  We used our radar to find the boat but because the Lynx had no oversea automatic hover capability and without visual references it was near impossible to hover over the sea at night, once we found the boat we handed over to the Chinook to lift the guys out of the water.  So they can do SAR.

 

I have no experience of the Blackhawk but I have flown in a Seahawk and that had an awful cabin arrangement in which it was impossible to stand up if you were taller than about 5 ft 4 in.  I know the Blackhawk cabin is much larger but is it any higher?

 

Don't forget that under the latest MOD procurement rules, for "large" orders, up to 10% of the evaluation criteria is assigned to the social charter, i.e. job creation, upskilling etc for UK tax payers.  It does mean that it is slightly easier for UK companies to compete with larger overseas competitors.  The other advantage of buying British at least against a US competitor is ITAR.  It is a nightmare to manage.  Let me give you an example.  in about 2010, the SK4 was fitted with a new US supplied radio for operations in Afghanistan.  Although the radios were delivered, it took almost 2 years to get approval for them to export the supporting technical documentation which meant that they couldn't be fitted to the aircraft and sat in stores.  So don't think that we could simply some ex-US Army Blackhawks.

 

On 13/04/2021 at 13:35, Timbo88 said:

Sadly you are probably right. At some point in the future there must surely come a time when the very existence of the RAF has to be questioned. If civilian contractors can do so much already might they eventually do everything? I'm thinking particularly about the eventual demise of manned combat aircraft and their replacement by UAVs. Who might operate these and under what rules?

I would love to think I'm just being unduly pessimistic.

 

I seem to recall the very existence of the RAF was questioned in about 1995/6 by the then Chief of the Defence Staff, Field Marshal Lord Inge in a speech to RUSI.  His argument was that the RAF had 4 purposes:

 

  • Support to the Army
  • Support to the Navy
  • Air defence of the UK
  • Strategic air transport

 

His argument was that by moving those elements of the RAF that supported land operations to the Army Air Corps and those elements that supported maritime to the Fleet Air Arm, the RAF's role was limited to only strategic air transport (which in those days was provided by dual roled VC10/Tristars) and air defence of UK.  He argued that the latter was originally the province of the Royal Naval Air Service so the air defenders could be moved to the RN and the strategic lift put out to tender with either the AAC or FAA picking up the AAR element.  His justification for this was a saving of hundreds of senior officers - this was in the time that the RAF had more 2 stars and above than it had aircraft.  In the end the only part that was actually taken up was the PFI contract for provision of tankers.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/airbus-helicopters-showcases-westernised-h175-as-uk-puma-replacement-hots-up/144144.article

 

Airbus Helicopters are beginning their marketing pitch. 

 

Interestingly they are claiming they can make the aircraft in the UK, although I seriously doubt Airbus Helicopters UK designs/makes anywhere near as much of the H175M as the Leonardo Helicopters UK designs/makes of the AW149.

 

I feel politics and supporting UK industry will have a big role in the final deicision. Personally, I believe if the UK wants to support the UK helicopter industry, then there is only one company that can be chosen. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Let me give you an example.  in about 2010, the SK4 was fitted with a new US supplied radio for operations in Afghanistan.  Although the radios were delivered, it took almost 2 years to get approval for them to export the supporting technical documentation which meant that they couldn't be fitted to the aircraft and sat in stores.  So don't think that we could simply some ex-US Army Blackhawks'....quote from Chewy

 

Ah yes I know the said radio which once you master the menus is very good ....but find an instruction manual.....I did on line .....very useful if not strictly cleared....funnily enough a few years later a beardy weirdy sweary old and bold Observer you will know nabbed me to help out with a rebro issue between a wildcat and the USCG.....still using the same open source document....some things never change chewbacca

Edited by junglierating
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/sikorsky-pitches-polish-built-black-hawks-as-uk-puma-replacement/146812.article

 

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/lockheed-martin-uk-eyeing-black-hawk-bid-for-puma-successor-deal/144660.article

 

Both Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin are offering the Black Hawk as a Puma alternative. 

 

Although, as mentioned in this thread, this has previously been offered to the UK forces and rejected, even Westland helicopters tried to offer a license built version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...
On 3/29/2022 at 8:23 AM, wellsprop said:

Safran have has declared an interest in this bid with the UK built Aneto 1K (essentially a derated RTM 332) - this powers the AW149.

 

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/safran-pushes-uk-built-aneto-engines-for-uk-nmh-contest/148066.article

 

Now thats interesting as the UK AH-64E is powered by the GE donkeys and UK MoD are considering ditching the RTM on Merlin for the GE items ....on cost reasons and similarities...clearly not operational reasons as the RTM is a superior engine.So hmm if the case is to have similar engines throughout UK Helo fleets then that goes against the reasoning....we will see....small porthole bigger picture...Troffa might know a bit more about this .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 05/04/2022 at 14:44, Slater said:

All US AH-64's (and Blackhawks) are to be re-engined with the new GE T901. Supposedly a significant advance in power and reliability over the current engines.

 

Thats becuase the US apaches had rubbish engines 😅

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/30/2021 at 12:18 PM, wellsprop said:

Possibly slightly off-topic, do you have ay first hand experience of the downwash from a Chinook and how it compares to a Sea King (or other medium types), for example?

 

I've been very close to a hovering Sea King and it was rather blowy.

 

The AW149 MTOW is 8600kg, the Chinook BEW is over 11000 kg, so the Chinook is possibly too drafty for a lot of landing sites.

There is a hell of a draft from a Chinook, but the Merlin really caught me out when I was out with the SHF.  I was expecting Puma Plus downdraft and got Chinook minus if you see what I mean.  Puma and Sea King were okay to go in under the blades while turning to refuel.   Oddly I disliked the Scouts and Wasps the most, the refuelling point was on the decking on the starboard side of the engine, and you had to put your arm upwards with basically a normal Petrol Station refuelling pump.  Never felt right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2021 at 1:00 PM, junglierating said:

Sledgehammer v toffee hammer .

Example.....whilst in Turkey 🇹🇷  I was running a FARP...FWD Arming and refuelling point .

Chinook dropped 6 fuel containers (they have a name) all upside down ...couldnt shift them .

Sea king came along and saved the day...we managed to get the 8 ft strop atached and pull them right way up....lesson everything has its role to play. Will the people who make decisions listen....im sure the junior service would like a new (and simple) medium support helo

Reckon the fuel containers were A.P.F.C's (Air Portable Fuel Containers ?), carried 1860pitres of fuel I seem to remember from my 1985 course !!!), also known as 'bo@@@@ks' as they look like, well, you get the picture.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/01/2022 at 19:32, Evalman said:

According to FlightGlobal, RAF Pumas will be replacing the AAC B212s in Brunei this year,  and replacing 84 Squadron's B412s next year. 

It would be interesting to see how the Pumas can get into some of the LZ's there. Tight would be an understatement and its a bit of an overkill for the amount of support required compared with a 212.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Slater said:

Could very well be, but the UK's new (ish) AH-64E's apparently have the same engine as their US counterparts. Not sure if the UK will want to upgrade to the T901?

 

https://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/united_kingdom_15-50_0.pdf

Note the link you posted was to the original 2015 proposal to “remanufacture” 50 (of 67 built) WAH-64D Apache AH-1 powered by the RR / Turbomeca RTM322 to AH-64E standard.

 

However the final decision taken in July 2016 saw an order placed for 50 new build AH-64E airframes purchased off the shelf, the first of which arrived in the UK in Nov 2020 and entered service in Jan 2022. The only “remanufacturing” element now involved is the transfer of certain unidentified systems from old airframes to new. Whether that includes everything mentioned in the 2015 proposal or not doesn’t seem to be clear.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/british-army-showcases-new-ah-64e-apache

 

When U.K. originally ordered the Apache way back in the early 1990s the standard US engine was the GE T-700-701 that offered about 1,700shp compared to the 2,100shp of the RTM322. The GE T-700-701D fitted to the AH-64E narrows that power gap considerably, generating nearly 2,000shp. So the benefits of standardisation with the US and the rest of the world probably outweigh the power deficit.

 

Any decision to upgrade to the T-901 is some time down the line given that the engine only ran for the first time in March 2022. It will offer 50% more power along with better fuel consumption and reliability.

 

https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2020/11/new-apache-helicopter/

https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2022/01/new-apache-attack-helicopter-enters-service/

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Cklasse said:

The Republic of Singapore Air Force recently replaced the Puma with the H225M. I wonder is this the right decision. Did the RAF consider this helo?

 

The H225 (developed from the Super Puma) fell out of favour with EVERYONE (other than the French) after the rotors departed the fuselage. Bristow used to use them for the North Sea oil transport, until the workers refused to fly on them.

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-begins-1bn-project-for-new-medium-helicopters/

 

More info has emerged on the contract.

 

Particularly interesting in the high level requirements is "Design Organisation integration services for Government Furnished Assets", the UK's helicopter manufacturer is very well placed for this requirement as it has spent the last 70 years integrating UK government furnished assets on helicopters....

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Airbus Helicopters H225M (28 troops; 11t fully loaded) is substantially larger than the SA330 Puma (16 troops; 7t fully loaded). Airbus is offering the H175 (18 troops; 7.5t fully loaded). Leonardo’s offering is a similar size. Looks to me like H225M is too big (and expensive?) for the role the RAF is trying to fill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...