Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by Lord Jim »

Should any Puma replacement to given to the AAC rather than the RAF?

downsizer
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by downsizer »

Lord Jim wrote:Should any Puma replacement to given to the AAC rather than the RAF?
Not unless all RW is going. And that's another discussion.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

downsizer wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Should any Puma replacement to given to the AAC rather than the RAF?
Not unless all RW is going. And that's another discussion.
Agree. The old, in itself valid, argument that tactical transports regardless of propeller vs. rotor should all be under same command is getting a bit stretched, though, after the last Hercs go
- despite its equal rough field capabilities, the decision whether to send a couple of Pumas or an A-400M (we should call them Grizzlies? Is that an export label for them?) is hardly a dichotomy...
- and it isn't as we have the Chinooks in between.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by Lord Jim »

Well if it left up to the RAF, they could well decide to reduce the number of platforms it operates yet again, not replace the Puma and purchase additional new CH-47F/Gs instead, as they are more capable, and efficient in the number of trips required to deliver a set number of troops or equipment. Half a dozen more advanced Chinooks matches to capacity of a squadron of Pumas or a similar sized replacement.

If they want a cheaper to operate helicopter for training the troops and supporting home operations and exercises they could farm out a contract like the one in Cyprus, say for he use of six to eight Super Pumas, that could also double up for advance pilot training on larger helicopters.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: purchase additional new CH-47F/Gs instead, as they are more capable, and efficient in the number of trips required to deliver a set number of troops or equipment. Half a dozen more advanced Chinooks
Wasn't it 16 coming?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by Lord Jim »

I was adding another six to cover the retirement of the Puma fleet earlier than scheduled.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by shark bait »

It doesn't really cover Puma unless the RAF remove the requirement to rapidly fly a helicopter anywhere in the world.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:the RAF remove the requirement to rapidly fly a helicopter anywhere in the world.
A good point. Chinook self-deployment capability is impressive, but falls short of that.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5625
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

More to do with certain people requiring urban helicopter operations and puma gets into such confined spaces. Bit like whats happening in Baghdad and Kabul.

downsizer
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by downsizer »

Bingo. Merlin and chinook are too big.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by Lord Jim »

Is there any reason that the AAC Wildcats cannot be used I urban situations, they can carry an Infantry section of eight men. As for getting the Chinooks anywhere in the world quickly, well how did they get to Afghanistan? Ok you can fit two Pumas in a C-17 for one Chinook but the latter can carry twice as much. Horses for courses. Mind you if we even took up the AAR capabilities of both the Chinook and Merlin HC4 and outfitted a few of out A400s there would be a step change.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:AAC Wildcats [...] can carry an Infantry section of eight men.
??
Lord Jim wrote: if we even took up the AAR capabilities of [both] the Chinook
gotto buy new tankers - I note you said refitting a couple of A-400Ms; how would that go down with Airtanker =

Babcock
Cobham
Airbus Group
Rolls-Royce
Thales

- as the refueling probe is a notable exception vs. the US SF Chinook spec.

The new Chinooks will have all the internal plumbing necessary for the refueling task, so probes could be fitted at some later date.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by Lord Jim »

Sorry it's six men not eight. As for the A400, all are plumbed for wing pods from the factory so that isn't an issue. Regarding Air tanker, does their contract cover rotary platforms. Knowing how the MoD is, as there was no requirement for this when the contract was let I wouldn't be surprised if it is not covered, but then again Air Tanker may have made sure it was covered.

downsizer
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by downsizer »

Lord Jim wrote:Is there any reason that the AAC Wildcats cannot be used I urban situations,
Not big enough for this type of work.

Little J
Member
Posts: 970
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by Little J »

As has been said before, AW139 or 149 would have been a better option for AAC.

Maybe even NH90 (still probably an option to replace Puma if the bugs get fixed).

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by Lord Jim »

So to clarify, the only aviation assets that should be operated by the AAC are attack and recce helicopters, with all transportation of troop being the responsibility of the RAF?

Simon82
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by Simon82 »

Little J wrote:As has been said before, AW139 or 149 would have been a better option for AAC.

Maybe even NH90 (still probably an option to replace Puma if the bugs get fixed).
Or the U.K. could piggy-back on the US Future Vertical Lift program, perhaps even get a bit of industry participation if they jump in early enough. Could also ultimately feed into the plans to replace the Merlin and Apache fleets in the distant future too.
Of course it all depends on how long the Pumas can be kept going in service as the FVL program seems to be in no hurry to come to a conclusion.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Simon82 wrote: it all depends on :thumbup: how long the Pumas can be kept going in service as the FVL program seems to be in no :( hurry
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5625
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

I think the French have selected the h160m to replace there pumas along with host of other types. Maybe of interest maybe a little small.

2025 isn’t faraway....

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2677
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by bobp »

It would be good if any new replacement Helicopters could be built in the UK.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by Lord Jim »

Well if the Government offered a big enough sweetener then maybe.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5625
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

I think if your looking for a uk built helicopter then the choice is probably not much more than aw149. However if the order was big enough and if it’s just a puma replacement it won’t be then you could get an assembly line or workshare from a foreign option.

Any of the American tilt rotor options will result in much reduced number being bought.

Simon82
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by Simon82 »

SW1 wrote:Any of the American tilt rotor options will result in much reduced number being bought.
While either the Bell/Lockheed Martin or Sikorsky/Boeing products will undoubtedly be expensive that might be offset to some extent against European rivals by the massive numbers ordered by the US Army, which will surely depress the unit price a little.

Going forward into the 2030s I can see speed and even more importantly range becoming ever more important requirements as the the U.K. military reaches record low numbers and none-state militant groups (let alone peer adversaries) become ever more heavily armed and better equipped.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5625
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

Simon82 wrote:
SW1 wrote:Any of the American tilt rotor options will result in much reduced number being bought.
While either the Bell/Lockheed Martin or Sikorsky/Boeing products will undoubtedly be expensive that might be offset to some extent against European rivals by the massive numbers ordered by the US Army, which will surely depress the unit price a little.

Going forward into the 2030s I can see speed and even more importantly range becoming ever more important requirements as the the U.K. military reaches record low numbers and none-state militant groups (let alone peer adversaries) become ever more heavily armed and better equipped.
Numbers reduce unit price to a point but only to a point then rate tooling and production manpower flat line the price. More speed will cost more and more payload will cost more. Unit cost is only about 30% the cost of acquiring an aircraft so it’s not the primary cost factor in going to a tilt rotor force.


Possibly possibly not. Chinook is a fast helicopter and very long ranged for assualt and long range insertion missions but is that the operating capability your trying to get by replacing puma? If you need to land 8-10 people in a confined landing space in a city or transport people around a city then is size and acoustic signature possibly more important. Also as we go fwd with unmanned systems perhaps taking over more of the cargo/surveillance roles is our future fleet more aligned with personnel movements.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Puma Helicopter (RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

Helicopters
Leonardo stays bullish on Puma replacement despite UK’s high-speed helicopter interest

By Dominic Perry16 July 2020

Leonardo Helicopters’ UK arm believes it can still play a part in the replacement of the Royal Air Force’s Puma HC2 fleet, despite signaling that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is keen to look at high-speed designs in the future.

With the fleet of medium-lift Puma transports due for retirement in 2025, Leonardo Helicopters has previously proposed the 9t-class AW149 as a replacement, promising final assembly would be located at its Yeovil facility in southwest England.

But on 14 July, minister for the armed forces James Heapney signed a broad modernisation co-operation agreement with US secretary of state for the army Ryan McCarthy.

Included within that is confirmation of the UK’s interest in Washington’s Future Vertical Lift (FVL) programme, to create “closer affiliation in the development of helicopter capability”.

The UK was already known to be one of several nations with observer status in FVL, but this is the first time the MoD has directly referenced its interest.

Although there have been suggestions that the Puma’s out-of-service date could be extended, the first examples of the medium-class Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) – one of two separate developments within FVL – are not due to enter service with the US Army until 2030 at the earliest.

Leonardo Helicopters UK, whose Westland predecessor built the Pumas, believes it would be hard to further postpone the retirement of what is already “a 50-year-old aircraft”.

The airframer says it is “aware of the UK MoD’s review of a future medium-lift capability”, but stresses that as the country’s “only onshore OEM” it is “well placed” to support the options being explored.

Puma fleet is scheduled for retirement in 2025

“Leonardo is continuing to invest in future skills and technologies especially related to unmanned air systems and future fast rotorcraft,” it says, pointing to its “strategic partnering arrangement” with the MoD.

Describing the AW149 as an “established capability” within its portfolio, it says the helicopter would help address the UK’s “short- [to-] medium-term requirements for a medium multi-role platform”.

“[The AW149] could be an ideal solution for the UK – not just from a capability perspective, but also the value to UK Plc in support of ‘Build Back Better’,” – a reference to the government’s coronavirus economic recovery plan.

“The AW149 fits the bill as a cost-effective, proven single-type multi-mission medium-role helicopter,” Leonardo Helicopters says.

To date, only the Royal Thai Army has ordered the AW149, although there have been reports that Egypt is also negotiating a deal for around 20 examples.

Previously UK defence officials have evaluated the possibility of extending the Puma’s service life to 2035, to coincide with that of the Royal Navy’s AW101 Merlins in 2035, enabling both types to be replaced with a common platform.

The US Army has two active programmes under the FVL initiative, each with two contenders. FLRAA is a contest between the Bell V-280 Valor and Sikorsky-Boeing SB-1 Defiant to build a replacement for the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk. Meanwhile, Bell’s 360 Invictus is competing against Sikorsky’s Raider X for the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft armed scout helicopter requirement.

Post Reply