TheLoneRanger wrote: ↑22 Oct 2022, 12:14
Not sure how you can blamed "the current goverment" for the failures of the MOD to conduct a procurement programme that has gone horribly wrong for 30 years as indicated by Jensy...
The problem is the MOD ... their procurement ability sucks - just look at how effective tiny Israel is in their procurement programmes relative to the size of their MOD ....
I'm not sure I understand your post, or if it's even aimed at me...
It's quite easy to attack civil servants, and can at times be justifiable. However this is a programme that was started under this government, whose parameters, projected procurement numbers and budget were set by this government. Particularly by the MoD, led by Ben Wallace who has portrayed himself as 'the man to set right UK defence procurement'.
Industry responded, some companies more enthusiastically than others and a timetable for delivery was set.
We're now in a position where the programme is delayed, despite this being a fairly simple (in comparison to CASD, Tempest, Type 26 etc.) requirement.
I can't see any possible way to blame anyone but the government, whose ministers are responsible for the failures of their departments.
It might be one of the endless flow of chancellors leading the treasury, it might be Wallace and it might even be the department for BEIS. One way or another this is down to elected officials, not the 'Sir Humphreys' (incompetent or not). As I think my post makes clear, my finger is squarely pointed at those in charge of the MoD.
Israel delivers projects on time because they have existential threats that require efficient and world class delivery of platforms and systems. We're still living like it's the 90s/00s.
TheLoneRanger wrote: ↑22 Oct 2022, 12:14
Not sure how you can blamed "the current goverment" for the failures of the MOD to conduct a procurement programme that has gone horribly wrong for 30 years as indicated by Jensy...
The problem is the MOD ... their procurement ability sucks - just look at how effective tiny Israel is in their procurement programmes relative to the size of their MOD ....
I'm not sure I understand your post, or if it's even aimed at me...
It's quite easy to attack civil servants, and can at times be justifiable. However this is a programme that was started under this government, whose parameters, projected procurement numbers and budget were set by this government. Particularly by the MoD, led by Ben Wallace who has portrayed himself as 'the man to set right UK defence procurement'.
Industry responded, some companies more enthusiastically than others and a timetable for delivery was set.
We're now in a position where the programme is delayed, despite this being a fairly simple (in comparison to CASD, Tempest, Type 26 etc.) requirement.
I can't see any possible way to blame anyone but the government, whose ministers are responsible for the failures of their departments.
It might be one of the endless flow of chancellors leading the treasury, it might be Wallace and it might even be the department for BEIS. One way or another this is down to elected officials, not the 'Sir Humphreys' (incompetent or not). As I think my post makes clear, my finger is squarely pointed at those in charge of the MoD.
Israel delivers projects on time because they have existential threats that require efficient and world class delivery of platforms and systems. We're still living like it's the 90s/00s.
Most likely cause is a Treasury mandated slowdown: "Postpone any discretionary spending UFN".
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Posted: 27 Oct 2022, 07:51
by Lord Jim
The MoD is well known for implementing moratoriums to cut or reduce spending at little or no advance notice to the relevant departments.
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Posted: 01 Nov 2022, 13:31
by SW1
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Posted: 02 Nov 2022, 09:06
by jonas
Leonardo and Sikorsky have also passed DPQQ.
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Posted: 02 Nov 2022, 11:45
by Jensy
jonas wrote: ↑02 Nov 2022, 09:06
Leonardo and Sikorsky have also passed DPQQ.
Boeing’s interest in the requirement is unclear given the lack of a suitable aircraft in its range: the only medium helicopter it could offer is the MH-139, which is based on Leonardo’s best-selling AW139.
However, two sources suggest Boeing may instead be interested in the support and training elements of the procurement.
Considering there are already two AW139 production lines up and serving far large order books, I would be surprised if the offer of setting up another is on the table.
The close air support configuration in that last video looks good with Brimstone
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Posted: 24 Nov 2022, 10:44
by Cooper
I'm pretty sure this contract is for Augusta to lose.
It goes beyond just a helicopter contract, but also politics, in keeping Italy sweet on their continuing involvement with Tempest.
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Posted: 24 Nov 2022, 16:44
by Ron5
Cooper wrote: ↑24 Nov 2022, 10:44
I'm pretty sure this contract is for Augusta to lose.
It goes beyond just a helicopter contract, but also politics, in keeping Italy sweet on their continuing involvement with Tempest.
Not who has the most votes in the competing constituencies?
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Posted: 24 Nov 2022, 20:27
by Little J
Cooper wrote: ↑24 Nov 2022, 10:44
I'm pretty sure this contract is for Augusta to lose.
It goes beyond just a helicopter contract, but also politics, in keeping Italy sweet on their continuing involvement with Tempest.
The 149 & 175 are very evenly matched... It'll come down to politics.
On a personal, highly unimportant subject... The 149 is easier to look at
The 175 just looks a bit ungainly to me
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Posted: 03 Dec 2022, 09:55
by NicerCuddly
Surely Blackhawk is far and away the most proven, lowest risk option for NMH, which is essentially an interim solution.
It also allows for commonality with allies.
The rest could only be selected for reasons other than which is the best tool for the job.
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Posted: 03 Dec 2022, 19:59
by mrclark303
NicerCuddly wrote: ↑03 Dec 2022, 09:55
Surely Blackhawk is far and away the most proven, lowest risk option for NMH, which is essentially an interim solution.
It also allows for commonality with allies.
The rest could only be selected for reasons other than which is the best tool for the job.
Absolutely, Blackhawk is indeed the obvious choice, affordable, proven and reliable.
It's a tough matured bird and can be patched up and sent out on ops hours after being shot up, this important aspect of conventional aluminium construction can't be over stated
Composite Helicopters get shot up and grounded, prior to careful inspection and technically challenging repairs.
Now a teaming of Chinook and Blackhawk simply works, they can both head into the fight over and over again ....
For that reason alone, keep it simple stupid, it's Blackhawk all the way!
So obviously the Mod will spend four times more than needed on an overly complex, unproven and fragile composite helicopter, that will be delivered 5 years late for good measure .... After all,why change a system that hasn't worked so well for decades!!!!
NicerCuddly wrote: ↑03 Dec 2022, 09:55
Surely Blackhawk is far and away the most proven, lowest risk option for NMH, which is essentially an interim solution.
It also allows for commonality with allies.
The rest could only be selected for reasons other than which is the best tool for the job.
Absolutely, Blackhawk is indeed the obvious choice, affordable, proven and reliable.
It's a tough matured bird and can be patched up and sent out on ops hours after being shot up, this important aspect of conventional aluminium construction can't be over stated
Composite Helicopters get shot up and grounded, prior to careful inspection and technically challenging repairs.
Now a teaming of Chinook and Blackhawk simply works, they can both head into the fight over and over again ....
For that reason alone, keep it simple stupid, it's Blackhawk all the way!
So obviously the Mod will spend four times more than needed on an overly complex, unproven and fragile composite helicopter, that will be delivered 5 years late for good measure .... After all,why change a system that hasn't worked so well for decades!!!!
Well the US Army is for one: 70's design metal Blackhawk out, 2020's design composite Valour in.
Pretty dumb for the UK to buy an obsolete helo.
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Posted: 07 Dec 2022, 20:40
by RunningStrong
Ron5 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2022, 16:36
Well the US Army is for one: 70's design metal Blackhawk out, 2020's design composite Valour in.
Pretty dumb for the UK to buy an obsolete helo.
Agreed. We should 100% be buying the Valor, but Puma needs replacing this decade.
Ron5 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2022, 16:36
Well the US Army is for one: 70's design metal Blackhawk out, 2020's design composite Valour in.
Pretty dumb for the UK to buy an obsolete helo.
Agreed. We should 100% be buying the Valor, but Puma needs replacing this decade.
Does it though? At one of the recent committee meetings the Airbus rep or is ex MOD\DE&S said he was surprised Puma was being replaced as after it rebuild it had plenty of life left and the urgency of the requirement seemed more about smoothing and profiling defence spend.ie there is currently room in the budget to buy NMH now rather than later when Puma will need replacing
Ron5 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2022, 16:36
Well the US Army is for one: 70's design metal Blackhawk out, 2020's design composite Valour in.
Pretty dumb for the UK to buy an obsolete helo.
Agreed. We should 100% be buying the Valor, but Puma needs replacing this decade.
Does it though? At one of the recent committee meetings the Airbus rep or is ex MOD\DE&S said he was surprised Puma was being replaced as after it rebuild it had plenty of life left and the urgency of the requirement seemed more about smoothing and profiling defence spend.ie there is currently room in the budget to buy NMH now rather than later when Puma will need replacing
OSD Puma is 2025, and while I can reasonably see an extension to 2030 (rebuild and return to service was only 2015), I really don't think it's wise to expect MOD procurement to stop and restart and still achieve the extended date.
So yes, needs replacing this decade.
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Posted: 08 Dec 2022, 13:47
by sol
If Bell create a Naval version, it could be considered as a replacement for Merlin HC4
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Posted: 08 Dec 2022, 15:21
by Little J
If we were to get Valor in the future, surely it should exclusively of the "Naval" version?
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Posted: 08 Dec 2022, 15:34
by RunningStrong
Little J wrote: ↑08 Dec 2022, 15:21
If we were to get Valor in the future, surely it should exclusively of the "Naval" version?
Why? NMH is an RAF requirement. If RN want the additional capability then they have to cough up.
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Posted: 08 Dec 2022, 15:56
by Little J
"Why?" Because our Forces are shrinking, we cannot keep thinking so one-dimensionally...
Side Note, STOVL is a naval requirement, but the RAF seem happy to take on that burden
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Posted: 08 Dec 2022, 18:00
by RunningStrong
Little J wrote: ↑08 Dec 2022, 15:56
"Why?" Because our Forces are shrinking, we cannot keep thinking so one-dimensionally...
Side Note, STOVL is a naval requirement, but the RAF seem happy to take on that burden
Why's it one dimensional? I wasn't aware the Navy had much use for Puma, is that subject to change?
If Navy are committed to STOVL, then it's a good thing the Army and RAF are meeting the VTOL requirement.
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Posted: 08 Dec 2022, 22:20
by Little J
Sorry, I didn't do a good job of explaining my thoughts...
Whatever replaces Puma long term, should be able to fold-up for easy deployment, whether it be via Carrier or C-17 (or anything else that i cant think of at the moment). I confess I don't know if the standard Valor can wing fold, but surely it would be better to only have one type in service, rather than -A, -B, -C, etc?
The STOVL comment was in joking reference to F-35's all so far being claimed by the RAF
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Posted: 08 Dec 2022, 22:47
by RunningStrong
Little J wrote: ↑08 Dec 2022, 22:20
Sorry, I didn't do a good job of explaining my thoughts...
Whatever replaces Puma long term, should be able to fold-up for easy deployment, whether it be via Carrier or C-17 (or anything else that i cant think of at the moment). I confess I don't know if the standard Valor can wing fold, but surely it would be better to only have one type in service, rather than -A, -B, -C, etc?
The STOVL comment was in joking reference to F-35's all so far being claimed by the RAF
But that's precisely the kind of gold plating that means we end up paying massively more and not getting the advantage of the larger airframe commonality with allied force users. It's precisely why UK Apache force was horrendously expensive.
A V280 wouldn't need to be C17 transportable, it has a ferry range of 2000 miles. Chinook has been stowed in QE2 hangar without folding, would need to do a compatibility check to see if it fits down the lift.
