Puma Upgrade

[BEagle]

An urgent operational modification has been brought into service to enhance the combat effectiveness of the RAF's Puma force:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/news_0611_14.html

Well, that'll help. Good news that it only took a month for various august committees to decide upon how best to daub a splash of paint on the ageing old beasts..... Splendid to learn that MoD has its priorities soooo well sorted out....:hmm:

But isn't the RW force supposed to be.........'joint'?

[Brain Potter]

Quote

Hopefully the markings will ensure the RAF Helicopter Force is not mistakenly named 'Army Helicopters' in the press and it gets full credibility for the positive work it is doing in the Gulf

Shall we paint Ryanair on the side of the TriStar in the hope that they will then get "full credibility" for the glorious airbridge from the press?

[MINself]

What about when it gets dark and our troops or the Iraqi insurgents can't see the branding on the Pumas, do the PR gurus at the RAF intend to hang neon signs from these venerable machines or should the wasted time and money on this ggggreat idea have been better spent on something that would of made a difference to our servicemen and women.

Mmmm let me think, like maybe putting back that Tristar spare wheel that the RAF thought to remove from Cyprus in the name of saving a few quid! There by avoiding having to task precious service AT to take a wheel out to a grounded Tristar and allow our troops to get home rather than being stuck in transit accomodation wasting precious days of their R & R because of these so called ggggreat ideas.

[charliegolf]

Safer if they were painted brilliant white with "I'm on your side*" in big, black letters.

*(you tw&t : optional).

CG

[ShyTorque]

A whole month - and they go and paint a bl**dy target on the side? :ooh:

Amazing idea - and so versatile - it will apparently work on other helicopters too? Well done, someone. :hmm:

[Melchett01]

Normally, any modification to an aircraft can take many months to actually get onto an aircraft due to the lengthy processes through which it has to pass; in this instance it was achieved exceptionally fast, Defence PR tasked the IPTL on 15 September 2006 and painting commenced on 14 October 2006.

Was it Nero that fiddled whilst Rome burned? I can't see this as being anything more than fiddling at the expense of the real problems. It's good to see though that when they really want to (ie when they get a chance to look good) their airships and the IPTs can pull their fingers out. If they can get things done in such short order on the PR front, what about the rest of the things that need sorting.

Guess the guys don't need the extra cabs out in Herrick or armour in general. And I don't mind waiting a few more months for my LSA and Op 'Bonus'. Think the PR boys will help out there? :( Thought as much :*

[tucumseh]

The serious side of this is that some utter ******* plank in the IPT is obviously under the impression managing this “project” constitutes “experience” for promotion purposes. The upper reaches of DLO and DPA is full of them.

[dessert_flyer]

Must of been a slow news day on the RAF website, old and unservicable AT assets delaying servicemen out of theatre is obviously old news, and happens all too often.

[hobie]

what's the story behind this version .... :confused:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/squadrons/h_images/230sqnpumahc1tiger05.gif

[Twopack]

If it hadn't been on the RAF website I would have thought this was a spoof.

''IPT Engineering Authority, blah....''

''Puma Depth Support Hub, blah, blah...''

''Defence PR tasked the IPTL, blah....''

How many agencies???? And the writer seems pleased it took a whole month for them all to get it done !! Could have been done a lot quicker than that, painting a ferking roundel and 'RAF' on a chopper!!! :mad: :mad: At what cost for some PR?

MORONS! Rant Off

[Climebear]

what's the story behind this version .... :confused:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/squadrons/h_images/230sqnpumahc1tiger05.gif


If you need to ask.....


tiger, tiger

[L1A2 discharged]

And who will apply the paint scheme in 2 years time? :ugh: :D

Painters are being removed from the inventory :sad:

[forget]

I read through this post thinking it was just another bitch about nothing - until I went to the RAF Web Site and saw what it was all about! :sad:

This is a bloody disgrace - what's happened to the RAF. Does a ten minute paint job need a PRESS RELEASE! Last time the RAF had anything to do with me was 1969 - but it seemed to work OK then.

Timelines were as follows:
15 Sep Defence PR tasked IPTL
18-19 Sep Service Modification Leaflet Written
20-22 Sep Trials and Sample Photos
27 Sep Defence PR endorsement received
28 Sep Commander JHC endorsement received
28 Sep -14 Oct Release to Service Approval, MOD London
14 Oct Aircraft Painting Commences! :D :D

[Archimedes]

Defence PR are going to be so pleased when news of their spiffing idea (inevitably) makes its way onto 'the army means', and from there, via the lurking journos, into a variety of newspapers.

[hobie]

If you need to ask.....

tiger, tiger

Danke ...... :ok:

[Tourist]

I would love to make use of the endless possibilities that this generates to take the p1ss out of you crabs, but I just know that some chimp in RN PR will do something worse within the month.........:(

[Talking Radalt]

I would love to make use of the endless possibilities that this generates to take the p1ss out of you crabs, but I just know that some chimp in RN PR will do something worse within the month.........:(
Whoa there! Haven't RN helicopters been wafting around with the corporate "Royal Navy" ensign logo on the side for many years now?
Certainly seen photos of SKs in Bos, Iraq etc painted thus.
Plus Yeovilton tower has now got some bollocks slogan painted on the side.
"Flying with a difference" or something. To whom are they advertising exactly? Themselves? :hmm:

[movadinkampa747]

Look front Lynx on the door. Oh dear. Tourist would you like a banana?:ok:
http://www.deltaweb.co.uk/blackcats/images/news0608_12.jpg

[Tourist]

And somebody has put their back wheels on squint!

[Shackman]

As part of an MoD directive aiming to improve the recognition of RAF helicopters on operations
Presumably this is to ensure our 'clients' (the PBI) will now be able to wait at the bus stop until three noisy whirly things come along and be able to tell at a glance which one is theirs. Apart from god knows how many hours of recognition training - which did sometimes seem a little wanting in the days of both Wessex and Puma with a load of bods trying to get in the port side - the fact it appears is a pretty good indication of what/who's it is. And as the 'enemy' don't seem to have rotary assets anyway they just shoot at any helicopter in passing so they won't take time to look to see if it has a new corporate logo.

The (words fail me) idiot who dreamed up this unforgiveable waste of expenditure and then has the temerity to advertise his cleverness to the world deserves sending to Helmand for the rest of his career. Putting a PR requirement and spending ahead of OR is almost criminal.

Our job is putting troops out and bringing them back, and it matters not what we may be called in the press. I've seen reports of RAF Sea Kings from Culdrose and Navy ones from Valley, RAF Lynx and Gazelles and lots of Army Wessex and Pumas. Yes it sometimes grates, and we seem to able to spend lots of time on this forum berating the press for 'inaccurate' reporting, but in the scheme of things is it that big a problem! The professionals know who did it, and as far as the public are concerned they probably couldn't care.

Edited to add:

On second thoughts maybe someone who can get things moving this quickly should be posted to head up the new Carrier team, in the hope it will appear some time this century.

Rant over, back to more wine!

[Two's in]

Hopefully the markings will ensure the RAF Helicopter Force is not mistakenly named 'Army Helicopters' in the press and it gets full credibility for the positive work it is doing in the Gulf.

A good opportunity to help the RAF News editor here with his English usage, I think the author means "credit' and not "credibility" in the above quote. An example of getting credit is where a multiservice team performs a sterling service in an operational area, despite a critical lack of resources and assets and everyone on the team gets the "credit";

On the other hand, an example of credibility, is where some Darwinian throwback in the MOD has a wizard wheeze to raise his/her profile for annual reporting and spends hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money, and wastes immeasurable manhours dreaming up some dip$hit idea that has zero effect on the war effort, in that case, everyone on the team loses any "credibility" they ever had.


They might also want to the thesaurus and run it against "Esprit de Corps", my crappy old version keeps coming up with "A common spirit of comradeship, enthusiasm, and devotion to a cause among the members of a group. See synonyms at morale", nowhere does it say, See R-A-F.

What an amazingly crass home goal on the PR front, achieved largely by deskhounds who can't see the effect of their actions beyond the next tavel claim to Abbey Wood.

[Hummingfrog]

When I read this PR release I though it would be dated 1 Apr but it isn't:ugh:

The poor old RAF is being taken over by management speak and self serving PR wallahs.

This roundel idea isn't new my grandfather said it was around when he was a kid!! I even had RAF Rescue on the side of my Wessex and Seaking along with Royal Air Force over the door of my 18 and 72 Sqn Wessex so what is new.

I feel sorry for the guys still left in having to put up with this drivel:yuk:

HF

[GLGNDB]

Puma's used to have RAF titles in the early 90's when still painted grey and green.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1015468/L/

Why use the corporate Royal Air Force font from the RAF website? Hope it was a one off fee for the creation of the font.
Would probably have been cheaper and easier just to use the same black lettering as used for either serials or that applied to the Sea King SAR helo's.

[tucumseh]

Shackman

“The (words fail me) idiot who dreamed up this unforgiveable waste of expenditure and then has the temerity to advertise his cleverness to the world deserves sending to Helmand for the rest of his career. Putting a PR requirement and spending ahead of OR is almost criminal.”



Fully agree. The idiot (you’re being very polite) would have had to sign to the effect that he/she had addressed the following questions (among many others), and that he was satisfied the “requirement” passed…

a. Is it sensible in relation to the Defence programme, the Service’s programme as a whole or the Service’s equipment programme?
b. Is there adequate (EP) provision? If so, given the other priorities, should it retain its place in the programme? Does some current economy proposal cast doubt over the “requirement”?

Last time I asked, this precise wording was extant. Even if it has changed recently, it can only be to update terminology. Interestingly, another question implicitly acknowledges the concept of “overstretch” and requires you to consider the effect.

I’d say that, in this case, these questions relate both to the modification and the decision to spend money on advertising it.

BTW, failure of the above process is the major source of waste in MoD; not only because the questions aren’t asked, but because they lack the people who understand them and know the answer.

[Mr-AEO]

:ok: Nice piccy MOVAD - that's the RN's new Chinook wannabee isn't it?;) They just rivet the two together and voila!

Without getting into the very worthy debate on whether this was the right thing to do or not, I seem to remember some odd paint jobs on my Sea King 4 in Gulf War 1!

First we paint them salmon pink, then beigey pink. Then, when we get out in the bondu, we have to paint Allies stripes down the tail cone with a can of paint and a brush. (You know White/Black/White/Black). We then had to paint over them again 2 weeks later after some locals thought we were Germans and took pot shots at the aircraft? :ugh: Apparently they got confused with both A)The war we were now fighting and B) Their aircraft recognition skills. Jeez, some people.

OH - As for the RAF logo. Very nice. I'm sure they could afford that because it came off a 'different budget' to the one that actually buys useful things.:hmm: And they did it quick because it made them feel good to start and finish something in one posting for once! (Which is a novelty for those familiar being an EA)

[side salad]

Hope the bloody sand blasts it off

[Mike Oxmels]

Cheaper than anticipators, I suppose.:ugh:

[RETDPI]

Hope the bloody sand blasts it off
Oh you are unkind!
I expect the instigator of this latest breakthrough was probably an "Admin Type" who joined to be an "Aerocrat" and is now "Living the Dream".

[Rigga]

Call me a pedant - but wasn't this "Logo" once described as a "Roundel"? Or am i just showing my age and ejakayshun. I am plainly not "Corporate Minded".
Having seen the navvy's efforts to catch up on this important development, I wonder what the army's TWA "Logo" will look like?

[Two's in]

Being careful not to appear be as big a knob as those responsible for this travesty, the logo is not just the roundel. It is the whole device of the roundel colocated with the the words "Royal Air Force", the font style of the letters, and the positioning, and the rakish angles of the "Y" and the "A".

If you remember, this is the sort of thing that BP paid some marketing bottom dwellers a couple of million quid for a few years back, when they offset the point of the BP shield 12 nanometres from bottom dead centre. and nobody could spot the difference. If you couldn't see how it enhanced the "branding", you were just some oikish thicko.

I'm just guessing that the local recipients for the RAF's ordnance delivery service in 'stan and 'aq are probably not that bothered about 'branding' or product identification - bombs is bombs.

[StopStart]

There I was, tittering at the misfortune of the SH fleet being plastered with this crap, when i noticed

..and the Air Transport fleet will follow in time..

Great.

:rolleyes:

[BEagle]

Stoppers, since when did the AT Force NOT remain at the back of the queue for anything new?

Is this whooshy new logo going to be painted on the TypHoon? Surely if it's that good, the RAF's new wunderkind should be adorned with it as well?

[Navaleye]

I think its a good idea and the same should apply to teh dark blue side of JFH to prevent 801 and 800 NAS being confused with the crab squadrons with some subtle "Royal Navy" identification.

[goatmanni]

Funny thing is - they spent years (about 35) happily NOT being thought of as RAF helos in NI; yet now it's full on RAF branding - what's changed I wonder?

[MReyn24050]

Hopefully the markings will ensure the RAF Helicopter Force is not mistakenly named 'Army Helicopters' in the press and it gets full credibility for the positive work it is doing in the Gulf.

What planet do these people live on? What a complete waste of time,effort and money. Considering all the trouble that one has to go through these days to get a Service Engineered Modification approved. Well at least the boys on the ground will know who to blame when the aircraft turns up late,not that they need any telling.

[Hugh S]

Cheaper than anticipators, I suppose.:ugh:
Right on the button, Mike. Why let crew safety get in the way of a good PR stunt.:ugh:

[NURSE]

why not just paint UKDF on all our aircraft and save the arguing