Eurocopter Puma Upgrade Programme

[ORAC]

Eurocopter implements RAF Puma Upgrade Assessment Phase (http://www.eurocopter.com/publications/FO/scripts/newsFO_complet.php?lang=EN&news_id=498)

Under contract to the UK Ministry of Defence, Eurocopter is carrying out the assessment phase for the life extension programme for the RAF’s fleet of Puma Mk1 helicopters with the aim of enhancing the British Armed Forces’ much-needed medium-lift capability. It is managed by a Eurocopter/Ministry of Defence Joint Project Office, already in operation in Bristol since August 20, 2007. The programme will be based on comprehensive upgrades, including new Turbomeca Makila engines, glass cockpits, and new communications, navigation and defensive systems for up to 35 of the RAF’s Pumas.

The Assessment Phase, scheduled for a period of one year, will consider the detailed technical, operational and cost implications of the upgrade and will lead, upon successful completion, to a full development and manufacture contract for delivery of the main programme.

The new Pumas, which will be designated Puma HC Mk2, will consequently be capable of remaining in service until around 2022. Their performance and payload will be significantly enhanced, particularly in hot and high conditions. As the backbone of the RAF’s fleet of medium-lift helicopters, the Pumas will continue to play a vital role in operational theatres such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

[ShyTorque]

Oh, goody! So the Puma might get the updates it needed in the late 1970s.

[Tiger_mate]

A complete waste of taxpayers money.

They should buy new helicopters that provide serviceability and longevity in the form of return of service. The Puma fleet is cream crackered, but the funds to replace will not exist whereas the funds to refurbish will. Once upon a time both 'funds' would have come from the same pot. This is a short term reponse to a problem that has existed for decades, but then which MOD decisions nowadays have any forsight in them?

It is a disgrace. They are suggesting that in the future we fly 53 year old aircraft that have been flogged to death; Aviation as an institution is only 100 years old!

[PlasticCabDriver]

Puma Mk 2 discussed at length here:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=289707

[R 21]

I wonder if the Mk 2 would have happened sooner if we where still part of Air Command and not JHC? Does this come from Land Commands budget or for upgrades etc are we funded from the 'Real' Airforce?

:}

[The Helpful Stacker]

I wonder if the Mk 2 would have happened sooner if we where still part of Air Command and not JHC? Does this come from Land Commands budget or for upgrades etc are we funded from the 'Real' Airforce?

Whilst the green elements who have taken lead of JHC do seem a little apathetic I don't believe the delay in upgrading the Puma can fairly be placed at their feet because after all (as has already been mentioned) many of the upgrades were required back in the 70's, when Pumas were well and truly a light blue support asset.

[Could be the last?]

It would be interesting to see the small print!
The changes to the ac are not defined as enhancements but merely a vehicle to increase the life of the airframe. Notice how the majority of the 'changes' are in the front! Once again there will be no changes to the cabin, and once again no Crash Seat for the Cmn! MMMmmmm:mad:

[shawtarce]

Why oh why oh why do they need a 12 month assessment phase??????

It will cost us millions to answer a question we already know the answer to, yes we need the upgrade, but no we can't afford it.

or do they have a few mil in the "assessment budget" that they have to spend this year in case they lose it next year?????

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[tucumseh]

Shawtarce
“Why oh why oh why do they need a 12 month assessment phase??????”
I don’t know the detail of the programme, but I tend to agree. “No enhancements” and “Assessment Phase” is essentially a contradiction in terms. There is a perfectly good Def Stan which outlines the procedures to implement the former (changes to maintain the build standard), and it is used by those who know as the model for UORs.

[seafuryfan]

I have to agree with the above poster about cabin issues:

Crashworthy crewman seat
Harness that restrains
Improved weapon system
Electric cabin doors (ok, not the electric cabin doors)

I'm embarrassed about an air force having to make-do with tarted up 'hand-me-downs'.

But, with no votes in the military, that's the way it is...

[Dundiggin']

Let's get this straight; when we purchased the Puma in 1971 we could offer the Army a 16 seat cabin. We often carried 16 personnel but there was not much space left for Burgens etc. We then offered the users '12 seat plus load pole fitted'. This was adequate for a very many years. Then some bright spark decided we needed more range, so an internal crash-proof tank was designed, purchased and fitted; we now offer the users an '8-seat fit, load-pole fitted with an internal tank fitted in the cabin'.
We are now spending millions on Makila engines and various other new gismos which in theory should make the Puma safer to operate but we are now offering HALF the capacity compared to when we bought the thing!!
Buy secondhand Super Pumas with all the good stuff and please stop pissing about!!

[CrabInCab]

Puma HC2 until 2022, to put that in context that's like Spitfire retiring in 1991, utter lunacy and just about sums up the state of UK forces.

:ugh:

[Al R]

In those days, the inf only had a 58 pattern rucksack. Nowadays, we deploy with at least 3 times as much. The old adage that if you have a bigger bergan, you'll only fill it with junk anyway, is possibly true.