U.K. May Drop Helo Life Extension, Advance Medium-Lift Craft

[rodneyn]

From Defense News

U.K. May Drop Helo Life Extension, Advance Medium-Lift Craft

By andrew chuter
Published: 2 Jun 2009 13:34
http://www.defensenews.com/images/print.gif Print (javascript: print();) | http://www.defensenews.com/images/email.gif Email (javascript:emThis())



LONDON - Britain's Ministry of Defence is reconsidering whether to ditch two helicopter life-extension programs in favor of fast-forwarding a requirement to bring a new medium-lift rotorcraft into service.
http://www.defensenews.com/images/arrow_caption.png
A plan to extend the life of the U.K. Puma helicopter fleet could be in peril if plans for next generation of helicopters are pushed forward. (AFP)



The last-minute review of the program extending the life of much of the Puma fleet and some versions of the Sea King was revealed by Defence Procurement Minister Quentin Davis while he gave evidence on helicopter capabilities June 2 to the Parliamentary Defence Committee.
Related Topics
Europe (http://www.defensenews.com/channel.php?c=EUR&s=TOP)
Air Warfare (http://www.defensenews.com/channel.php?c=AIR&s=TOP)
The minister said a "complete re-examination, admittedly at the 11th hour" was now under way on the way forward.
"The alternative we want to fully explore is the possibility of dispensing with spending taxpapers' money on upgrading aircraft which already have a certain age … and bring forward the Future Medium Helicopter," he said.
For the moment, the formal position is to proceed with the life-extension programs, he said.
The MoD is reconsidering whether it is worth spending hundreds of millions of pounds extending the lives of old helicopters by about eight to 10 years rather than accelerating the future medium-lift requirement from its current in-service date of around 2017.
Eurocopter has for weeks been expecting to sign a deal worth more than 300 million pounds ($489.8 million) to extend the life of the Puma out to 2022 with a new engine, new avionics and other changes.
Eurocopter UK officials could not be contacted for comment.
AgustaWestland said the deal for the Sea King upgrade was due to be signed later this year.
"Sea King variants would be life extended out to 2017. If it proceeds, it will be a relatively small contract primarily addressing obsolescence issues. Under current plans, they would have remained operational until the first batch of medium helicopters came into service," an AgustaWestland spokesman said.
Either deal may still proceed. An MoD spokeswomen said a decision would be made in weeks rather than months. One of the key issues is whether the MoD could find a way to advance delivery of new medium-lift rotorcraft.
Davis said if the life-extension programs were abandoned, his "strong preference" would be to acquire a modified, off-the shelf helicopter to meet the medium-lift requirement.
The first of the Puma and Sea King variants start going out of service as early as 2012. One of the drivers in deciding whether to purchase new helicopters is how quickly the platforms can be delivered to ensure a gap doesn't open up in Britain's already stretched rotorcraft capability.
AgustaWestland, Boeing, Eurocopter and Sikorsky could all be possible contenders.
Local helicopter maker AgustaWestland with the Merlin and Boeing with the Chinook already have modern medium-lift helicopters in service with the British armed forces.
Davis said if the MoD acquired new helicopters, it would dispense with the normal competitive process.
He described the process he had in mind as, "Not an urgent operational requirement but not the rather laborious full-scale classic international tender."

[minigundiplomat]

Davis said if the MoD acquired new helicopters, it would dispense with the normal competitive process.
He described the process he had in mind as, "Not an urgent operational requirement but not the rather laborious full-scale classic international tender."


As it normally does, resulting in a fudge that only partly addresses the capability gap, but throws a lifeline to the ailing SW Aerospace Industry.

[Low Ball]

Trouble is what is on offer at reasonabley short notice:-
Chinook - probably the RAF heli of choice, long lead time though I understand
Merlin - Expensive, RAF seem to knock it all the time
Cougar - Old design, probabley avail reasonably quickly but take some time to militarise
Blackhawk - Old design, even with RTMs, small low cabin
S-92 - Don't know much about it but hear there are problems with it
A149 - Not flown yet probably too small

Nothing else really on the stocks, maybe the drawing board but gestation too long. So a toss up between size and offshore purchase. I still think a mix would be better you don't want half full Chinooks. So some Chinook and Cougar or Merlin with A149 as an ousider.

Comment anyone

LB

[Tiger16]

Given the choice: a combination of 20-odd new Chinooks, plus at least 3 Sqns worth of AW149s.

The Chinooks speak for themselves - their utility for air assaults and as heavy transports has been proven conclusively on HERRICK.

The AW149s would presumably operate in pairs in high-threat environments (thus reducing the burden on AH as escorts), they're ideally sized for light transport / patrol inserts / EVCPs / Admin tasking etc, and they're comparatively small. Which, in itself, has advantages - being able to use smaller HLSs and being more difficult to hit, to name but 2....

[Footnote]

Having flown all the aircraft mentioned other than the AW149, cost and politics aside, I would go for a Chinook/Blackhawk mix. Both are Operationally proven and both have recently updated versions that are flying now.

[fallmonk]

I would have thought that a chinook/merlin mix would be the best bet if you wanted a " off the shelf " deal as there is already production lines , already supply chains i asumme that both could be "stepped up" for a speedier delivery schedual.

They are both combat proven , ok maybe the merlin is still to iron out the faults as its still a relitivly new platform ! and as mentioned it maybe expensive but the more you buy the cheaper it will be (wont it???)

[Hilife]

This isn’t about Heavy Lift, so Chinook out of the equation.

Regarding Medium Lift, I’m stunned that anyone would even suggest the AW149.

IF both LEP’s are cancelled in favour of New (And why would you invest £400m+ on 40 year old platforms for an 8-10 year extension when a fleet of proven and capable new delivery ships with a 40-year useful life ahead of them could be purchased on the saved LEP money alone?). And knowing of the fast approaching OSD, likely the MoD will be looking at a relatively quick and risk free solution, so why gamble on a paper helicopter?

IF the MoD goes for New, then the platform has to be a low risk, low (ish) cost, battle proven, OTS solution and that’s not the AW149.

[Footnote]

Point taken about heavy lift, however if you want to lift more than a couple of troops in hot and high conditions the Chinook is the only aircraft that will do it. There's not much point having a fleet of new 'medium lift' aircraft that cannot carry the required payload, hence a mixed fleet.

Just idle thoughts, no more!

[Double Zero]

How about Hinds ?!

[minigundiplomat]

Not a great deal of mention for the NH90?

[Finnpog]

...which considering the debate surrounding the NH90 vs the Blackhawk on here a couple of months ago for Australian usage is a suprise.

[Squirrel 41]

... but is this a saving-by-stealth, inasmuch as it probably postpones spending from this FY and next FY to the FY after that (2011-12) or later? And though I applaude the decision to go for new over LEP - the long term makes this a much more sensible choice - surely this would have been done to death in options analysis prior to decision, which should mean that the staff work has been done, so it's a quick decision.

Or perhaps not.

Which is more worrying, as the work really should've been done - otherwise how would we know that the LEP was value for money anyway?

Curiouser and Curiouser!

S41

[Low Ball]

Ok good contributions from those since I last posed the question.

Fair point Hilife and Tiger 16 Chinook is not medium so not in the arguement, but will have to be in the mix so 20 Chinooks it is then. Given to the RAF should they be marinised?

MDG I didn't mention NH90 because all I hear is bad press, performance specs not met deliveries late and customers not happy. Looks as if its not a runner from a timeline standpoint. Pity since it is new and presumably with many years till OOS if it could only meet performance requirements. Would like to hear more from any NH90 operators to balance this.

We have Merlin and although as I said before it seems to have a bad press (and I don't know why) except those who fly it, more than half the problem seems to be cost. Again comment from a user would be useful. So not wanting to waste an asset or spend funds on LEPs or mid life updates, here's the radical bit, give all the Merlins to the FAA as SK4 replacements making the FAA an All Merlin operator (less Lynx more on this later bear with me).

Now we have to find a Puma/Merlin replacement for the RAF in the Medium category. We have discounted Cougar and S-92, or rather no one has spoken up for them. This leaves Blackhawk, old but then so is Apache, Puma or SK. Given the latest glass cockpits etc and RTM 322s is it up for the job? Lets have somewhere between 40 and 60.

Lets bin Wildcat for the AAC and have A149 I think its worth the risk and will certainly cost less and prove more adaptable in the long run. This leaves a problem with SCMR. I thought the back end of all new ships were Merlin sized so why do we need SCMR when Merlin ASW could do the job. (We need some RN/FAA balance here to help with this bit)

Lets also develop some b***s and hold suppliers feet to the fire! In the SOR we state we want the heli to move this much stuff (men or materiel) to this height at this OAT and DA and have this much endurance. If your offering cannot meet this then either withdraw or promise a fix in a short time AND you pay for the short fall in lift (additional aircraft) to meet the requirement. Let's remember that when our shiny new product fails to meet the SOR that puff of dust on the horizon is the marketing man who made you a lot of promises.

So no prizes for guessing my background, Army pilot with expirience of Operational Requirements and operations including hot and sandy places, but now watching on the sidelines during interesting times and hoping you rotary guys get the tools to do the job.

Lets have your views and help to finnesse this new fleet.

LB

[andyy]

I would argue that whatever cab we choose it should be marinised as we can't guarantee that over the life of the platform that it won't have to operate from a ship, no matter who "owns" or "flies" it originally. Can Chinook be marinised (I mean inc folding rotor heads).

As for more Merlin for the FAA - OK and a significant upgrade in some capabilities, but very expensive & you won't therefore get one for one vis a vis Lynx. The Merlin would need an upgrade as it has no air to surface weapon system at the moment or Passive ID System (as far as I am aware) the and the Mk1 that is currently in service doesn't actually meet the original service requirement of being able to take off in sea State 6 and have 4 hour time on station. That may be OK in the different threat environment that now exists, though.

[Postman Plod]

So what IS the problem with Merlin? (other than cost, and how does that compare with the other options?) Nobody has yet criticised it in this thread, and I can't recall seeing much criticism other than cost and some "Just because its British it must be crap / just because its American it must be great" comments that Wastelands built it?

With regards to such an 11th hour change in programme / priorities, do you really think you'd be getting new cabs in 2012? Surely such a late change would effectively mean a new programme, and all the inherent costs and delays? You'd also have the Puma and Sea King soldiering on with no upgrade until the new aircraft are eventually (if ever) delivered....

[Tiger16]

The perceived problems with Merlin are cost (£32M each is often quoted), and a lack of robustness in the contemporary operating environment. True or not - open to debate!

Returning to the issue of Chinooks for a moment - "Medium Lift" refers to a capability, not necessarily to a particular size of SH. A loosely-defined capability perhaps, but traditionally we're talking about a helicopter capable of lifting somewhere between 12+12 and 20+20 troops. Given that we're likely to be operating in Afghanistan for much of the next decade, any Future Medium Lift helicopter would presumably need to be able to lift at least 12+12 in the prevalent hot-and-high conditions. That requirement rules out virtually all bar Merlin and Chinook. Notwithstanding the sterling work done by Merlins on TELIC, from a user perspective the preference for Chinook is clear and unambiguous. Hence more Chinooks should be part of the Future Medium Lift equation, whether they meet the general perception of medium SH or not.

That said, there is a definite need for a smaller SH type to perform smaller tasks in theatre; South Armagh-style tasking, for us old farts. I've no particular axe to grind regarding a preferred type, but I wouldn't dismiss AW149 out of hand. As a development of the widely-used AW139 it's a fairly low-risk programme, flying in 2009 with IOC in 2011. Further, AW149 is quoted as maintaining ISA performance in temperatures of ISA+35, whilst price is quoted at £15m each (versus £25m for NH-90). Whilst I take these figures with a huge pinch of salt, I would say that AW149 certainly merits consideration for the lower end of a "hi/lo" Future Medium Lift force mix - particularly given the political advantages of supporting AgustaWestland. It'll be quite interesting to see how AW149 gets on in the Turkish competition, versus Black Hawk...

Anyway, enough of my blah-ing; it's lunchtime!

[andyy]

£32M for Merlin - is that for the SH variant? The cost for the ASW version was quoted as £44M per cab way back im 1991.

[Pegasus#]

There have been a number of good comments from contributors who drive the cabs but perhaps still too little focus on what we are actually carrying, and the combat power that we may (or may not) be able to deliver with our respective choices.
My observation is that we have experienced 3 clear and irreversible trends in UK support helicopter operations over the last 1-2 decades:
- Pax have become both physically larger (body armour, patrol packs/bergans are the norm, not the exception) and heavier (the load we plan for a soldier to carry has effectively doubled, from 25kg to 50kg+: body armour, radios, ammo, water all drive this).
- The number of seats available have fallen dramatically for each existing helicopter due to Duty of Care, and the consequent increasing requirement for crashworthy - as opposed to the original canvas & tube - seats: we brought Chinook into service with a declared capacity of 44 pax, including those sitting on the floor in the middle (and it was proven to be able to carry 80+ on Op Corporate), but we now plan on as few as 30 pax for the same airframe.
- The parasitic burden of DAS compounds the issue further.
Net, the UK can no longer afford to play with small airframes and small cabins (eg UH60, NH90, AW149), IMO, no matter what the superficial attractions might be in terms of size/signature and HLS requirements (as an aside, Merlin can land on a frigate deck, so how much smaller do we realistically need?). In this respect a 12-pax cab becomes an 6 to 8-pax one (or worse) well within its operational life, an erosion of capability that we cannot aford.
This would point to focusing on Chinook and Merlin only, with AW159 Future Lynx, since we are now contractually bound to take it, used for carrying very small numbers of pax only, probably largely in a liaison role. In addition, a reduction in the number of airframe types were we to phase out Sea King and Puma and focus on the remaining two large airframes could actually improve our ability to support the remaining fleets on the (long-term) campaign basis that our Lords & Masters are now planning for.

[minigundiplomat]

There are only two platforms with advantages over the Chinook:

The Sea King has a better door for winching, but then that is not a primary role and the Chinook has far better hover performance crosswind.

The Puma has a smaller footprint, a point noticed in the last few years and utilised to good effect overseas.

Other than that, the Chinook beats all comers hands down in every respect. So, we either need something small enough to offer an advantage in footprint, like the Puma offers presently, or just buy more Chinooks.

The Merlin is fine, but has a similar footprint with less capability in terms of lift capacity, begging the question, what's the point?
(Before anyone starts - you have a similar footprint to carry 22, instead of 44 which despite what Pegasus says, still happens occasionally, in all conditions)

NH90 is unproven, but could fit the bill.

Augusta, possibly and could gel nicely if it entered service with DHFS negating a long OCF and reducing lead-in times.

[andyy]

I don't pretend to be an expert, & others may not be either, so please excuse me from posting these details from the RAFs own web pages (yes, I know this may be different from operational reality slightly):

Chinook:

Engines: Two Textron Lycoming T55-L712F turboshafts Thrust: 3,148shp each Max speed: 160kts Length: 30.18m Max altitude: 15,000ft Span: 18.29m Aircrew: 4

The HC2 and HC2A aircraft are used primarily for trooping and for carrying internal and/or underslung loads and can carry up to 55 troops or 10 tonnes of freight. The cabin is large enough to accommodate two Land Rovers, while the three underslung load hooks allow a huge flexibility in the type and number of loads that can be carried externally. Secondary roles include search and rescue and casualty evacuation, in which role a total of 24 stretchers can be carried.

Merlin:

Engines: Three Rolls-Royce Turbomeca RTM 322 turbines Thrust: 2263shp each Max speed: 167kts Length: 22.8m Max altitude: 15,000ft Span: 18.6m Aircrew: 4

The Merlin is able to carry a diverse range of bulky cargo, either internally or under-slung. Cargo can include artillery, Land Rovers or light-strike vehicles and over five tonnes of freight. The spacious cabin can also accommodate up to 24 fully equipped combat troops and, when required, will convert to carry 16 stretchers for casualty evacuation or during humanitarian and disaster relief operations.

Puma:

Engines: Two Turbomeca Turmo 3-C4 turbines Thrust: 1300shp each Max speed: 147kts Length: 14.08m Max altitude: 17,000ft Span: 15.09ft Aircrew: 3

The aircraft can carry 16 fully-equipped troops, or up to two tonnes of freight carried either internally or as an underslung load. The other major role is that of casualty or medical evacuation support, for which up to six stretchers can be fitted.

.......

Seems to me that there are significant differences between all 3 & no doubt each type has their place in the scheme of things but am I right in saying that only the Merlin can be deployed at sea for long periods (inc having the capability to be rotors folded automatically & struck down in to a ships hangar)?

.......

As an aside, these specs are from a US Army Site:

BlackHawk S70A:

Main Rotor Diameter 53ft 8in Maximum Gross Weight 22,000lb

The S-70 is qualified as a launch platform for the laser-guided Hellfire anti-armour missile. The Black Hawk can carry 16 Hellfire missiles using the external stores support system (ESSS). The ESSS has the capability of carrying a 10,000lb payload of missiles, rockets, cannons and electronic countermeasures pods. The S-70 can mount 7.62mm or .50-calibre machine guns in the windows.

The cabin provides accommodation for 11 fully equipped troops or four litters (stretcher patients) with a medical officer for medical evacuation missions.

The S-70A can carry external loads up to 9,000lb (4,072kg) on the cargo hook - for example, a 155mm howitzer.
...........

The Puma stacks up pretty well on this basic comparison, although the ability to displace troops & carry hellfire is a significant advantage for me.

More Chinooks then, with Puma replaced by Blackhawks, and the Merlin transferred to 845/6.

OK, I know its not that simple & its dreamland.

[minigundiplomat]

Seems to me that there are significant differences between all 3 & no doubt each type has their place in the scheme of things but am I right in saying that only the Merlin can be deployed at sea for long periods (inc having the capability to be rotors folded automatically & struck down in to a ships hangar)?



Chinooks have spent a lot of time at sea, despite not fitting in the hangar, and have been partially sea-proofed against corrosion. That is not necessarily a good thing.

Current theatres involve either hot, or hot and high performance and thats where the other airframes fall down.
The Merlin has done a good job in Iraq, but at altitudes not far above sea level. Afg is far above this.

Whatever is purchased needs to have good hot and high performance, which narrows down the field somewhat.

[Sgt.Slabber]

“The last-minute review of the program extending the life of much of the Puma fleet and some versions of the Sea King was revealed by Defence Procurement Minister Quentin Davis while he gave evidence on helicopter capabilities [on] June 2…”

Would it be a surprise if the review were to last until sometime into early 2010, then the results being considered into May 2010 then, oh, wait one!! General election and it’s no longer his (Davis') problem. :yuk:

[Not_a_boffin]

Fully support the arguments re pax/payload so far. Wildcat/SH60 are irrelevant in this as we're talking medium lift.

One of the drivers for medium lift is going to be the amphibious force requirements for getting bods ashore. Unless you go to a lot of airframes (and consequently spots) Lynx/Seahawk/NH90 ain't going to cut it.

Similarly, because one of the drivers is the CHF component of JHF, they still have to go to sea and hence get marinised. As MGD suggests, the wokka has done sterling work embarked, but whether that would be sustainable for several weeks is another question. When dealing with SHF HQ in 2007, none of them appeared to know what BR766 was or how it could assist them.......

Which brings us to AW's finest, Mr Merlin. HC3/3A impose exactly the same demands on ships as the Wokka. None of it folds and putting folding mechanisms on it will probably compromise performance (even the tie-down points have been removed to save weight). HC3/3A will therefore not do - we would need another variant keeping as much commonaility as possible, but getting over the emb8ggerances.

Or we could go CH53K...........

[minigundiplomat]

When dealing with SHF HQ in 2007, none of them appeared to know what BR766 was or how it could assist them.......



The Navy's big book of ships. You just have to ask the right person.

[Not_a_boffin]

I think that person was probably deployed at the time.....

[minigundiplomat]

Probably in the desert. I hear there was a couple of wars on at the time.

[Tiger16]

BR 766 - the RN's big book of ships? You learn something new every day!

In this heartening spirit of full disclosure, one for the BALOs out there:

BS 666 - the Puma fleet's big book of b*llocks excuses for why they never do any UK tasking!

Standing by for incoming...

[minigundiplomat]

BS 666 - the Puma fleet's big book of b*llocks excuses for why they never do any UK tasking!



Easy Tiger!!! Like what I did there?

[Modern Elmo]

Seems to me that there are significant differences between all 3 & no doubt each type has their place in the scheme of things but am I right in saying that only the Merlin can be deployed at sea for long periods (inc having the capability to be rotors folded automatically & struck down in to a ships hangar)?




SH-60B Seahawk

The SH-60B "Seahawk" is a single main rotor, twin-engine helicopter, manufactured by the United Technologies Corporation, Sikorsky Aircraft Division. The helicopter has a 20deg tractor-type canted tail rotor, a controllable stabilator, conventional fixed landing gear, emergency flotation, an external cargo hook, a rescue hoist, and bomb racks for carrying and launching external stores. In addition, it is equipped with a flight-rated auxiliary power unit, a sonobuoy-launch system, an anti-ice system, a fire-extinguishing system, an environmental control system, an automatic flight control system (AFCS), a single-point pressure refueling system, a helicopter in-flight refueling (HIFR) system, and the necessary avionics and instrumentation for instrument flight and mission accomplishment. The helicopter design is compatible with ships equipped with a recovery, assist, securing and traversing (RAST) system, and the main rotor blades and tail pylon can be folded for storage. In addition, the helicopter can operate on non-RAST equipped combatants and a variety of other naval ships.

Dimensions

The overall aircraft dimensions and clearances are:

Folded Length (rotor/tail pylon)------------------40 ft 11 in.

Rotor folded length (pylon flight position)-------53 ft 3 in.

Length overall (rotors turning)-------------------64 ft 10 in.

Fuselage length-----------------------------------50 ft 0 in.

Height--------------------------------------------17 ft 0 in.

Fuselage width-------------------------------------7 ft 9 in.

Folded width -------------------------------------10 ft 7 in.

Main rotor diameter-------------------------------53 ft 8 in.

Tail rotor diameter-------------------------------11 ft 0 in.

Ground clearance--------------------------------------11.2 in.

Turning radius------------------------------------41 ft 7 in.

Clearance for 180'--------------------------------84 ft 0 in.

The Engines

The helicopter is equipped with two T700-GE-401C engines. The T700-GE-40lC is a front-drive turboshaft engine, manufactured by the General Electric Company, Aircraft Engine Group. Some of the features of the engine include an integral inlet particle separator and self-contained systems incorporating modular construction. At sea level and 59'F (15'C), the T700-GE-401C shaft horsepower ratings are:

Contingency: 2-1/2 Min. duration...............1940

Intermediate: 30 Min duration..................1800

Max Continuous: No Limit.......................1662

...

SH-60B Seahawk Helicopter (http://navalhelicopterassn.org/helo%20page/sh60b.htm)


The Seahawk has never been used as a troop transport/air assault helo, nor has the USMC ever asked for any Blackhawks. It's not a matter of technology. USMC insists on a larger nominal squad size than the US Army.

If the British Army wanted Chinooks with powered folding rotors, I'm sure that that is technically feasible. Or why not just buy some CH-53K's ... or V-22's? Maybe Westlands can build 'em under license. Should be up and running in no time.

[NURSE]

If Chinook was so easy to convert to use on a carrier wouldn't beoing be doing that as an option? or do we want to see another Chinook HC3 level balls up.
Don't the Italian Navy already have the assualt version with all the folding bits so why not produce a UK version of that to replace Sea King?

[XV277]

Or there is always the Mil Mi-8.........

[knowitall]

NURSE

"If Chinook was so easy to convert to use on a carrier wouldn't beoing be doing that as an option?"


as opposed to earning billions from the v22 development, not bloody likely



lets face it manual Chinook rotor fold would be very useful at a fraction of a fraction of the cost of the V22

[NURSE]

Yes and if it was so simple I would sugest the USMC would have had chinooks in the 70's/80's instead of the CH53 and the osprey programme would have been a non starter! Remember the chinook has been around a long time we're comparitive new commers to it.

[Nomad72]

Don’t usually post on this site but I think a little balance is required here! Lots of Apples and Oranges being compared; new aircraft with old!

My gut feeling is if the UK was looking for a cheap but capable helicopter to replace the Puma and Sea King, it wouldn't go far wrong with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC_725 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC_725). It may look like a Puma, but it is a completely different beast. In fact, it is so good and so reliable (after all, it's had 40 years of improvement) that its giving them a big problem in trying to sell the NH90, a helicopter it outperforms. It has none of the vices of the present Puma but many of the virtues. It has powerful engines with anticipators and a wider undercarriage that allows ship borne ops. http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/military/utility/1733.html (http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/military/utility/1733.html)

EC are building them at a fast rate of knots down at Marignane and, because there are some 600 of the family in service, spares and through-life costs are great value. Despite the recent incident in the North Sea, it is likely to be the aircraft of choice for the off-shore oil business for the foreseeable future. Brazil has just procured 50 of them at about £15M a go which compares very favourably with the £10M (published price of £300M divided by 30) we are about to spend on refurbing the present fleet.

I don't see why we should always buy from Westland. We need an on-shore capability for sure and there is a great argument for not exporting money to other countries unnecessarily through imports. However, they got the WildCat deal without competition, in order to retain a DA capability and the DIS specifically stated that we would continue to look to the international helicopter market where necessary. As the second biggest defence exporter in the world, we adopt a protectionist stance at our peril.

With the AW149 being a high risk option technically, Black Hawk being too small internally, Merlin being too big for some roles and almost twice as expensive, the 725 is not the bad option that has been portrayed on this thread . The price and the fact the production line is already up and running (and possibly could be duplicated in this country as the supply chain is already in place) make it a good runner.

By the way, I don't work for EC, have any connection with the programme or have any vested interests! Just think some balance is required.

[GreenKnight121]

Ummm... the CH-53E carries more personnel and internal cargo than CH-47D... as did the CH-53A vs CH-47A & CH-53D vs CH-47C.

Total payload is also larger, so why should the USMC want the less-capable of the two?

CH-53K vs CH-47F is a much greater difference!

[NURSE]

Don’t usually post on this site but I think a little balance is required here! Lots of Apples and Oranges being compared; new aircraft with old!

My gut feeling is if the UK was looking for a cheap but capable helicopter to replace the Puma and Sea King, it wouldn't go far wrong with this Eurocopter EC 725 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC_725). It may look like a Puma, but it is a completely different beast. In fact, it is so good and so reliable (after all, it's had 40 years of improvement) that its giving them a big problem in trying to sell the NH90, a helicopter it outperforms. It has none of the vices of the present Puma but many of the virtues. It has powerful engines with anticipators and a wider undercarriage that allows ship borne ops. Rotor & Wing Magazine :: Helicopter Intellect (http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/military/utility/1733.html)

EC are building them at a fast rate of knots down at Marignane and, because there are some 600 of the family in service, spares and through-life costs are great value. Despite the recent incident in the North Sea, it is likely to be the aircraft of choice for the off-shore oil business for the foreseeable future. Brazil has just procured 50 of them at about £15M a go which compares very favourably with the £10M (published price of £300M divided by 30) we are about to spend on refurbing the present fleet.

I don't see why we should always buy from Westland. We need an on-shore capability for sure and there is a great argument for not exporting money to other countries unnecessarily through imports. However, they got the WildCat deal without competition, in order to retain a DA capability and the DIS specifically stated that we would continue to look to the international helicopter market where necessary. As the second biggest defence exporter in the world, we adopt a protectionist stance at our peril.

With the AW149 being a high risk option technically, Black Hawk being too small internally, Merlin being too big for some roles and almost twice as expensive, the 725 is not the bad option that has been portrayed on this thread . The price and the fact the production line is already up and running (and possibly could be duplicated in this country as the supply chain is already in place) make it a good runner.

By the way, I don't work for EC, have any connection with the programme or have any vested interests! Just think some balance is required.

and of course the RAF wanted cougar all the time so in can integrate into the euro airforce. However variuos shades of government recognise the value of keeping jobs in the UK yes westlands isn't particulary efficient but a multi million pound contract adds to he UK economey not the French one or Romanian one. Deal with the fact that untill UK companies get the contracts or the R&D money to develop products the UKDF will be stuck with some kit that isn't all singing and dancing. Yes we do out source and it wou be better if westlands were building chinooks, cougars etc under liscence but they aren't. At present 2 lift helecopters are reaching the end of their lives Puma and Seaking and will need replacing or are the RAF going to go into Borg mode with Joint helecopter as well?

[forwardassist]

There was a plan for the French to visit a Naval Air Station in darkest Somerset with an EC725 or 775 back in 2006. Unfortunately, the nearby helicopter factory got wind of it and threw all of their toys out of the cot. This was probably due to their utter outrage that the military would have a look at a capable, affordable helo and would therefore think twice about accepting the overpriced pap that the company were producing. :}

[NURSE]

Doesn't surprise me at all. If sucessive govts had invested in R&D and not postponed buys or cut back buys of Kit Westland's might be in a better state but then Support Hele has always been a cinderella part of the RAF (despite it having been almost continuously on ops since the 1960's)as it isn't Fast Jets. Wonder if there will ever be a CAS from support Helecopters?

[XV277]

and of course the RAF wanted cougar all the time so in can integrate into the euro airforce.

Going back 30 years to the time the Super Puma was prime candidate to replace the Wessex until the Thatcher Govt scrapped that plan. And they WOULD have been built at Westlands.

[Green Flash]

Is there another outfit apart from Westlands that could build the Cougar under licence in the UK?:confused:

[knowitall]

"Wonder if there will ever be a CAS from support Helecopters?"

you might want to ask CGS instead as he hold the purse strings for all SH.

[NURSE]

Going back 30 years to the time the Super Puma was prime candidate to replace the Wessex until the Thatcher Govt scrapped that plan. And they WOULD have been built at Westlands.

yes remember that as the other compition was the Blackhawk and or WG30but that's why I said successive governments.

[Hilife]

Is there another outfit apart from Westland’s that could build the Cougar under licence in the UK?

With the acquisition of McAlpine Helicopters, Eurocopter has a strong foothold in the UK, but I cannot see the financial case for building the platforms at Oxford, or Westland’s for that matter.

It’s all about cost savings these days, so far better to have a baseline green machine delivered to Oxford and have them install a sizeable percentage of the completed platform in-country, but it won’t be cheap for the latest 725.

[andyy]

When the Westland crisis happened, weren't BAE & Shorts both touted as potential alternative helicopter assemblers for Apache?

[NURSE]

Could Bae or Bombardier in Belfast build helecopters mmmm interesting question.
Finacially building them in the UK would be a non starter. Politically at present I would sugest the reverse would be true. Do you really think Brown wants his "British jobs for British workers" quote to come back and haunt him again?