Sikorsky outing the MoD

[Finnpog]

ITN News at 2200 today carried a story that in June this year MoD invited Igor's mob to tender in 8 days for an ASAP delivery of 56 x Blackhawks - and after the bid went in, it was declined by letter as the Puma update was the better deal.

Sikorsky say they would have delivered shiny painted platforms in 2010, whereas Puma is looking at a 2012 working date.

Now I know this was in the press last month, and I do appreciate that the great SH debate is currently more newsworthy than Pig Flu and Westminster decadence and corruption, but if the story is that the MoD just wanted a stalking horse in the form of Sik's (rush-job) tender - then that does seem a tad childish.

(PS - I'm not blind to the infrastructure required)

The MoD comment to ITN went along the 'Once upon a time' route, but then pointed out that new helo projects were expensive and time consuming - especially in making sure that the craft are fit for operational deployment in anger...

but...

isn't the Blackhawk kind of a little bit, maybe, in possession of some deployed experience?

PS - No linky to the ITN site as this isn't a listed story - but I am reasonably sure that I didn't imagine it.

[Data-Lynx]

Under the same heading of "MoD rejected three deals to buy Black Hawk helicopters" try the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/19/mod-reject-black-hawk-helicopters) and UTV News (http://www.u.tv/News/MoD-rejected-three-deals-to-buy-Black-Hawk-helicopters/6da0a2c0-4866-4b46-b780-1c2102d83259).

[NURSE]

Invatations to tender aren't promises to buy.
It would appear that sikorski are trying to force the UK govt to buy their product not for any genuine will to help but to preserve US jobs!.
I wonder when Obama will start to ramp up the political pressure for the UK armed forces to Buy everything from America.

[Occasional Aviator]

I don't see a story here. NURSE has it right - from my experience of Sikorsky they will try any dirty trick or distortion they can to get a deal....

[Maxibon]

Slight bit of thread creep here, but am I being completely niaive in wondering why we don't licence build more international products, thereby saving defence manufacturing and servicing/update work but finally realising that unlike 50/60 years ago, we are no longer in a position to develop aircraft that are at the cutting edge of aviation, although we may have the technology for the avionics. That way, we can start to reduce the seemingly enormous procurement costs which the MoD see fit to waste. We could've had licenced built Blackhawk (instead of Puma), F14/18s instead of F3/Typhoon, Orions (instead of Nimrod) all which would have given us an already capable capability whilst adapting to our own specialities; in terms of operations, costs; in terms of development and jobs; in terms of manufacturing.

[Eight Eights Blue]

Can anyone tell me if I was dreaming last night when watching the ITN 10 news.
A quote from an MOD spokesperson:

"The MOD rejected Sikorsky's offer to purchase Black Hawk as there is such a long time delay due to the aircraft having to undergo stringest tests, trials and paperwork etc before it can be fully proven as a capable asset in a potential conflict." (or very similar words)

Surely this spokesperson is the same person who is responsible for ensuring the armed forces have sufficient toilet paper to be used in all potential conflicts as well. They are so used to talking **** that they were given the task to comment on this as well.

Now I am not a Black Hawk guru but it did state on the news last night that the BH is sold to 27 countries around the world. :* Surely that says something.

I do remember sat in Iraq some time ago not able to take off in a Lynx because it was too hot and watching 2 Black Hawks pull pitch vertically to 50 feet and then transitioning to forward flight. Excuse me if I am out of context but surely that falls into the category of tried and tested.

Why do we Brits make it so hard for ourselves.

[Been There...]

Whilst the aircraft themselves maybe cheaper and they might be delivered to a certain date, how long would it take (and cost) to clear the aircraft to UK standards so that they would be put on a UK RTS? Look at the CH Mk3 :(

This is something that is sometimes overlooked...

[anita gofradump]

Orions (instead of Nimrod)

And you were doing so well up to that point.

[Maxibon]

It was a flippant throwaway point!! I considered mentioning armour but since CR2 is the finest main battle tank going and wees all over the Abrams, i didn't want to contradict myself. I do accept that the Nimrod is a great platform but its old and would we be better off with a more mass produced airframe but with our avionic fit?

[andyy]

BT

"Whilst the aircraft themselves maybe cheaper and they might be delivered to a certain date, how long would it take (and cost) to clear the aircraft to UK standards so that they would be put on a UK RTS? Look at the CH Mk3

This is something that is sometimes overlooked..."

Do our standards need to be so different?

[heights good]

" Whilst the aircraft themselves maybe cheaper and they might be delivered to a certain date, how long would it take (and cost) to clear the aircraft to UK standards so that they would be put on a UK RTS? Look at the CH Mk3 "

I could be wrong but I'm sure the RAF C17s are operated under the US RTS as 99Sqn are scared sh*tless to send them to Boscombe to re-test an already proven airframe.

Surely once an aircraft has an RTS, even if its American then it is fit to fly?

Or am I being niave to think that what is good for the defence budget/community as a whole is a good thing.

Or are there too many officers who need promoting into little empires that they can form and run....... :rolleyes:

[Jimlad1]

More to the point, where would all the crews come from to bring said airframes into service? If we want to bring in 30 plus Blackhawks into service in the next 2 years, we have to gap elsewhere.

What current front line task would you like the SH fleet to stop supporting in order to bring a new helo fleet into service en masse?

[Flyt3est]

Couple of points here..

Sikorsky can't delivery on time for the contracts they already have for Blackhawk, so where the hell they think they can deliver an additional 50-odd, god knows. And before anyone argues, I used to work for one of Sikorsky's lead contractors on the program, and there is no way we could deliver the parts.

British Standards - would these be the British standards which see our aircraft gathering dust in Hangers, while US Standard aircraft are currently racking up in service hours?

Wasn't the Seahawk considered at the time when EH-101 was being considered by the Navy? Surely there must have been a lot of carry-over data from that tender with regard to qualification?

I'm no fan of the cheese eating surrender monkeys, but I don't think Sikorsky have much to shout about in this case.

[Hilife]

JL - As the idea was to replace Puma LEP and advance FMH (Puma / Sea King), I would have thought that would have been pretty obvious.

[The Real Slim Shady]

In the civil world we have EASA (formerly JAR) which sorted all of the standards issues out - well most of them.

If an airframe / avionics fit is certified by one EASA contracting state another state cannot reasonably refuse to certify the same airframe on its register.

Why not have the same concept within NATO?

Make it a whole lot simpler to get equipment in to service.

[airborne_artist]

where would all the crews come from

I was talking to a former RN engineer, now glider tug pilot at the Portsmouth Gliding club, and he told me he racked up about 150 hrs in the LHS of the Wessex 5 in the S Atlantic spat, despite only having about 1,500 PPL hrs in Austers etc., and no service RW training at all.... :eek:

How many deployable crews (ie in UK and Afg in total) are there per deployed SH airframe at present?

[NURSE]

How many of the Blackhawk "Sales" were after open compition and how many are US Military Aid "Sales" ?

As to the Blackhawk wasn't it condisered and rejected as an RAF Wessex replacement in the 80's and for a couple of other compitions as well so if it wasn't up to spec then unless the spec has been changed it won't be up to spec again.

[Tiger_mate]

As to the Blackhawk wasn't it condisered and rejected as an RAF Wessex replacement in the 80's and for a couple of other compitions as well so if it wasn't up to spec then unless the spec has been changed it won't be up to spec again.

These are true words but the requirements or needs have changed since then as I am sure that nobody could forsee extended operations hot and high in a war zone. The tactical needs of the 80s focused on Northern Ireland for the RAF & Army and lessons learnt (post Falklands) / survival (job security) for the Navy.

The Wessex epitomised "battlefield helicopter", as does the Blackhawk, but the compromise is in capacity and capabilties that fail to match "peacetime" optimised airframes. The Chinook will always be the workhorse but for sure a need remains for a medium sized combat proven helicopter, and IMHO the americans have that at the moment. .....yet I am an NH90 fan!

[Saintsman]

Now I know this was in the press last month, and I do appreciate that the great SH debate is currently more newsworthy than Pig Flu and Westminster decadence and corruption, but if the story is that the MoD just wanted a stalking horse in the form of Sik's (rush-job) tender - then that does seem a tad childish.


MOD use stalking horses all the time to 'get a better deal'.

I once helped to submit a bid for the Boscombe Chinook's refurb. Price was good and they would have been in service by now, but our bid was rejected in favour of MOD's preferred supplier.

[NutLoose]

Surely if you are going down the Puma upgrade route you are going to have to reduce the fleet availability as they go through the process, where as if you buy new Blackhawks or what ever, you will be able to increase the helicopter force availability as the crew conversions are carried out without an overall reduction in the fleet capacity, true you will have a reduction in manning on the Puma as this takes place, but the amount of cabs available will stay roughly on par with what is already available and not be degraded.

It's ok saying lets upgrade what we have, but in the short term that will lead to a reduction in the available helicopter force and at the end of the day you will still be looking in the near future for a retirement for the Puma fleet...... to think it was 33 years ago I was posted onto them, as for the loss of work etc for the UK, well why cannot a mutual benefit be factored in along the lines as what has happened in the past with all things Sikorsky and Westlands.

Why not just go for a Puma replacement with one of the later versions such as the Cougar? As there will be some commonality, in both design,spares and training....

[ShyTorque]

Whilst the aircraft themselves maybe cheaper and they might be delivered to a certain date, how long would it take (and cost) to clear the aircraft to UK standards?


Surely it wouldn't take long to convert Blackhawks to right hand drive and fit rear foglights? :rolleyes:

Puma upgrade? We went down this route before. Some of those airframes are ancient - surely it's time to buy a new product.

The debacle over the entry into service of the Chinook Mk2 was a disgrace, the Mk3 even worse because it failed.

MOD and the Treasury have been "farting about" for decades over a Puma replacement. Their indecision is finally costing very dear, now in lives as well as in financial terms.

Crews apart, if there are insufficient airframes now, upgrading will only reduce the numbers further.

[NURSE]

But you will get that if you introduce a new type as you have to train crews air and ground and provide the support infrastructure both on and of base.


The Years of under investment in support helicopters across all 3 services are now biting. Coupled with the missplaced assumptions that have been the cornerstone of British defence policy since the end of the cold war.

[minigundiplomat]

What current front line task would you like the SH fleet to stop supporting in order to bring a new helo fleet into service en masse?


And what front-line task are the Puma's fulfilling at the moment? That's not a dig, I know the guys at Benson, much as they love the plastic pig, that's a dig, would love a shiny new thing with more capability.

So a gradual rolling conversion from Puma to Blackhawk solves the crewing problem. But is Blackhawk the right platform, and can we reduce the 'Boscome Factor'?

[Lingo Dan]

Does MOD really, really, intend to upgrade a helicopter (330J equivalent) that came into RAF service in the early 70's? It seems so daft that I must have misunderstood the previous posts!!

[XR219]

Slight bit of thread creep here, but am I being completely niaive in wondering why we don't licence build more international products, thereby saving defence manufacturing and servicing/update work but finally realising that unlike 50/60 years ago, we are no longer in a position to develop aircraft that are at the cutting edge of aviation, although we may have the technology for the avionics.

ISTR Wastelands were trying to push a licence-built Black Hawk they called the WS-70 more than 20 years ago...

[Fareastdriver]

to think it was 33 years ago I was posted onto them
38 years for me. I loved it, fantastic helicopter and still is. Now being in the civil world I have no qualifications to voice my opinion as to what the RAF should use now. What I do know is that the Puma is dead. The Makila engined Puma Mk 2 is dead. Go for something that fits in with the modern world. Not the Blackhawk, something with 21st Century thinking.

[NutLoose]

FareastdriverQuote:
to think it was 33 years ago I was posted onto them
38 years for me. I loved it, fantastic helicopter and still is. Now being in the civil world I have no qualifications to voice my opinion as to what the RAF should use now. What I do know is that the Puma is dead. The Makila engined Puma Mk 2 is dead. Go for something that fits in with the modern world. Not the Blackhawk, something with 21st Century thinking.

But surely they cannot start building Wessex again? :p

Mind you was it not the Westminster? that Westands proposed, it took the Wessex design, nailed it together with s-56 bits, threw the engines on the roof and put the cockpit where the engines were. so it looked like a seaking mated to the back end of a wessex..... Is in the book Project Cancelled.

Here you go, totally reduced the need for armour as bullets simply whistle through gaps. There was even an enclosed version.:p

http://www.aviastar.org/foto/west_westminster_2.jpg

Westland "Westminster" helicopter - development history, photos, technical data (http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/west_westminster.php)

[Madbob]

I agree with your common thrust the Puma is too old an airframe to waste good money on, and whilst under going upgrade the cabs won't be available. A one helo option to cover both heavy lift and medium lift/assault is not going to work either....

The solution has to be a mixed fleet and it has to be a common airfram to meet both the needs of the RAF and the FAA. We managed to do this in the past when we had a common medium support helo - it was the much-loved Wessex.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif What we need now is a modern equivalent.....

The arguement must be for a common airframe, compact enough to fit on board various ships, LPD, RFA's, Ocean, Bulwark etc. which can lift say a fully-equipped troop/section/patrol totalling up to say 12/14 "pairs of boots" - plus crewman and 2 pilots.

I would say it would need:

* two "big" engines rather than three as in the case of Merlin, CH53, Super Frelon.
* a wheeled, crash-worthy, undercarriage.
* Big doors on both sides of the fuselage.
* Folding main rotors and tail on a "hinge" to reduce deck space when embarked or hold space when being air transported.
* Provision for external stores/tanks for long-range missions/jamming pods/weapons
* Capable of fitting in the hold of a C-17 without main rotor head removal.
* Have enough performance to cope with "hot & high" places.

The Blackhawk ticks most of these boxes, but hasn't the cabin space of say a Sea King 4. Just as the F18 was scaled-up to become the Super Hornet the obvious answer, is to look at a scaled-up Blackhawk with a useful load of say 5,000lbs.

The sad thing is that we pioneered the use of helicopters in airborne ops, (remember Suez?) and the RAF and FAA used helicopters extensively in Borneo, Aden and the Falklands. Everyone seems to have forgotten how vital helicopters are in modern ops and that they really are essential, not just for inserting and extracting troops, but also re-supply, and casualty evacuation.

I know that there are other options, but the CH47 is perhaps too big and in any case a mixed fleet is inevitable as it is better to have the flexibility of say a fleet of 50 medium ac, rather than 25 heavy lift Chinooks. (How often do CH47's actually fly at max gross?)

Just my 2 pence worth.....

MB

[GreenKnight121]

Ummm... there already IS a "Super Blackhawk"... it is called S-92 (H-92 Superhawk):

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photos/civilhelicoptercutaways/images/14352/sikorsky-s-92-cutaway.jpg


It even has a rear ramp.

[Data-Lynx]

While we seem to be playing this helo version of Fantasy Football, while the MoD keeps the ball, didn’t the Military version (H-92) get flogged around Europe last year without a single order?

To date, has anyone placed a military order, other than Canada’s 28x CH-148 Cyclone?

[bvcu]

If i remember correctly there was a RTM322 powered blackhawk flying for several years in the uk as part of the original bid in thatchers time .

[Nomad72]

As I've said before, I think a little balance is required here! Lots of Apples and Oranges being compared again; new aircraft with old!

My gut feeling is if that the Puma LEP is the right option. However, if the MOD was lookinging for a cheap but capable new 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 probably 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.

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 a great option. 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. The RAF might even so priority in set-up qualification assistance if the MOD was able to lever some of the goodwill which EADS owes them with respect to A400M delays

If the EC225 (the civi version) gets selected for SAR H, SAR-H bidders announce helicopter types | Shephard Group (http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/2072/) - who knows, there may even be some savings to be had on crew training as we move aircrew between roles.

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

[MarkD]

H-92? Careful how the contract is written with the vendor! (http://tinyurl.com/d73u3l)

Edited to fix url. What has proone got against b-l-o-g-s-p-o-t?

[Modern Elmo]

Not the Blackhawk, something with 21st Century thinking.

V-22.

[Modern Elmo]

FIRST CYCLONE HELICOPTERS TO BE DELIVERED WILL BE IN TROOP TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION

By Dave Pugliese 05-16-2009 COMMENTS(4) David Pugliese’s Defence Watch

Filed under: Cyclone maritime helicopter

The most recent issue of Air International is reporting that Sikorsky plans to deliver--and the Crown will accept ---the first batch of CH-148 Cyclones in a troop transport configuration, a Defence Watch reader noted in an email to me yesterday.

I went on Air International’s website but they didn’t have an electronic version of the story (or one that I could see anyways…..if anyone has it please send the link).

The reader noted the following comment:

“The article goes on to report that the ASW system selected for the CH-148 is not yet ready to use. After the many delays, penalties and false starts the Forces aren't going to get an ASW capable platform? What was the point of it all? ...

FIRST CYCLONE HELICOPTERS TO BE DELIVERED WILL BE IN TROOP TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION - David Pugliese?s Defence Watch (http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2009/05/16/first-cyclone-helicopters-to-be-delivered-will-be-in-troop-transport-configuration.aspx)

[Nicholas Howard]

Lingo Dan

Does MOD really, really, intend to upgrade a helicopter (330J equivalent) that came into RAF service in the early 70's? It seems so daft that I must have misunderstood the previous posts!!

You obviously missed the whole Nimrod MRA4 thing?

The MoD is simply doing what the rest of us do when we want a shiny new sports car but haven't got the cash (and the HP opportunities for mil helos is scarce). You keep your old banger running, year after year, hoping it will get through the MoT and spending as little as possible in the meantime. We might strap on a new stereo, or even fit a "gold seal" reconditioned engine, but realistically all we can do is hold back the rust as long as possible. Still, there are some really old Transit vans still doing the rounds, so there must be life in the old Puma!

Simples!

[Data-Lynx]

NH. Unless this Govt's sponsored scrappage scheme can be extended to include helicopters, the family car argument is a tad flawed.

MM4. I would relate the use of SK4 and SKASAC to the old RN adage of Make Do and Mend. We have always made best use of what we have, with and more often without sufficient ballistic protection. I would also propose that the need in Th demands that the 'Fisheads have had to take their much loved family car'.

For the Puma, I would expect the Joint Helicopter Command as users to lead, push, struggle and do their best to manage a Capability Integration Working Group for the introduction of the Pu LEP. Meanwhile, it is fun to marvel at the flights of fancy and speculation about what new rotary magnificance could be purchased from scratch, complete with comfy front seats for the armchair warriors.

MoD has stated what it intends to do:
The U.K. Ministry of Defence has awarded Eurocopter a GBP250 million contract to upgrade 33 Puma helicopters over the next five years. Most of the work will be completed at Eurocopter's plant in Brasov, Romania, to achieve "best value for money for the MoD," although the contract's prime contractor will be Eurocopter U.K.
The upgrade will comprise new 1,800 shp Turbomeca Makila engines, a new avionics suite including autopilot and communications suite, plus a full airframe overhaul. The Puma entered service in 1971, making many nearly 40 years old already. The upgrade will extend their service life by at least another 13 years to take their end-of-life phase-out beyond 2022.

That means no alternatives are under consideration, today, and by this Govt. It would suggest that the Pu LEP comprises Makila 1A1 (http://www.turbomeca.com/public/turbomeca_v2/html/en/produits/version.php?aid=651&sfid=508&mid=615)ECUs (1,800shp so not better), glass cockpit (well mostly glass), standard cabin (not stretched), 4 (not 5) blade main rotor and no sign of an option to hang additional fuel tanks or anything else outside. Does it mean that there would be commonality in a future Afghanistan between UK, FR, GE and NL Pumas?

Doh! I'll go and dig out my 'housewife'.

[roosterhq]

Interesting thread, guys.

It just seems such a waste trying to to keep 1970's technology flying for the next 20 years for the same price as introducing something new and shiny, provided that there is some commonality with the existing fleet.....?

maybe some more Merlins would be the sensible compromise - direct copies of course......

[XV277]

I do accept that the Nimrod is a great platform but its old and would we be better off with a more mass produced airframe but with our avionic fit?

We would have done had the Yanks not cancelled the P-7 - the P-8 has an adapted version of the MRA4 fit

[XV277]

When you look at the costs involved in upgarding the Merlins and Chinook HC3s, £250m looks like very good value, so you can see the appeal.

[Biggus]

I thought the MRA4 internal avionics fit, the clever bit with export potential, was all done by an american firm, Lockheed or Boeing I seem to remember....

The bit BAE did was the tin bashing on a 40 year old airframe to put new wings on.

[Ian Corrigible]

the Pu LEP comprises Makila 1A1 ECUs (1,800shp so not better)
The Makila 1A1 offers 40% more power and 20% lower SFC than the Turmo IIIC4, so I'd have thought that'll come in handy in the sandpit.

I/C

[penny pincher]

How many parts of the Blackhawk transmission, tail rotor etc is compatible with Apache, seeing as we do have these already....? That would be a step in the right direction eh?

[Ian Corrigible]

Story now regurgitated by the Daily Mail.

British troops in Afghanistan pay 'blood price' for new helicopter delay (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205923/British-troops-Afghanistan-pay-blood-price-new-helicopter-delay.html)

Cat calls (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a0fe2f57b-fcb3-4c4e-bfcf-f7abc3229cba)

And it also sounds like Northrop Grumman has staked out its 'rights' to the Wildcat name. :hmm:

I/C

[hoodie]

How many parts of the Blackhawk transmission, tail rotor etc is compatible with Apache, seeing as we do have these already....? That would be a step in the right direction eh?

Given that the B is a Sikorsky product, and the A is McBoeing, what makes you think that any parts at all might be common? :confused:

[Modern Elmo]

GE and UTC Sign MOU for New Military Helicopter Engine

WEST PALM BEACH, FL. - March 29, 2000 - General Electric Company and United Technologies Corporation have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for a new military helicopter engine program. Under this MOU, the companies are negotiating a business venture that will compete for the U.S. Army's Common Engine Program (CEP).

The CEP is a program envisioned to be used in growth applications of the Black Hawk, Apache and Seahawk helicopters, which today are powered by a common GE T700 engine.

The CEP program goals require 25% better fuel economy, a 60% power-to-weight improvement, and a 20% reduction in operation and support (O&S) costs. ...

...

Press Releases (http://www.pw.utc.com/Media+Center/Press+Releases/GE+and+UTC+Sign+MOU+for+New+Military+Helicopter+Engine)

[GreenKnight121]

Yes, Ian Corrigible... NG has marked its territory with the "Wildcat" name.

[StbdD]

Given that the B is a Sikorsky product, and the A is McBoeing, what makes you think that any parts at all might be common?

You mean like Airbus vs. Boeing? Pratt and Whitney, Rolls, General Electric, Litton, Honeywell, Garmin, and Bendix/King are a few common names that come to mind.

Penny pincher asked a perfectly legitimate question.

[hoodie]

Penny pincher asked a perfectly legitimate question.

OK, then. "Hardly any, and probably none."

(S)He was explicitly asking about transmission and tailrotor, not engines or avionics boxes or other third party components.

[MAINJAFAD]

So the Puma LEP engines will offer 40% more power than the current engines?What a cracking idea - but I wonder how long it will be before some 40 year old gearbox or driveshaft finds it all a bit too much. Or any other part of the airframe for that matter.Not as big a problem as you think, as one British build helicopter has exactly the same problem, i.e. engines too powerful for the transmission system. Solution: fly to maximum transmission limits, not maximum engine power. However, go Hot and High (i.e. Afg) and you will still be able to fly to those transmission limits despite the loss of engine power, thus allowing you to operate at normal maximum operating weights, with all of the advantages that brings.

[GreenKnight121]

There have been "over-powered" helicopters for many decades... some twin-engined whirly-birds have had transmissions rated for barely over the hp rating of one engine.

The reason is simple... the transmission is rated for what the rotors can deal with, while engine power can be degraded by many different factors. Therefore, excessive engine power is provided so that the bird will continue to fly if its engine is running poorly... or if one of its engines quits completely.

The engines are fitted with a governor system, so that the combined total power is limited to what the transmission can handle, if one engine quits the remaining can be spooled up to max power to compensate.


Another reason for overpowered engines is that running them below max power tends to increase their operational life, thus saving on maintenance costs and increasing reliability.