What do you think will come after Puma

[The RAF Taff]

Any predictions on what you think will replace or what you would like to see replace Puma in 2025?

[ericferret]

It will be something Agusta Westland or as we have to say now Leonardo. That was why the MOD re-engined the 330's to give AW/L the chance to get something available. Shocking waste of tax payers money. I believe there were alternatives to that program. If an alternative had been chosen AW/L would not have a UK customer for (based on the Puma experence) about 50 years.

[Fareastdriver]

I would guess that the replacement is already a drawing board project. The primary aim is to make it as expensive and complicated as possible.

[9BIT]

FED in that case they had better buy the NH90.

[DANbudgieman]

Any predictions on what you think will replace or what you would like to see replace Puma in 2025?

Call me cynical......Yet another "loss of a capability."

[cattletruck]

It will run on battery power and can only be charged via solar. You'll also need to be a vegan to get certified on it.

[Basil]

As a mere plank there I was thinking 'Merlin'.

[Heathrow Harry]

Given current development times it almost has to be something already flying or we have another life extension programme

[Evalu8ter]

For what it cost, the Puma HC1 to HC2 upgrade was excellent value - significantly upgrading the aircraft's performance, increasing fuel/payload and, at last, fitting engines with anticipators. As for what comes next, well there are a few options. I think Puma 2 will likely carry on into the 2030-35 timeframe - there is not even, AFAIK, a Future Medium Lift (FML) project team stood up - the last one was folded with the additional Chinook buy and the Puma 2 project. I'm a member of the NATO Next Generation Rotorcraft Capability study group which is looking at the 2035 timescale to field a new platform (if not a derivative of JMR/FVL). My guess is that for the UK it boils down to 3 options. Firstly, a pan-NATO helicopter that will replace NH90/EC225/EH101, second the US JMR/FVL aircraft or thirdly a dual-certified Civ / Mil aircraft from Airbus Helicopters or Leonardo. The final decision will doubtless have influences from Brexit, doctrinal / threat changes and further Industrial rationalisation - in the main if Yeovil is still open in 2030 who owns it.....

[Willard Whyte]

Ideally whatever the USA chooses to replace the UH-60, so possibly either the Boeing-Sikorsky Defiant

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/11/10/16/2E4F36CC00000578-0-image-m-25_1447173242740.jpg

or Bell-Lockheed V280.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/11/10/15/2E47DF5700000578-0-image-a-8_1447169450521.jpg

[c130jbloke]

Blackhawk or its replacement.
Why did they even bother with Puma 2 ? :}:}:}

[Martin the Martian]

I agree that Puma HC.2 will be around for some time after 2025, and have no doubt that its replacement will be wrapped up along with a Merlin HC.4 replacement. As to what it will be, well now, there's the question.

[Herod]

Wessex!!!!

[Aynayda Pizaqvick]

What Evalu8ter and Willard said. The ideal is to get Puma to 2035 and tag on to whatever medium multi-role platform the US are getting in the same weight class. I think the days of propping up AWHL/Leonardo are over...

[huge72]

Herod a man after my own heart, if only they had spent money on uprated shafts and blades we would still have been flying the ''Mighty Wessex'' today. Puma Paah!:rolleyes:

[megan]

Procurement program will be such that one these will win the contract. They will have learnt their lesson from that complicated tandem rotor 47 behemoth.

fw_C_sbfyx8

[ericferret]

"""""For what it cost, the Puma HC1 to HC2 upgrade was excellent value - significantly upgrading the aircraft's performance, increasing fuel/payload and, at last, fitting engines with anticipators."""""

The Bundesgrenzschutz had the same problem operating ageing 330's. Their answer was to buy ex oil industry 332's and apply their mods. These aircraft while high time had lived a relatively quiet life relative to a military aircraft. I would bet my house that this program was nowhere near the cost of the MOD program. A good answer for an interim fix and better value for money than modifying a 40 year plus airframe. Sikorsky apparently offered Blackhawks at a very low price. A permanent fix but again no work for AW/L for 50 years.

[Just This Once...]

With Chinook as our SH backbone then surely any Puma replacement would need to fill the requirement to land in a confined urban environment?

[Evalu8ter]

Eric,
Every nation will take a different approach to airworthiness, certification and capability.For example, the Bundesgrenzschutz Pumas, IIRC, don't have DAS/ASE or many of the other military systems the Puma 2 has. Replacing the airframes would have required extensive modification and re-qualification of the aircraft's survivability systems and other UK avionics. AW didn't do the work either - it was done by Airbus Helicopters, run out of Kidlington (but with much of the engineering done in Romania). Blackhawk always enters the mix, and it is a great aircraft (for the pilot). It gets very small in the back very quickly, but is a robust "built from the ground up" military helicopter. I'd rather fly the -60 into combat than the Puma, especially if I needed to do a DVE landing at the end....However, there was little/no offset and the cost/time churn of introducing, certifying, training and qualifying a completely new type with assorted support was likely a non-starter as Puma 2 had to be done quickly to uphold capability whilst the rest of FRC played out....JTO, agreed - the answer is two chinooks unless you want to assault a building in a congested built up area. You need something Puma/Blackhawk size not something -47/EH101 size....

[ShyTorque]

Herod a man after my own heart, if only they had spent money on uprated shafts and blades we would still have been flying the ''Mighty Wessex'' today. Puma Paah!:rolleyes:

They upgraded everything and called it the Blackhawk.
Shame the MOD wouldn't buy it.

At least the Puma now has the engines it should have had in 1971.

[Fareastdriver]

At least the Puma now has the engines it should have had in 1971

A bit difficult. From Wiki.

The Turbomeca Makila is a family of French turboshaft engines for helicopter use, first run in 1976 and flown in 1977

In service with the 332 Super Puma in 1980.

I saw the first 'Super Puma' with Makilas in 1977. It was one of the original six prototype 330s with the flat Huey type nose. There was a one metre plug at the rear of the fuselage and single main wheels. The instrumentation inside hadn't changed a lot since 1966.

[Heathrow Harry]

I doubt we'll be able to afford any new helicopters by 2025 - never mind 2035...............

A lot of kit will need replacing in the 2020's - SSBN, T26, T31, C130, Tornado, UK-MBT..............

[ericferret]

You could lease or buy 332L2/ EC225 for next to nothing. Last time I looked there were 9/10 in mothballs at Humberside alone.
Nobody expects them to return to offshore flying.

[Evalu8ter]

Eric,
Indeed you can, but buying the aircraft is a small part of the Through Life Costs. Modifying them, testing them and certifying them for anything other than benign theatres will cost an awful lot of money. If I were still in the mil, looking at the recent safety record of the 225 family (flying straight & level) I'm not sure I'd want to stick a whole load of DAS, armour and guns on it then fly tactically at low level.....

[Fareastdriver]

If I were still in the mil, looking at the recent safety record of the 225 family (flying straight & level)

Flying at max continuous cruising torque within 90% of maximum weight..

It beats the hell out of a helicopter. When the BV234 came into service the Boeing engineers could not believe the punishment their ultra reliable Chinooks were taking.

[Bing]

If I were still in the mil, looking at the recent safety record of the 225 family

There's the rub, under the MAA's regulations the Risk to Life from the rotor head unexpectedly departing the aircraft would probably have to be held by CAS if not the SoS. Can't really see them being that keen on being personally responsible for that just to get a fleet within a fleet.

[Fareastdriver]

a quick fix on the 225 would to be the 332 gearbox; restrict the engines to 1800 shp and the Max to 9,000 kilos.

[ericferret]

Cougar deliveries are continuing with Kuwait just taking some. Clearly some operators are unfased by the gearbox issue. In many ways the gearbox issue is no different to other aircraft problems over the years. Other than bolt on specialist kit there is nothing special about the 330 except maybe the acc drive.
The civil 330J were built on the same line as the military aircraft. In fact from a civil perspective the EC 225 and the 332's are all variants of the 330. They are all on the same type certificate. In the end it depends on what you want it to do. Further up the thread it is suggested that the 330 is low in the queue for replacement.

A 225 would work as a direct 330 replacement. If you are looking for more bells and whistles then it will wait in the queue beyond the higher priorities. Nothing happens in the MOD in a hurry so I think that any window to do this will close and we will be looking at the next generation of logging aircraft.

[XR219]

By 2025 the oldest Pumas will be 54 years old and the RAF will be 107, so it will have been flying the same helicopters for more than half of its entire existence by then. :eek:

[ShyTorque]

By 2025 the oldest Pumas will be 54 years old and the RAF will be 107, so it will have been flying the same helicopters for more than half of its entire existence by then. :eek:

Those dyed in the wool Wessex pilots always said the Puma would never last....

[Fareastdriver]

I think that you can forget any variation of the Puma; i.e. the 225. It's a 1966 concept with its fuselage designed to go into the back of a Transall or on a SNCF truck which is why it is so low and narrow.

Soldiers are now taller as anybody knows when you compare the height of sixth formers now to the sixties and they cannot run around a Puma sized cabin in the crouch position. By definition the cabin has to be taller and that will be the end of the Puma line.

The replacement will have a taller wider cabin, a much wider undercarriage preferably nosewheel so as to minimise the landing foorprint and a onboard situation update program that can be actioned during a sortie.

Fifteen hours/month flying plus thirty in the simulator seems about right. After a full career one might have enough hours to get a job.

[Kerosene Kraut]

I hope deiced rotor blades will come back. The Puma had them. Essential for winter flying in central Europe.

[ericferret]

So Puma replacement back of the queue and the new super helicopter at what cost.
Starting to sound like an off the peg solution long after I am dead.
Makes the Puma upgrade program look even more stupid as they will probably soldier on after 2025.
Well some of the Alouette 2 made 60 before retiring. So who knows what will happen.
Look at the B52 and that is a first line combat aircraft first flight 1952 heading for 70..

[Willard Whyte]

Look at the B52 and that is a first line combat aircraft first flight 1952 heading for 70..

Indeed, and the last rolled off the production line in '62 and was delivered in '63.

[Gnd]

None. It will be Heavy (Ch), Attack (AH) and Niche. so no Pu or Wc. Probably only one RW force as well - the FJ community will take all the cash.

[nowherespecial]

Gnd,

Militarised 139 for Niche? Footprint is smaller than Pu, but bigger than Wc. Can take off in heat, very well proven design. Fast, reliable, tons of spares, tons of power, relatively recent design can actually take a whole section of army in 1 ac with kit. And cheap.

What do you think?

They'll never go for it!

[Aynayda Pizaqvick]

I think the Puma replacement will be the complete opposite of 'niche', it will need to be fully multi-role to justify it's existence which imho means minimum 10 troops, EO/IR camera, min .50 cal weapon that can be stuffed in the back of a C17/A400 easily or self-deployable at speed (e.g. tilt rotor). Unfortunately pretty much anything out there at the moment is based on a 50 year old idea of how a helicopter should work, so hopefully we will see some innovation over the next decade that will give us some really interesting options.

[Dundiggin']

In a past forum about the refit of the Puma 1 to Puma 2 specification, I waxed lyrical about the 'idiocy' of not including an extra fuselage plug in that programme. However, despite the lack of the extra fuselage plug, the resulting Puma spec has produced a very impressive helicopter. I still reckon that if a fuselage plug was inserted at a time when Puma 2 needs to be 'replaced' (2025), plus a darn good refurbishing of course, it would be a cheap alternative to keep the wonderful Puma flying well past my 'sell by date'. :E

[Fareastdriver]

The biggest mistake with the Puma 1/2 conversion, IMHO, was the omission of the single wheel undercarriage. Having flown both the 330 and the 332, 3,000/9,500 hrs. I am a world authority on heavy landings. The 332 is rated to 5 m/s (950 fpm) and the maintenance manual isn't worried until it exceeds 7.5 m/s.

[SASless]

Blackhawks? Would be my guess.

Hand me downs from the US Army would be best bang for the buck.

[ericferret]

and if we hadn't chucked money at the Puma life extension program we could probably have afforded new Blackhawks at a reasonable cost and be looking forward to a 30 year service life. However back to the thought, that won't help keep AW/L in business.

[dragartist]

Eric, Was it not Eurocopter not AW/L that did the Puma 2?
My own view. I thought it was daft at the time. I was told the whole rationale was about SF getting into tight spots and Merlin was too big. Should have stuck with the Scout! is the Dauphin too big also. Why do they need both?

[The RAF Taff]

SB-1 defiant I reckon the airframe can replace puma merlin and apache

[Fareastdriver]

It helps if you can get a battalion in position in less than two days.

[Evalu8ter]

Eric,
Airbus Helicopters did the Puma 2 (post #19).

The arguments about fuselage plugs and different undercarriage are all well made but fail to appreciate that the Pu2 project was not about capability enhancement, it was about life extension and that was the sole basis for funding. The Turmo engines had long been recognised as the aircraft's achilles heel and the risk held by RTSA had a calendar backstop of the proposed Pu1 OSD. Extending Puma was only possible with new engines. The cockpit came with the engines as it was already a CS29 certified combination and was considered the least risky way of doing it. This also explains why there was no moving map or other tactical integration done when the project was approved - there was no funding for capability enhancement. The DAS was lifted straight out of the Chinook TES enhancement (Project BAKER) and, despite my attempts, retained the small DAS MFD as every single money saving corner was cut to keep the aircraft alive (it would have cost too much to re-qual the larger display with the DAS Controller and possibly some cockpit structure work). Please do not think that those who worked tirelessly to keep Puma (one of them currently in the desert in Oz) did not try every avenue to upgrade the old girl through sleight of hand, but in the end just keeping the project alive was a minor miracle. They did what they could. The UH-60 is undoubtedly a capable aircraft (and I enjoy flying it whenever I can), but old UH-60As (cheap) have obsolescence issues already (hence why a number of aftermarket companies are re-working them) but a newer, more capable, UH-60L are a lot more money. Either would have faced the long drawn out certification/release period and either re-equipping with UK grade DAS/avionics (with time/cost delays) or accepting a potentially lower capability. IMHO, for what we spent, considering the need to do it quickly and maintain capability while Chinook went through the fleet Julius fit (please, don't start me on that one...) and the Merlin transition occurred, all in all, I see it as "job done". That's not to say a few more spares wouldn't be handy....

[obnoxio f*ckwit]

The arguments about fuselage plugs and different undercarriage are all well made but fail to appreciate that the Pu2 project was not about capability enhancement, it was about life extension and that was the sole basis for funding.

:D:D:D

Exactly what Evalu8ter said. Part of the initial brief was "don't ask for a new helicopter, there isn't any money ". The published cost of the Puma programme included (AIUI) a fair amount of through-life cost as well, so cannot be directly compared to the simple upfront cost of a new replacement.

Leasing 532/725's was eye-wateringly expensive, even before you got to the questions of what happens if you get bullet holes in them (we had 2 shooting wars going on at the time) or need urgent operational mods in less than the 20 years it would take the manufacturer/owners to approve them.

The choice was between refurbed Sea King Mk6s or life-extended Pumas. The Puma option was chosen, the rest is as Evalu8tor has most clearly explained above.

[Gnd]

139 - good call but may not fit all needs???
Blackhawk - yes but v-expensive to service in small numbers?

[Lonewolf_50]

Blackhawks? Would be my guess.

Hand me downs from the US Army would be best bang for the buck.
SASless, IIRC there is an S-70 line (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/s-70i-black-hawk-helicopter/)(Blackhawk) in Poland. Not sure if that fits what Puma replacers want/need.
Sikorsky has produced the UH-60M for a few years now(10?) and I hear that there is a back fit to make some UH-60's into a V model (more digitized cockpit, not sure what else) in the works. As I read this thread, what people are looking at is a later generation of tech than S-70/Blackhawk, just as the US Army is looking at things like Defiant or Valor. Blackhawks a fine machine, but I don't think "refurbished UH-60's" is going to meet a requirement five years hence. (On the other hand, C-130's been around forever, so maybe Blackhawk will be around forever ...)

[ericferret]

Slightly baffled as nowhere have I stated who did the Puma extension mods. I am fully aware that Airbus were lead contractor. I didn't think it was relevent who did the mods to the point I was trying to make.
Spot of RTFQ or my grammar is crap.

[Aynayda Pizaqvick]

Alternatively you are just a bit cr@p at putting your point across...

[ericferret]

Not my fault if people cant read.

[Just This Once...]

You can blame the audience Eric, but in a Puma 2 thread you managed to post 3 times about AW/L. In your opening salvo you offered a quick conspiracy theory that the MoD had a secret (and unlawful) plan to artificially help AW/L and suggested that its means to achieve this was to not give them the Puma 2 contract.

I wish you well in your written English as you put together your coherent argument so we can all read it correctly and understand your reasoning.

[tucumseh]

MoD had a secret (and unlawful) plan to artificially help AW/L In all my years, including many dealing with Westland, I was only instructed to favour a stated company twice. The first, in 1992, was when my boss, a retired Army officer, told me to cancel Litton OMEGA contracts and award them forthwith to his new next door neighbour, whom he'd chatted to in the pub the night before and ran a one man and his dog company near Heathrow. OK, two men, sharing one rented office. The last time, in 2001, after a programme was delivered early, under cost and to a better spec, I was criticised for not cancelling the contracts on the point of completion, and starting all over again with a certain French company; denying the RN capability for at least 5 years. Chief of Defence Procurement concurred. Their UK base was in the Minister for Defence Procurement's constituency, but I'm sure that was coincidence and had nothing to do with the decision to award them contracts without even bidding.

I'm happy to say Westland never once let me down, and can think of quite a few examples of MoD awarding contracts to others, only for Westland to dig us/them out. Puma Nav Update in the 90s was one.

[Dundiggin']

If you blokes reckon the Puma 2 cabin is too small, then you haven't flown in the Blackhawk cabin. Years' ago Westland built a WS70 (?) (Westland Blackhawk) and we trialled it at Odiham. Good helicopter but the cabin is even smaller than the Puma cabin. Which AFAIR was one of the reasons we didn't buy it.

[Just This Once...]

It is certainly the case that the Black Hawk cabin is no place for a stroll but in representative fits it does work.

With 2 dedicated positions for gunners, complete with seats, with storage space for aircrew kit and aircraft consumables the troop/cargo space remains uncluttered with both doors completely unobstructed. Not to mention usable doors for the front end....

Dress a Puma for war, with guns out of the only doors, with crewman & gunner kneeling or sitting on a box, with aircraft consumables sympathetically littered around the CofG and aircrew kit stashed wherever possible, the cabin becomes considerably less troop/cargo friendly.

[engineer(retard)]

"........
....

[Just This Once...]

I must add that the way the US operates the -60 is equally impressive. Working with a rather specialist unit, the crew and troops readied the aircraft, weapon systems, got the seats comfy, installed fluffy dice, stashed kit ready to go, before a quick circuit to land to check all was ok then landing and taxiing to the waiting airlifter. The -60 was then hitched to the winch whilst blades were stowed and the remaining fuel sucked into the C-17, followed by the -60.

At the other end it was quite literally airborne in minutes few, with the -60 ready in the time taken to refill its tanks from the C-17.

Parabellum.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

I think Puma 2 will likely carry on into the 2030-35 timeframe


the way things are going, I'm not sure that the Puma will make it into the 2018-9 timeframe...

[minigundiplomat]

If its a pure urban role, then Little Birds. If its a stepped back capability from the CH47, then how about the Bell 525?

[Dundiggin']

Just this once....
I agree with most of your points but if you fill the Blackhawk cabin with troops there is virtually NO room to work the USL hook. There is much more room in the 'war frenzy' Puma cabin despite the random kit stowage. Another fuselage plug would be luxury - pure luxury...

[SASless]

SASless, IIRC there is an S-70 line (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/s-70i-black-hawk-helicopter/)(Blackhawk) in Poland. Not sure if that fits what Puma replacers want/need.
Sikorsky has produced the UH-60M for a few years now(10?) and I hear that there is a back fit to make some UH-60's into a V model (more digitized cockpit, not sure what else) in the works. As I read this thread, what people are looking at is a later generation of tech than S-70/Blackhawk, just as the US Army is looking at things like Defiant or Valor. Blackhawks a fine machine, but I don't think "refurbished UH-60's" is going to meet a requirement five years hence. (On the other hand, C-130's been around forever, so maybe Blackhawk will be around forever ...)


Ahem! Chinook 's keep plodding along with one upgrade after another!

I bet there are still some 61's flogging away in the Sandbox.....alongside some 92's!

It isn't so much what you want but what you can afford!

[Just This Once...]

Just this once....
I agree with most of your points but if you fill the Blackhawk cabin with troops there is virtually NO room to work the USL hook.

Very true but a full load of troops and an USL is far from routine.

:)

[T28B]

If its a pure urban role, then Little Birds. If its a stepped back capability from the CH47, then how about the Bell 525? Let's allow the hard working folks at Bell to first sort out their rotor head (etc) before we get ahead of ourselves. There is a thread over on Rotorheads regarding the 525 (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/581267-bell-525-fatal-accident-july-2016-a.html?highlight=525)that may interest you.

[212man]

Let's allow the hard working folks at Bell to first sort out their rotor head (etc) before we get ahead of ourselves. There is a thread over on Rotorheads regarding the 525 (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/581267-bell-525-fatal-accident-july-2016-a.html?highlight=525)that may interest you.
Bell have not made any public statements relating to military use, and their website reflects that : http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en/commercial/bell-525/

[chevvron]

I'm happy to say Westland never once let me down, and can think of quite a few examples of MoD awarding contracts to others, only for Westland to dig us/them out. Puma Nav Update in the 90s was one.

Many years ago, weren't Westland supposed to be tooled up to produce Blackhawks for the european market? I certainly remember a RR engined version in and out of Farnborough after the airshow one year which was supposed to be the 'European' development aircraft.

[melmothtw]

I agree that Puma HC.2 will be around for some time after 2025, and have no doubt that its replacement will be wrapped up along with a Merlin HC.4 replacement. As to what it will be, well now, there's the question.

Yes, that literally was the question.

[Aynayda Pizaqvick]

To which the answer is likely "no one knows yet, we will probably try extend out to see what happens with the US Future Vertical Lift program". We will probably therefore also be left speculating for the next decade.

[SASless]

Originally Posted by Dundiggin' View Post
Just this once....
I agree with most of your points but if you fill the Blackhawk cabin with troops there is virtually NO room to work the USL hook.


Please do explain would you....I am dying to hear this explanation.

[huge72]

SASless. I think you will find this point is all about the different ways our crewmen operate to your cabin crew gunner/crewchief. In the Wessex/Puma/Chinook/Merlin our crewmen were and are responsible for the control and safe passage of underslung loads. The crewman monitors the hookup, transit and release, voice marshalling the aircraft for pickup and drop off to ensure the load is stable and positioned correctly. With the Blackhawk seats in the transverse position the crewman cannot see beneath the aircraft to carry out this task nor move around the cabin to reach the door and manage either troops and doors.

[Lonewolf_50]

@Huge: are you suggesting that the US crew chiefs can't use a gunner's belt to monitor the load, or is it that with a full load of seated troops there isn't room to do it the old fashioned way -- slide the door open, lie on one's belly, and keep an eye on the load?


The crewman monitors the hookup, transit and release, voice marshalling the aircraft for pickup and drop off to ensure the load is stable and positioned correctly. I have worked with Navy (and a few times Army) crewman who do precisely that. External loads is a place where the crew chief shines.

[charliegolf]

Can a Blackhawk carry much of an u/s load when full of troops and fuel? Can a Puma?

CG

[Dundiggin']

I only flew in the WS70 for a short time but had to make a quick assessment of what I thought of the cabin. My opinion was that the transverse arrangements of the rear seats (WITHOUT troops or Bergens) appeared to leave very little/no space from the front of the seat and the rear of the load hatch on which to walk behind the load hatch in order to see vertically down onto the hook for pick up and drop off. With no troops in the seats the crewman could sit on the seat and 'work' the load from there (luxury!) but with troops and Bergens filling the rear seats you would have to stand straddled over the open hatch in order to 'work' the hook from above. Furthermore, when the doors are opened in order to see movement tendency on drop off or pickup, if you had a cabin full of kit and soldiers IMHO , there was a bloody good chance of losing something or someone out the door. ( I know they should be secure!) The crewman wears a 'gunner's belt' (monkey harness) at all times. The combination of troops (gun crew) not necessarily a cabin FULL of troops, and USL gun was a common load in my experience.

[charliegolf]

DD, that's about the only combo I can recall from the last century! Oh, and APFC and troops before Harry Wallet dropped it!:ok:

CG

[Mil-26Man]

Furthermore, when the doors are opened in order to see movement tendency on drop off or pickup, if you had a cabin full of kit and soldiers IMHO , there was a bloody good chance of losing something or someone out the door.

In the millions of hours flown in the Black Hawk, has this ever happened? Genuine question.

[huge72]

DD That's exactly how I remembered it, Transverse seats are a nightmare for a crewman to carryout all that's required of him, which is why our helis always had a clear centre floor if we were doing USLs. In Ireland it was common place to carry troops and USLs at the same time but we were only covering short distances and had plenty of refuel sites to top up with in-between. If you have open doors there is always the possibility of loosing kit no matter what type you are flying on, a fact of life when you cant always secure everything before you get airborne!!

[The RAF Taff]

https://youtu.be/-xvXTozuGn0

-xvXTozuGn0

[Lonewolf_50]

https://youtu.be/-xvXTozuGn0

-xvXTozuGn0

That video is about nine years old.
X2 has done its flights.
S-97 Raider (a bit bigger, armed scout sized bird) has had some test flights.
Defiant, a larger version, bigger than Blackhawk as I understand it, has not been completed for its first test flight. Though Valor (Bell V-280) is expected to get its first test flight this fall, Defiant is not going to be ready to do that. If they get Defiant off the ground then the real fun begins as the test program goes step by step: can it do what they hope it will do?
Those who know rotor heads tell me that as you scale up in size, you run into some serious design and performance issues with that dual, counter rotating rotor system. (Scaling problems among other things). We'll see if Sikorsky is able to solve those difficult problems or not.
If so, maybe it's in time to meet the 2025 window that appears to be the target.

[Gnd]

I am unsure why we are talking about 'if and how' a Crewman can move about; it will only be about money and the logistics will have to fit around the cost. Bye-bye PU, Gz, Wc, Me and hello niche - whatever that is? It will be the cheapest option and for me the Bh is a strong military contender and the 159 a less safe bet due to its non-military credentials.

[Fareastdriver]

Those who know rotor heads tell me that as you scale up in size, you run into some serious design and performance issues with that dual, counter rotating rotor system. (Scaling problems among other things).

Karmov know more about contra-rotating rotors then anybody and they have never made a big one.

[tonker]

Fairly Rotordyne and a **** load of mini guns. Lots of guns.

[Dundiggin']

Gnd.....
If the there is not enough room for the Crewman to move safely about the cabin then how can he do his job? I'm exasperated by your response!!

[Lonewolf_50]

Gnd..... If the there is not enough room for the Crewman to move safely about the cabin then how can he do his job? I'm exasperated by your response!! But there is. The seats are removable. The number of times I've ever seen a personnel transport and external load operation combined is one ... though I imagine in some places it is more common. FWIW, if take all of the seats out of the Black Hawk, you can fit more people into it. :} Doing so of course removes the crash worthy seating feature, and it sure looks more like the old Viet Nam Huey set up, but I know of at least one op where that was done. I also know of one country where it was a common practice: Colombia (but that's a few years back).

[Dundiggin']

But there is. The seats are removable.

Of course we know that is possible, but given this 'elf and safety' sh@t of the modern world you cannot plan to do that. Despite that, if you get rid of the seats you invite even more cabin chaos; soldiers, weapons, kit, rations all over the place - bloody chaos! Let's face it the Blackhawk cabin is not good for the way the Brits work...and we are experienced operators I can tell you...

[kintyred]

Fairly Rotordyne and a **** load of mini guns. Lots of guns.

I can never resist the 'there's an 'L' of a difference' joke

[melmothtw]

.and we are experienced operators I can tell you...


Nowhere near as experienced as the Americans, mind. They seem to be able to operate the Black Hawk just fine, so why should we find it so difficult?

Let's face it the Blackhawk cabin is not good for the way the Brits work..

So the solution would be to change the way we work, no? I assume that we are looking to achieve roughly the same effects as the Americans, so why not go about achieveing them in roughly the same manner?

[Davef68]

If the Blackhawk is too small, how about the S92?

(dives and runs for cover)

[Winchweight]

So replace Puma (entered production in 1968) with Black Hawk (entered service in 1976ish)?

Great forward planning there chaps...

[melmothtw]

No one is suggesting that. In the context of this conversation Black Hawk is only being mentioned in relation to the transverse seating arrangement it shares with the FVL, which could replace the Puma.

[Fareastdriver]

The Puma: 330,332.332L2 and 225 are dead.

The project department in Airbus , or whatever it will be called, will be working overtime to design a medium lift helicopter to replace them. They final plan will come out in a couple of years and then we will have to see how the political framwork works out between the UK and the EU.

Should Wastelands get involved then you can expect whatever they have dreamt up.

[Lonewolf_50]

Why not Merlin? Nice big powerful bird. What's the down side?

[SASless]

So replace Puma (entered production in 1968) with Black Hawk (entered service in 1976ish)?


The Chinook is going strong....and has been updated several times over the past fifty Years.

The Blackhawk likewise has grown tremendously in its capability....and is operation all around the World in large numbers.

[Evalu8ter]

"Why not Merlin? Nice big powerful bird. What's the down side?"

Remove the word "powerful" and you have your answer......

[Gnd]

If we look forward, this conversation will go somewhere. According to my alphabet, M is further on that A and the M Blackhawk is quite good. Saying that a 1976 ac isn't OK, is like saying Ford are no good - they improved (sort of!), modernise and stay alive. Forgive me if I am wrong but aren't we just into Puma 2?

Embrace change and try to get something to work, not just put hurdles in the way, that is what the MAA are for. Can you still believe that we are so tied up in how not to let PEDs into our aircraft yet ANO Jo can do pretty much what he (or she) wants!!!

Lets get real and actually do the best with the little beans we have; PU, Wc, Gz, possibly Me are all destined to vanish in my opinion and the 3 will be left as stated before.

[Aynayda Pizaqvick]

Gnd, completely agree that Pu, Wc and Gz are all dead options longer term. The golden ticket right now would possibly be an aircraft with the size and disposable payload of the latest Blackhawk but a cabin more akin to the Puma and stability/ride comfort of a Merlin. But I don't think that exists now. Nothing out there right now will get us a step-change in performance/capability but everything we have will or could be extended until 2030+ when there are likely to be options that revolutionise the medium lift role.

It's not an easy sell to put up with mediocre medium lift BH in the interim, but we quite frankly don't have the cash to buy and train a force to operate Blackhawks/NH90/AW139 etc as a nice way to tide us over until the next tech comes along. I therefore suspect that what we have now will be with us for a long time just yet...

[Gnd]

AP, I don't think we have the cash to keep them going! I am thinking we will bin them, cut our long-term losses and get extant tech.

The Wc and Pu are impotent, no role and just scrabble to get seen or heard. The Gz is becoming untenable in this risk adverse world leaving the scrapping option the only safe and viable one out there. We will see if there is a niche option, I have been wrong before!!