RAF announces Puma Replacement plan

[212man]

Finals......I see there is the 139M....and the different Type 149....so two different versions.

The question raised by John Dixson is whether the US Army Design Spec's are met by the 149 is one that would bear answering as otherwise comparing the UH-60M to the 149 might be an Apples and Oranges comparison were that not the case.

The followup question would be which standard used....that by AW or the US Army is the superior set of critieria for a helicopter being built for use in combat.

Also....the final problem the RAF is going to have to confront is the lack of money considering the financial straits the UK Government thus the MoD finds itself confronting currently and for the foreseeable future.

I don’t know the answer off hand, but the 149 came first as a military aircraft and then the civil market as the 189. So, one would assume it certainly meets some military design requirements, for somebody!

Whereas, the 139M came after the 139 as a militarised version of the civilian aircraft. Whether there is much practical difference between these different sequences I couldn’t say.

[SASless]

The proof is in the pudding as they say....which spec and what was in the spec if the spec used was not the US Army Spec that the H-60 had to meet.

Evidently the USAF did not consider the need for the Army Spec when it decided to by the MH-139 from Boeing/AW with the goal of replacing the Bell UH-1N helicopters used in physical security operations for missile sites and for VIP ops in the Washington DC area.

Funding for the acquisition of 84 Aircraft was omitted from the DOD FY-22 Budget.

Reasons for the delay in certification had to do with Weight and Engine Performance certifications required by the FAA.

The FY 23 Budget provides 174 Million USD for Five Aircraft and associated items.

[chopper2004]

The proof is in the pudding as they say....which spec and what was in the spec if the spec used was not the US Army Spec that the H-60 had to meet.

Evidently the USAF did not consider the need for the Army Spec when it decided to by the MH-139 from Boeing/AW with the goal of replacing the Bell UH-1N helicopters used in physical security operations for missile sites and for VIP ops in the Washington DC area.

Funding for the acquisition of 84 Aircraft was omitted from the DOD FY-22 Budget.

Reasons for the delay in certification had to do with Weight and Engine Performance certifications required by the FAA.

The FY 23 Budget provides 174 Million USD for Five Aircraft and associated items.

Also tbt when the 139M was looked at as Huey replacement for the army, (others were 412Ep, the winning UH-72A Lakota) , did hear a rumour that the 13M was close to be selected at the time (April 2006) but alas the Lakota was month later.

Laughingly or not first mil customer for the 139 is IAC

cheers

[SASless]

Recall the US Army promised the Lakota would not be deployed into Combat areas or used for Combat Tactical Operations reserving it for use by the Army National Guard and Reserve and Flight Training primarily.

One would assume they would have made the same warranty re the 139M or whatever version was being offered.

[JohnDixson]

Has the RAF codified their requirements and missions so that competitors can respond accordingly? This discussion revolving around a civil machine or a combat ready machine, or a civil machine in combat drag could go on for awhile.

[sycamore]

JD, think of our procurement process as a `football field(soccer or rugby as well;the goalposts are usually at either end,midway between `corners`.Here we put them at opposing corners,and during any stoppage of `play(for money/change of PM/``woke recruitment`problems,etc) the Goalposts get moved anywhere along any of the limit lines of play......
forgot to add;they also change the size of the posts,from `ice-hockey ,to soccer ,to rugby,depending whether it`s between RAF v Navy /Army v Navy/or RAF v Army...

[JohnDixson]

Sycamore, having watched the US RAH-66 program at close hand, it is easy to sympathize.

[Cyclic Hotline]

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/four-firms-to-fight-for-uks-new-medium-helicopter-requirement/150779.article Four firms to fight for UK’s New Medium Helicopter requirementhttps://d3lcr32v2pp4l1.cloudfront.net/Pictures/50x50/P/Pictures/web/j/w/i/fgteamportraits001_481180.jpg (https://www.flightglobal.com/dominic-perry/263.bio)By Dominic Perry (https://www.flightglobal.com/dominic-perry/263.bio)1 November 2022

Defence officials have whittled down the number of bidders for the UK’s New Medium Helicopter (NMH) contest to four companies following an initial selection process.

Airbus Helicopters, Boeing, Leonardo Helicopters and Sikorsky all successfully passed the dynamic pre-qualification questionnaire (DPQQ) issued to interested parties by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), FlightGlobal can reveal. Bidders were informed of their progress on 31 October.

https://d3lcr32v2pp4l1.cloudfront.net/Pictures/480xany/1/9/2/90192_pumaccrowncopyright_489510.jpg

Source: Crown Copyright

RAF’s Puma fleet will be replaced by NMH

None of the manufacturers wished to comment, save to confirm that they had cleared the DPQQ stage.
Airbus Helicopters is offering the H175M, Leonardo Helicopters the AW149 – to be built in Broughton and Yeovil, respectively – and Sikorsky the S-70M Black Hawk.Boeing’s interest in the requirement is unclear given the lack of a suitable aircraft in its range: the only medium helicopter it could offer is the MH-139, which is based on Leonardo’s best-selling AW139.

However, two sources suggest Boeing may instead be interested in the support and training elements of the procurement.

Seemingly dropping out of the race are Bell, NH Industries and AceHawk Aerospace, which was proposing the ML-70 – an upgraded pre-owned UH-60 Black Hawk.

The next step for the NMH programme will be the issuing of invitations to negotiate (ITN) to the shortlisted manufacturers – where the MoD sets out its precise requirements – a milestone likely to take place in early 2023 (https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/uk-delays-tender-process-for-puma-helicopter-replacement/150661.article).

Destined to replace the Royal Air Force’s fleet of 23 Puma HC2 helicopters, plus three other rotorcraft types in UK service, the NMH is slated to enter service in 2025. The MoD has previously indicated it could procure up to 44 aircraft.

[ShyTorque]

The only aircraft with proven battlefield ability is the Blackhawk. With the bigger engines it’s like a super Wessex and a superb aircraft. I’d be very pleased to see it in RAF service and the crews would love it (especially rear crew if of shorter stature).

Mind you, we were saying that in 1979!

[SASless]

Just proves some folks are very hard headed.

Watch this competition wind up with a lesser capable and machine that cannot meet the US Army Spec....and cost far more and take longer to field than the Blackhawk that can be bought off the shelf.

Any wagers?

[sycamore]

SASSY,I refer you to #256,as the `linesmen` and ref.are already arguing.....

[60FltMech]

Someone commented (forgot who) on the thread a while back about the transverse seating arrangement in the Blackhawk and having to have someone assist securing the cargo doors closed, in the A/L model I see the point of what he was saying.
If you were strapped in to the gunner seats already you did need some assistance to reach the door.

In the Mike model the Martin Baker gunners seats are transversely mounted on tracks in the forward cabin and able to rotate 360 degrees, and the seat harness allows you to stand up and pretty much reach the center of the cargo door opening while still secured by the seat restraint inertia reels.

Of course, that’s in the standard seating configuration, there are many other configurations available, with the HH-60M(and HH-60G) using the rotating gunners seat tracks longitudinally mounted in the aft cabin. With the seat all the way to the rear of the track it is just in front of the aft end of the cargo door opening, and the hoist control pendant and intercom controls mounted to the right side of the cabin at the aft end of the door opening. The aft windows on the cargo doors slide on tracks allowing you to get your head outside for clearing the aircraft.

The US Air Force use another arrangement still in their new HH-60W. And each one of these configurations have already been engineered from a crashworthiness perspective by someone so no need to reinvent the wheel, there’s probably something that will fit the bill.

On a side note, the 60W also has an MFD behind each pilots seat for the back
seaters to see maps and pretty much any information that can be displayed up front(PFD, EICAS, IVHUMS etc), as well as a third MFD mounted in the left cabin side for the Pararescue Jumpers to see sensor data/maps etc. jealous! The Army are working on a similar system for the back seat crew as well.
Maybe I’ll get to see it before I retire. 🤣

FltMech

[NutLoose]

More information on where they will be built etc.

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/11/uk-selects-four-competitors-to-fight-for-new-medium-helicopter-contract/

[60FltMech]

I’m a big believer in the H-60M(or 60i in this case) especially since it dispenses with one of the maintenance hogs as far as the airframe is concerned and that item is the UES or Upturned Exhaust System.

If this aircraft won’t be deployed into combat theaters this is a big weight savings to have “straight pipes” as we call the non-infrared suppressed aircraft, and the removal of the maintenance due to cracking in the heat insulation blankets and cracks in the engine cowling latch boxes which require removal of the assembly to make repairs.

If they could get rid of the 3 piece folding stabilator they could get rid a really big maintenance hog. I see the utility of it for air/ground transport for a combat aircraft but a lot of down time is eaten up inspecting and repairing this when an old school one piece Stab would do the job way better.(or the “new school” fully composite stab that’s supposedly coming, one day)

In the end all “modern” utility helicopters in the size class and capability being looked at will have their own issues, no one platform is perfect but 2000+ hours riding in the back and maintaining them, plus seeing the amount of abuse they can take has given me a ton of confidence in the H-60 platform.


FltMech

[SASless]

With over 4,000 Blackhawks being operated by 28 Nations.....that seems a pretty good endorsement along with many NATO nations being in that number....commonality of parts and the ability to piggyback a new customer onto the existing logistics system should also be a plus.

Building the aircraft in the numbers the MOD is seeking seems a bit expensive if a totally new design is selected....and the value of all of the spares over a long period of time would offset the short term benefit of buying British for the airframes.

[Rob_L]

I doubt that any of the Leonardo products would survive for long in field conditions.
The avionics are too fragile and too integrated. This is basic aircraft not mission related.
A couple of rounds in the wrong place would leave the aircraft virtually irrecoverable.
Even without wiring damage a couple of black box changes needs to be followed up with potentially hours of software loading.
Some of the software is aircraft serial number specific, have you got it?
Meanwhile it sits on the ground until someone sends over a drone and thats that.
These aircraft need good hangar facilities to keep them serviceable.
The major causes of AW139 and 169 unserviceability are avionic related. I see no reason to believe the 149 will be any different.

[ShyTorque]

RobL,

Agree, as per post #37, 31 March last year.

[Mee3]

little birds fly the front line without a problem and then there are people claiming these modern civil standard redundancy is not up to the mil spec drawn back in 1960s. Any scientific fact behind the claim?

[60FltMech]

I would suggest that the MH-6 has incrementally adapted to modern military standards during its service life in such a way that would make them essentially wholly different aircraft than the original OH-6. But I’ve never worked on either so I don’t know for sure.

I also think there’s a valid point to be made(that is being made?) that a product that was designed for civil use vs a military application will be quite different. Even though these aircraft won’t be in combat per se, they would ultimately benefit from whichever manufacturing standard produces the most rugged and reliable aircraft for the best price.

The other aspect SASless pointed out regarding the 4000ish H-60s in use worldwide is spares availability. Granted, not all of those are in the latest configuration but the supply chain isn’t going anywhere, these aircraft are going to be in service for many years to come, with new users adopting the platform nearly every year.

I’d like to add at the end here my firm belief that an H-60 variant used in an application like this for a few hundred hours a year and possibly hangared substantially more that an H-60 in military use, would therefore be substantially more reliable as it was originally designed to live its entire life outside, exposed to the elements.

FltMech

[PPRuNeUser0211]

I also think there’s a valid point to be made(that is being made?) that a product that was designed for civil use vs a military application will be quite different. Even though these aircraft won’t be in combat per se, they would ultimately benefit from whichever manufacturing standard produces the most rugged and reliable aircraft for the best price

FltMech
Why would the replacement for (amongst others) the Puma not "be in combat", or have I misunderstood?

[60FltMech]

Why would the replacement for (amongst others) the Puma not "be in combat", or have I misunderstood?

My mistake, for some reason I was thinking this was for SAR missions around the UK and were not going to be deployable.

FltMech

[PPRuNeUser0211]

My mistake, for some reason I was thinking this was for SAR missions around the UK and were not going to be deployable.

FltMech
I suspect that's what the likely political winner has designed an aircraft for, but not what the MOD had in mind....!

[sycamore]

60fltmech, our Military are no longer doing SAR around the UK-All civvy nowadays....

[Stratofreighter]

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/airbus-touts-strong-demand-for-h175m-and-eyes-part-out-potential-of-uk-pumas/152104.article

Airbus Helicopters sees strong interest in the H175M – the military version of the super-medium-twin – and is already completing the integration of its HForce modular weapons system onto the platform.

Meanwhile, its services and support arm is seeking inventory for part-out, and is already eyeing the UK’s Puma fleet.

Speaking to journalists at the airframer’s Marigane site on 15 February 2023,
programme manager Jerome Fagot said
the M-model variant had been launched last June with the intention of diversifying the H175’s customer base.
https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/airbus-touts-strong-demand-for-h175m-and-eyes-part-out-potential-of-uk-pumas/152104.article

Separately, Airbus Helicopters appears to be keen on the acquisition of the UK’s Puma fleet
for part-out when the helicopters leave service in the coming years,
potentially adding a further dimension to its interest in NMH.

Christoph Zammert, executive vice-president customer support and services,
says those assets would allow the manufacturer to keep other operators of the legacy type flying.

“Providing the price is right and the documentation there, we would be interested in buying them back.”

Airbus Helicopters has already acquired several civil rotorcraft – 13 H120s and three H135s – for dismantling,
with its “harvest list” including dynamic components, landing gears and avionics equipment.https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/airbus-touts-strong-demand-for-h175m-and-eyes-part-out-potential-of-uk-pumas/152104.article​​​​​​​

​​​​​​​

[EESDL]

I understand that the Pumas have been earmarked for disposal elsewhere....already asked at the last DSEI.
Latest H175 event has illustrated how it continues to struggle with the demands of 'civilian' flying, not to mention 'military' flying - in a part of the world Airbus have lauded as its 'proving ground'!!

[212man]

I understand that the Pumas have been earmarked for disposal elsewhere....already asked at the last DSEI.
Latest H175 event has illustrated how it continues to struggle with the demands of 'civilian' flying, not to mention 'military' flying - in a part of the world Airbus have lauded as its 'proving ground'!!

What was the ‘event’?

[helicrazi]

What was the ‘event’?

Guessing, this:

https://helihub.com/2023/02/20/airbus-h175-blades-snapped-off-at-the-root/

[212man]

Guessing, this:

https://helihub.com/2023/02/20/airbus-h175-blades-snapped-off-at-the-root/
Oh!!! I hate it when that happens

[minigundiplomat]

Airbus just can’t seem to stop items above the swash plate from falling off……

No doubt the blame will be thrown at the operator and EASA will look the other way.

[OvertHawk]

Airbus just can’t seem to stop items above the swash plate from falling off……

No doubt the blame will be thrown at the operator and EASA will look the other way.

I'm no fan of airbus reliability but i have to say that i'm not sure i'd bet on any helicopter surviving hundred plus knot winds on a north sea platform all night no matter how well you tied it down.

True - if there had not been a TGB chip then it would not have been stuck there...

[Mee3]

to put it in context, that's a force 12 wind vs blades that are on brakes. You are mixing EASA with ECMWF.

[minigundiplomat]

You're Guillaume Faury and I claim my five pound (none of those euros - thanks)

[JulieAndrews]

to put it in context, that's a force 12 wind vs blades that are on brakes. You are mixing EASA with ECMWF.
The H175 rotor brake is poor at the best of times - I understand no tie-downs were applied. Funny how the windspeed increases each day. Dramatic for blades to separate - no matter how windy.

[212man]

The H175 rotor brake is poor at the best of times - I understand no tie-downs were applied. Funny how the windspeed increases each day. Dramatic for blades to separate - no matter how windy.

I think they got one on before the damage started. Not a straight forward set of circumstances

[Stratofreighter]

...quelle surprise,
surprise surprise.... :rolleyes:

NMH bidders wait on updated timeline from UK MoD | News | Flight Global (https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/nmh-bidders-wait-on-updated-timeline-from-uk-mod/152170.article)Contenders for the UK’s New Medium Helicopter (NMH) requirement are due to meet with defence officials on 24 February 2023,
where they will likely be told of a further delay to the procurement process.

Aircraft suppliers Airbus Helicopters, Leonardo Helicopters and Sikorsky, alongside Boeing, which is pitching a support and training solution,
were last October selected for the next stage of the NMH acquisition and were awaiting the launch of an invitation to negotiate (ITN).



But recent ministerial statements have seen a softening of language, moving from a deadline of 31 March 2023 to simply “later this year”.

Commodore Jol Woodard,
ead of combat aviation programmes for the British Army, addressing delegates at Defence IQ’s International Military Helicopter conference in London on 21 February 2023,
declined to reveal the NMH programme’s latest timeline.

A “supplier session” will take place on 24 February 2023, he says, during which the latest programme schedule will be detailed.

But inter-departmental tensions amid wider government budget cutting appear to be slowing progress with NMH. :rolleyes:

“We are working incredibly hard now to secure the necessary cross-government approvals
o allow us to launch the second stage of the competition as soon as possible,” says Woodard.

Airbus Helicopters is pitching the H175M for NMH, while Leonardo Helicopters is proposing the AW149. Both would be built in the UK if selected.
Sikorsky, meanwhile, is offering its S-70M Black Hawk, but has yet to detail its UK industrial plan.

Service entry had been expected in 2025 to match the out-of-service date of the Royal Air Force’s (RAF’s) Puma fleet
ut it is unclear if that goal can still be met under an increasingly compressed schedule.

NMH bidders wait on updated timeline from UK MoD | News | Flight Global (https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/nmh-bidders-wait-on-updated-timeline-from-uk-mod/152170.article)

[JulieAndrews]

...quelle surprise,
surprise surprise.... :rolleyes:

NMH bidders wait on updated timeline from UK MoD | News | Flight Global (https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/nmh-bidders-wait-on-updated-timeline-from-uk-mod/152170.article) NMH bidders wait on updated timeline from UK MoD | News | Flight Global (https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/nmh-bidders-wait-on-updated-timeline-from-uk-mod/152170.article)
as we all know by now - there is absolutely no reason why it should slip to the right and more - there is a solution available now that works for the exchequer, the troops and the workforce; but it's not made by Airbus or Leonardo, just some blinking annoying upstarts who appeared to have found a better way which exposes the waste and excess in current procurement system ;-)

[Stratofreighter]

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/boeing-shifts-stance-on-prime-contractor-role-for-nmh/152194.articleBoeing has shifted its approach to the UK’s New Medium Helicopter (NMH) contest and is no longer pursuing the requirement as a prime contractor....

The US firm was one of four companies – alongside Airbus Helicopters, Leonardo Helicopters and Sikorsky –
picked last September to proceed to the next stage of the NMH acquisition,
having successfully passed the pre-qualification questionnaire (PQQ) step.



But unlike its rivals in the process,
Boeing was not proposing an airframe,
instead offering a services, training and support solution,
likely in the expectation that the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) would contract that requirement separately to the aircraft.

In changing tack, the manufacturer will essentially still be offering the same range of solutions as before but will be approaching the contract in a different manner.

“Boeing continues to follow the New Medium Helicopter procurement with interest
and explore how we can best support it, based on the MoD’s requirements and what technology we can offer.

“While we aren’t sharing specific details about our involvement at this time,
Boeing has supported the UK armed forces for decades
and employs hundreds of people across the country in helicopter sustainment, maintenance and training,” it says.

Bidders are due to meet with UK defence officials on 24 February 2023 to receive an update on the procurement timeline.

That is likely to lay out a delay to the acquisition process.
The three competitors were due to receive an invitation to negotiate by 31 March 2023
but this target now appears to have slipped as the programme office struggles to gain sign-off for the procurement. https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/boeing-shifts-stance-on-prime-contractor-role-for-nmh/152194.article

[Baldeep Inminj]

Any further news - was there an update from MoD yesterday?

[Evil Twin]

That handle is fantastic! Baldeep... Bloody gold!

[Baldeep Inminj]

That handle is fantastic! Baldeep... Bloody gold!

But the older I get, the less true it is. May have to change name by deed poll to Hugh Stubang-Kwif

[Autorev]

Looks like Boeing Defence UK have joined the H175M Task Force….

Airbus welcomes Boeing to H175M Task Force for UK New Medium Helicopter competition (https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2023-03-airbus-welcomes-boeing-to-h175m-task-force-for-uk-new-medium)

[NutLoose]

Looks like Boeing Defence UK have joined the H175M Task Force….

Airbus welcomes Boeing to H175M Task Force for UK New Medium Helicopter competition (https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2023-03-airbus-welcomes-boeing-to-h175m-task-force-for-uk-new-medium)

ANOTHER flag on back to front, in fact two flags... Will they ever learn.. :ugh:

[FloaterNorthWest]

ANOTHER flag on back to front, in fact two flags... Will they ever learn.. :ugh:

It’s been highlighted before. Unfortunately it was put on by a French engineer.

[EESDL]

Very telling of the confidence Airbus have in their own training providers?
Supply chain disruption as Airbus France stop building aircraft due to industrial action - backlog of 70 completed wing sets at Broughton, Chester.
Plays nicely into Lyingnardos hands.....

[FloaterNorthWest]

Very telling of the confidence Airbus have in their own training providers?
Supply chain disruption as Airbus France stop building aircraft due to industrial action - backlog of 70 completed wing sets at Broughton, Chester.
Plays nicely into Lyingnardos hands.....

Airbus aren’t in the business of providing large scale, long term training solutions. It’s not their core business, that’s manufacturing helicopters. The two Academies and all of the Customer Centres provide training to support aircraft sales and will support the initial instructor training for NMH, just like MFTS.

[EESDL]

Airbus aren’t in the business of providing large scale, long term training solutions. It’s not their core business, that’s manufacturing helicopters. The two Academies and all of the Customer Centres provide training to support aircraft sales and will support the initial instructor training for NMH, just like MFTS.
What about the special NH90 training facility at Helisim? That was/is an ongoing, long-term training solution. That said, the Indra H175 sim at Helisim is woeful for a level 'D' so best to stay away ;-)

[212man]

Airbus aren’t in the business of providing large scale, long term training solutions. It’s not their core business, that’s manufacturing helicopters. The two Academies and all of the Customer Centres provide training to support aircraft sales and will support the initial instructor training for NMH, just like MFTS.

Pretty sure the Dutch Airforce have had a permanent presence at Helisim, with their own offices, since 2003, for their 532s

[Bravo73]

Unfortunately it was put on by a French engineer.

So, was it due to ignorance or intention, eh? 🤔😂

[FloaterNorthWest]

What about the special NH90 training facility at Helisim? That was/is an ongoing, long-term training solution. That said, the Indra H175 sim at Helisim is woeful for a level 'D' so best to stay away ;-)

A simulator at a joint venture between Airbus, Thales and DCI that is available for dry lease isn’t equivalent to what Boeing provide for Apache and Chinook training or what they provide for the Australian Military Training.

What is so woeful about the EASA approved Level D FFS?

Who was going to provide AceHawk’s training solution?

[NutLoose]

Still awaiting the announcement of the Puma HC3 update and the decision being put off to 2040 ;)

[212man]

Still awaiting the announcement of the Puma HC3 update and the decision being put off to 2040 ;)
by which time the 725 will have retired….

[EESDL]

A simulator at a joint venture between Airbus, Thales and DCI that is available for dry lease isn’t equivalent to what Boeing provide for Apache and Chinook training or what they provide for the Australian Military Training. That's fully understood, but please don't forget why/how BDUK was 'awarded' the latest Apache training contract. The company doing the previous training had been well received.

What is so woeful about the EASA approved Level D FFS? - lag, inertia, visuals, reliability - approached head of Airbus ops/trg at the time - she told me that as it had already paid for itself, to spend money on any upgrades would be a difficult proposition to put to shareholders. I note that Thales didn't make the same mistake again and sub-contract INDRA to provide the H160 sim...

Who was going to provide AceHawk’s training solution? You'd have to ask the guys at Team ML70 but it's not rocket science - current and experienced users 'on type', standard 'train the trainer' plus harnessing the many crews with exchange tour experience - not an option for either the Italian or French-owned NMH option. Imagine the expedience, simplicity and efficiencies present when able to embed air and ground crews with friendly Black Hawk operators on contract signature. Several 3rd-party training providers spring to mind, in addition to BDUK, with both Ascent and CAE having made serious approaches. I understand the Team ML70 set-up preferred to keep it simple, remembering of course that it has all been done before ;-)

[minigundiplomat]

Rishi Sunak has just mentioned increased cooperation from the French on illegal crossings - H175 it is.

[Baldeep Inminj]

Rishi Sunak has just mentioned increased cooperation from the French on illegal crossings - H175 it is.

I shall see that and raise you ;)

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/landmark-agreements-strengthen-uk-poland-defence-relations

Polish built S70i Blackhawk it is then!

[minigundiplomat]

Last time the government needed Micron’s assistance, we sole sourced H135’s we then remembered we didn’t need.

[casper64]

Last time the government needed Micron’s assistance, we sole sourced H135’s we then remembered we didn’t need.
But those are from Germany! 😉

[minigundiplomat]

But those are from Germany! 😉

Doesn’t make them German these days. Let’s just wait for the H175 award

[Stratofreighter]

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/leonardo-helicopters-confirms-uk-nmh-schedule-slip/152345.article Leonardo Helicopters confirms UK NMH schedule slip
UK defence officials appear to have delayed the next phase of the ongoing New Medium Helicopter (NMH) contest,
otentially pushing back the service-entry target for the Puma replacement platform.

Having down-selected bidders in September last year,
the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) was supposed to issue the invitation to negotiate (ITN) to the three remaining contenders by the end of the first quarter 2023,
according to the most recent schedule.

However, the ITN – essentially the detailed specification, quantity and budget for the procurement – is now unlikely to arrive before mid-year 2023,
according to Leonardo Helicopters.

tefano Villanti, senior vice-president of sales and marketing at Leonardo Helicopters,
says the ITN is now expected to be released in May or June 2023,
although the MoD “has not specified an exact date”;
contract award is now anticipated in 2024, he adds.

Under the MoD’s initial schedule,
eliveries were meant to begin in 2025
allowing the progressive retirement of the Royal Air Force’s fleet of Puma HC2 transports.

But Villanti says the date for the first delivery was not specified at the industry day.
“The process has dragged on for longer [than expected] so 2025 is going be a challenge,” he adds.
https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/leonardo-helicopters-confirms-uk-nmh-schedule-slip/152345.article

[FloaterNorthWest]

Doesn’t make them German these days. Let’s just wait for the H175 award

Shows what little you know about Airbus. One name but two completely different philosophies.

You’ll be saying the aircraft built by Airbus Helicopters Inc are French next.

[NutLoose]

Shows what little you know about Airbus. One name but two completely different philosophies.

You’ll be saying the aircraft built by Airbus Helicopters Inc are French next.

I remember about the time the Puma MRGB's were cracking up and spares were generally not forthcoming from France, a visit revealed empty racks for spares due to be sent out to French military and rack after rack stuffed to the gills with spares supposedly to be sent out to the UK military and a very anti Anglophile French storeman running the goods out department.

[EESDL]

I remember about the time the Puma MRGB's were cracking up and spares were generally not forthcoming from France, a visit revealed empty racks for spares due to be sent out to French military and rack after rack stuffed to the gills with spares supposedly to be sent out to the UK military and a very anti Anglophile French storeman running the goods out department.
you can’t say that - it doesn’t suit the narrative!.
……and to say otherwise is crazy when there are so many occasions UK Airbus drivers have been waiting at the shorty end of the stick for spares. Sticking a Union Jack on it does not make it British, just like adding ‘UK’ at the end of company name doesn’t make it a British company.
Then AHUK are only following the form book as they think sticking an ‘M’ after 175 makes it a military helicopter !

[Autorev]

Sticking a Union Jack on it does not make it British, just like adding ‘UK’ at the end of company name doesn’t make it a British company.


so what would make it a British company in your eyes?

Being registered in UK?
Having its Headquarters in UK?
Employing hundreds of UK employees?
Paying UK corporation tax?

….or is there something I’m missing?

This is a genuine question - Does having a non-uk parent company disqualify an organization from being British?

What is the preferred answer?
To only buy helicopters from a ‘truly British company’ that was started and owned by ‘real’ Brits with no foreign involvement…. Like Leonardo?

[SASless]

How many "British" helicopter manufacturers are there today that build uniquely British designed, built, and sold helicopters?

I rule out Aircraft that are built "under license" from non-British companies.

[ericferret]

How many "British" helicopter manufacturers are there today that build uniquely British designed, built, and sold helicopters?

I rule out Aircraft that are built "under license" from non-British companies.

In fact how many purely British designed and manufactured helicopter types have been built since the end of WW2 that have had some commercial success.
Skeeter, Sycamore, Belvedere, Lynx

[sycamore]

eric,some Skeeters and Sycamores were sold ,along with Scouts and Wasps to other countries as well..

[EESDL]

so what would make it a British company in your eyes?

Being registered in UK?
Having its Headquarters in UK?
Employing hundreds of UK employees?
Paying UK corporation tax?

….or is there something I’m missing?

This is a genuine question - Does having a non-uk parent company disqualify an organization from being British?

What is the preferred answer?
To only buy helicopters from a ‘truly British company’ that was started and owned by ‘real’ Brits with no foreign involvement…. Like Leonardo?
The sooner everyone realised that there hasn’t been a British company that makes such helicopters for quite a while.
Leonardo is majority owned by Italian government and has a history of doing things the ‘Italian’ way - rather than the ‘British’ way - whatever that is.
I guess the ‘Italian’ way is to say that the helicopters for British SAR were being built in Britain - repeatedly - when they were built in Italy. We know this because Bristow had to send manpower to Italy to oversee the work.
It’s great that Yeovil employs UK workforce but the taxpayer has paid a heavy price to subsidise it. I suggest that Yeovil still
only exists as long as the Group makes money from UK - remember the threats at the start of NMH campaign about putting its future in jeopardy if they didn’t win the contract - cheeky, arrogant fuc7ers!

[ericferret]

eric,some Skeeters and Sycamores were sold ,along with Scouts and Wasps to other countries as well..

Scout and Wasp don't really count as the engine was developed under licence from Turbomeca

However you look at it the most successful production runs have been from licence built aircraft.
I have to say I am In the Blackhawk corner.
Having spent the last 12 years working on Leonardo aircraft 169/139 I just think the technology is not suitable for a military aircraft that will be operating mainly in the field.

[Blackhawk9]

I'm with you ericferret having worked on Black Hawk, 139 and 175 , as a combat assault machine 139 (149 similar construction) and 175 are not even close no ballistic tolerance (like to see either take hits from .50 let alone 23mm like BH, no multi backup flight control & hyd systems , no tail wheel U/C to assist in safe brownout/whiteout landings etc , but we all know it won't be what the RAF want (and have wanted the last 20 years) it will be a politically selected UK assembled machine , I just feel sorry for the RAF guys if they ever have to go into combat in a 149 or 175.

[Baldeep Inminj]

There needs to be some accountability and the MoD should insist on it (but they won’f) When a crew is lost due to small arms fire etc in these plastic, non-combat ready aircraft, the company executives should be liable and should be required to provide testimony and empiric proof to support their statements as to the ballistic protection of their aircraft.
If (when) it transpires that their claims of battlefield survival abilities were exaggerated or untrue, they they should be charged with corporate manslaughter. This should also apply to those in the UK who make the decision. If they truly believe the 175 or 149 are combat capable and survivable, then let them put their money where their mouth is.
Make this a requirement of the contract award and get the bidders to agree to it. If LH and Airbus are really telling the truth, then why would they hesitate?
Oh, this would apply to Sikorsky as well, but we all know it is the only properly designed and constructed combat helicopter in the NMH contest.

[SASless]

A brief history of how the US Army came to buy the Sikorsky Black Hawk.

A comparison to that and the way the British MoD is going about its replacement of the Puma (a tactical combat helicopter) would suggest once again the UK MoD is screwing the pooch!

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/uttas.htm

[JohnDixson]

SAS, the quoted article history wise is pretty much accurate as to the process the Army employed to arrive at design requirements, but it has one absolute error of substance and another, huge error of missing but critical information re flyoff results.

The error of substance relates to the performance shortcoming quoted for the YUH-60A. That shortcoming was actually true early in development, but remedied prior to the fly-off. I can’t recall if the last main blade change we made, to extend the tip cap to meet the hover and climb performance requirement ( which it did ), was on the ship when the Army did their preliminary evaluation in Sept/Oct 1975. In any case, it was on all of the ships for the fly-off, and that blade configuration was unchanged, going to production.*

During the operational evaluation part of the fly-off, two events occurred which indicated that the Sikorsky prototype possessed an approximate 2000 lb hover performance advantage over the Boeing model. One at FT. Rucker, Shell Field and one at FT. Campbell, op eval site.

1. FT. Rucker. Shell Field. Each competitor had to train/qualify 10 Army pilots to perform the op eval test program. Part of that syllabus was of course external sling loads. On the day in question, Sikorsky was up first. The Army had prepared seven 55 gal. drums full of concrete/iron which weighed 1000 lbs and had an attachment built in. They also supplied a collector cable , enabling the carry of one thru seven drums. We started with seven, picked up the seven, climbed away vertically and did the same for all ten trainees with I think 2 refuelings during the morning.

Boeing then started, also with seven drums. But they couldn’t budge the seven, so they unhooked one and tried that. Couldn’t pick up 6000 either. Unhooked another drum. Now at 5000 lbs the YUH-61 finally got that load airborne, to maybe 3-4 ft. Then in order to get going, trundled along not gaining any altitude until they got to 20 kts or so and then started climbing. I watched this from about 40 yards away. Note: the Boeing main rotor diameter was I believe 48 ft whereas the Sikorsky main rotor was 53’8”.

2. Ft. Campbell. The Army has a new infantry vehicle called the Gamma Goat, which weighed 7100 lbs and they were anxious to see that the UH-1 replacement could carry it. The op eval was now under way and all the flying was done by the trained Army pilots. Sikorsky was first and, with full fuel and standard crew and field configuration ( which is to say, all seats etc. ) picked up the Goat climbed out, flew a pattern and landed it where it had been. The Boeing YUH-61 did the same thing except that the ship had only 400 lbs of fuel, no troop seats and minimum radio gear. Following their landing of the Goat, they went to the fuel farm to refuel. This was reported in detail by one of the Army maintenance test pilots assigned to the program ( two were assigned and each had been trained by the respective contractor at FT. Rucker ).

*The article makes no mention of the hover performance difference, NOR, that the Boeing Production Proposal for the YUH-61 included larger rotors.

Maintenance Differences. Can’t comment on the data in the article, but can add this fact: During the op eval period at Ft Rucker, the Army maintenance troops working the Boeing machines worked every weekend, while the troops working on the Sikorsky ships did not have to work one weekend.

Enough re the flyoff.

With re to the question of design features requirements for an aircraft that operates in harms way, there are several requirements that applied to both the UTTAS and AAH programs ( and two interesting ones that were on the Sikorsky UH-60 but not the AH-64 ).

Crashworthiness. The experiences in Vietnam led to the development of a Helicopter Mil Standard for Crash Resistance 1290. There is a Table 1 which defines the survivable crash conditions and it starts with a vertical impact at 42 ft/sec ( fixed landing gear ) and includes longitudinal, lateral and combined axes. In another section, it addresses the Engines transmission and rotor heads, requiring that these need to remain in place, so as not to hazardous to occupants under a crash condition of 20G vertically, 20G longitudinally and 18G laterally. Fuel systems shall be designed to contain fuel under the conditions in Table 1. Doesn’t allow leaks.

Anecdote: In order to prove compliance with 1290, we had to build a copy of the tank enclosure structure containing the main fuel tank and associated valves, fill the tank and drop it from 65 ft-no leaks. I have seen a picture of an AH-64 crash where the tank was ripped out of the aircraft and sitting on the ground apart from the wreckage-no leaks.

Ballistic Tolerance. As I recall and simply stated, the UTTAS was required to be invulnerable to 7.62 caliber weapons, the control system up to 51 caliber weapons and the blades to 23mm HEI. Components, including the blades ( and redone with the composite blades ) were subject to live fire tests.

I mentioned two items which were not required but were installed on each new UH-60A.

· The AFCS computer incorporated a separate chip which was in effect a flight data recorder. Not crash or fire proof, but better than nothing. This was the brainchild of the Chief of the Electronic Flight controls group. No cost.
· A tail rotor control quadrant, which was actually a mechanism located at the input to the tail rotor primary servo, with a very strong spring such that if either of the input cables lost tension for whatever reason, the pilot will retain directional control by flying the functioning cable against the spring. Wasn’t required but it went in. Saved one Turkish Hawk that I know of.

So, in the discussion regarding " making do " with off the shelf civil aircraft to handle an admin mission, but " might " in exigent circumstances be drafted into tactical use, there are huge differences. The other aspect is that I've read that this or that model helicopter is a " military version ". Get them to show you the evidence.

[ericferret]

"So, in the discussion regarding " making do " with off the shelf civil aircraft to handle an admin mission, but " might " in exigent circumstances be drafted into tactical use, there are huge differences. The other aspect is that I've read that this or that model helicopter is a " military version ". Get them to show you the evidence".[/QUOTE]

It's painted green, what more do you need.

[212man]

John - that star quadrant feature was adopted in the 76 too.

[casper64]

SAS, the quoted article history wise is pretty much accurate as to the process the Army employed to arrive at design requirements, but it has one absolute error of substance and another, huge error of missing but critical information re flyoff results.

The error of substance relates to the performance shortcoming quoted for the YUH-60A. That shortcoming was actually true early in development, but remedied prior to the fly-off. I can’t recall if the last main blade change we made, to extend the tip cap to meet the hover and climb performance requirement ( which it did ), was on the ship when the Army did their preliminary evaluation in Sept/Oct 1975. In any case, it was on all of the ships for the fly-off, and that blade configuration was unchanged, going to production.*

During the operational evaluation part of the fly-off, two events occurred which indicated that the Sikorsky prototype possessed an approximate 2000 lb hover performance advantage over the Boeing model. One at FT. Rucker, Shell Field and one at FT. Campbell, op eval site.

1. FT. Rucker. Shell Field. Each competitor had to train/qualify 10 Army pilots to perform the op eval test program. Part of that syllabus was of course external sling loads. On the day in question, Sikorsky was up first. The Army had prepared seven 55 gal. drums full of concrete/iron which weighed 1000 lbs and had an attachment built in. They also supplied a collector cable , enabling the carry of one thru seven drums. We started with seven, picked up the seven, climbed away vertically and did the same for all ten trainees with I think 2 refuelings during the morning.

Boeing then started, also with seven drums. But they couldn’t budge the seven, so they unhooked one and tried that. Couldn’t pick up 6000 either. Unhooked another drum. Now at 5000 lbs the YUH-61 finally got that load airborne, to maybe 3-4 ft. Then in order to get going, trundled along not gaining any altitude until they got to 20 kts or so and then started climbing. I watched this from about 40 yards away. Note: the Boeing main rotor diameter was I believe 48 ft whereas the Sikorsky main rotor was 53’8”.

2. Ft. Campbell. The Army has a new infantry vehicle called the Gamma Goat, which weighed 7100 lbs and they were anxious to see that the UH-1 replacement could carry it. The op eval was now under way and all the flying was done by the trained Army pilots. Sikorsky was first and, with full fuel and standard crew and field configuration ( which is to say, all seats etc. ) picked up the Goat climbed out, flew a pattern and landed it where it had been. The Boeing YUH-61 did the same thing except that the ship had only 400 lbs of fuel, no troop seats and minimum radio gear. Following their landing of the Goat, they went to the fuel farm to refuel. This was reported in detail by one of the Army maintenance test pilots assigned to the program ( two were assigned and each had been trained by the respective contractor at FT. Rucker ).

*The article makes no mention of the hover performance difference, NOR, that the Boeing Production Proposal for the YUH-61 included larger rotors.

Maintenance Differences. Can’t comment on the data in the article, but can add this fact: During the op eval period at Ft Rucker, the Army maintenance troops working the Boeing machines worked every weekend, while the troops working on the Sikorsky ships did not have to work one weekend.

Enough re the flyoff.

With re to the question of design features requirements for an aircraft that operates in harms way, there are several requirements that applied to both the UTTAS and AAH programs ( and two interesting ones that were on the Sikorsky UH-60 but not the AH-64 ).

Crashworthiness. The experiences in Vietnam led to the development of a Helicopter Mil Standard for Crash Resistance 1290. There is a Table 1 which defines the survivable crash conditions and it starts with a vertical impact at 42 ft/sec ( fixed landing gear ) and includes longitudinal, lateral and combined axes. In another section, it addresses the Engines transmission and rotor heads, requiring that these need to remain in place, so as not to hazardous to occupants under a crash condition of 20G vertically, 20G longitudinally and 18G laterally. Fuel systems shall be designed to contain fuel under the conditions in Table 1. Doesn’t allow leaks.

Anecdote: In order to prove compliance with 1290, we had to build a copy of the tank enclosure structure containing the main fuel tank and associated valves, fill the tank and drop it from 65 ft-no leaks. I have seen a picture of an AH-64 crash where the tank was ripped out of the aircraft and sitting on the ground apart from the wreckage-no leaks.

Ballistic Tolerance. As I recall and simply stated, the UTTAS was required to be invulnerable to 7.62 caliber weapons, the control system up to 51 caliber weapons and the blades to 23mm HEI. Components, including the blades ( and redone with the composite blades ) were subject to live fire tests.

I mentioned two items which were not required but were installed on each new UH-60A.

· The AFCS computer incorporated a separate chip which was in effect a flight data recorder. Not crash or fire proof, but better than nothing. This was the brainchild of the Chief of the Electronic Flight controls group. No cost.
· A tail rotor control quadrant, which was actually a mechanism located at the input to the tail rotor primary servo, with a very strong spring such that if either of the input cables lost tension for whatever reason, the pilot will retain directional control by flying the functioning cable against the spring. Wasn’t required but it went in. Saved one Turkish Hawk that I know of.

So, in the discussion regarding " making do " with off the shelf civil aircraft to handle an admin mission, but " might " in exigent circumstances be drafted into tactical use, there are huge differences. The other aspect is that I've read that this or that model helicopter is a " military version ". Get them to show you the evidence.

if “the United States of Europe” would put in an order of say 2500 H175m or AW149s I am sure either Airbus or Leonardo will provide the same or better service/quality than either Boeing or Sikorsky provided. 😉👍 As this will not happen you either have to make do with what you get or order an old American design.

[JohnDixson]

Eric-yep, it seems like that’s enough.
212-right-just saying that the S-70 was first with Dean Cooper’s design.
Casper-yes-you know it is interesting that, at least from what makes the press, air mobile warfare tactics have been left at home In the Ukraine. To your other point it would appear that neither Airbus nor AW have bought into the concepts of crashworthiness or ballistic tolerance for military vertical lift aircraft? It is a trade, with cost, weight,performance factors in the balance.

[minigundiplomat]

if “the United States of Europe” would put in an order of say 2500 H175m or AW149s I am sure either Airbus or Leonardo will provide the same or better service/quality than either Boeing or Sikorsky provided. 😉👍 As this will not happen you either have to make do with what you get or order an old battle proven American design.

There, changed that for you Casper

[ShyTorque]

John, during my days on the S-70 I was tasked to lift a generator in the aftermath of a typhoon, which had caused a major landslide and the loss of a road and the mains electricity cables below it. The generator weighed a fraction under 9,000 lbs. Our aircraft had the 9,000 lb hook, so I agreed. Although I’d lifted many lighter loads before, as we lifted to the hover to pick it up and took the strain there was absolutely no mistaking where that load was sitting on the ground. All I had to do was keep pulling power and the aircraft and load just lined themselves up!

The task was to position the generator on a narrow path on a steep hillside. Unfortunately, that meant approaching in an adverse wind. The aircraft did the job with some power to spare.

Bizarrely, believe it or not, that was how I helped save the life of a killer whale.


If I had to go to war in any helicopter, I’d prefer to do it in that type.

[212man]

I’m intrigued by the Blackhawk ballistic tolerance - unaffected by 7.62? That’s the equivalent of B6 (European standard). Having been in a number of B6 vehicles I struggle to imagine a helicopter offering the same protection.

I’m not contradicting the statement, just curious!

[ShyTorque]

I’m intrigued by the Blackhawk ballistic tolerance - unaffected by 7.62? That’s the equivalent of B6 (European standard). Having been in a number of B6 vehicles I struggle to imagine a helicopter offering the same protection.

I’m not contradicting the statement, just curious!

They never claimed that 7.62 bounce off!

[212man]

They never claimed that 7.62 bounce off!
I was basing my comment on John’s post
Ballistic Tolerance. As I recall and simply stated, the UTTAS was required to be invulnerable to 7.62 caliber

[SASless]

212,

I went to War in Huey's and Chinooks....neither were built to the later UTTAS Spec....and we saw the results.

Those lessons were what was the driver behind that new Spec.

In doing a small research project re the ways my Army Flight School Classmates died in Vietnam....the words "burns", "burned", "post crash fire", "caught fire and crashed" figured way too often.

One example of sensitive a helicopter can be to a single 7.62 round can be.....on the Chinook each flight control Servo (Jack) on each rotor head has two hydraulic lines separated by armor plate to prevent both lines being severed with a single bullet.

An aircraft in my unit....took several hits to include one round the severed on of the lines a Servo and dented the other.....had not that armor plate been there we would have lost an aircraft, the five man crew, and the twenty odd passengers.

That demonstrated the value of armor but also difficulties in determining what the design should be to afford sufficient protection.

Protection of systems comes not only from the installation of armor (with serious weight being added) to something as simple as the way hydraulic lines and other systems components are routed and installed which adds much less weight.

One look at a Blackhawk rotor head and push pull tubes and all of the lugs they are connected to....compared to a Huey and you can see immediately what the difference is due to the Spec.

The Blackhawk fuel tank drop test that had to be met is probably the most telling difference between the Huey Spec and the BlackHawk Spec.

I can offer first commentary on what the results of being hit by 7.62 and .51 Caliber rounds can be and what some of the results can be.

The Army and Sikorsky spec'd, designed, tested, and fielded a first class combat helicopter in the UH-60 Blackhawk.....and have improved that design since its first days.

I love the Huey....and after flying. other helicopters I described my late flying in the Huey as being like dancing with an old Girl Friend.

If I were to have to go to War again....my choice of horses would not be anything else but the Blackhawk if the choices were the same candidates the MoD is looking at to replace the Puma.

[ShyTorque]

We were first hoping for Blackhawks to replace our Pumas in the early 1980s. Forty years on, any day now….

[JohnDixson]

212-meant to be able to continue flying, i.e., not brought down.

[Hilife]

It was always my understanding that the BlackHawk’s ballistic requirement were the capability to fly safely for 1/2 hour after flight critical controls had been hit by a 23mm high-explosive incendiary projectile, and that includes the MRH, Hub, Blades and MGB.

Not something I suspect the ‘Commercial' contenders have even thought about, let alone certified.

I say commercial, as even the AW149 is an AW139 (EASA JAR/CS-29 certified commercial airframe), with a 90 to 100cm cabin stretch, is it not?

[finalchecksplease]

as even the AW149 is an AW139 (EASA JAR/CS-29 certified commercial airframe), with a 90 to 100cm cabin stretch, is it not?

No the AW149 is the military version of the AW189 which is not an extended AW139, some systems similar but has different engines (CT72E) and other different systems installed compared with the AW139

[212man]

No the AW149 is the military version of the AW189 which is not an extended AW139, some systems similar but has different engines (CT72E) and other different systems installed compared with the AW139
Other way round actually, the 189 is the civilian derivative of the 149. I know LH will use hype, as much as any contender, but they do seem adamant that they certified against DEFStan 00-970

ttps://www.gradcracker.com/hub/679/leonardo/blogs/4123/aw149-designed-to-survive-on-the-modern-battlefield-part-1

[JohnDixson]

SAS, Shy and other former Army pilots: there is one non Sikorsky person who owns responsibility for a lot of the stiff requirements that went into writing the required specs for the UTTAS ( and AAH for that matter ). There was a group formed around 1968 or so and the officer in command was a former Vietnam pilot, Lt. Col Clarence ( Bud ) Patnode. He has a collection of stories about the arguments: wheels vs skids, one vs two engines, icing flight required or not, how to spec out preventing the head and main box from falling into the cabin/cockpit in a crash, how to spec out the fuel system safety and prevent flamers etc etc. There was a large and influential group of officers who thought that what was needed was simply a larger, bigger- engined Huey on skids. That he was able to come up with the Material Need Document , defend it and see it thru approval at Chief of Staff level is testimony to his abilities. He retired an O-6 and resides in Utah.
One early indicator of the excellence of his work is that during the UTTAS development period and fly-off, that specification did not change.

[212man]

SAS, Shy and other former Army pilots: there is one non Sikorsky person who owns responsibility for a lot of the stiff requirements that went into writing the required specs for the UTTAS ( and AAH for that matter ). There was a group formed around 1968 or so and the officer in command was a former Vietnam pilot, Lt. Col Clarence ( Bud ) Patnode. He has a collection of stories about the arguments: wheels vs skids, one vs two engines, icing flight required or not, how to spec out preventing the head and main box from falling into the cabin/cockpit in a crash, how to spec out the fuel system safety and prevent flamers etc etc. There was a large and influential group of officers who thought that what was needed was simply a larger, bigger- engined Huey on skids. That he was able to come up with the Material Need Document , defend it and see it thru approval at Chief of Staff level is testimony to his abilities. He retired an O-6 and resides in Utah.
One early indicator of the excellence of his work is that during the UTTAS development period and fly-off, that specification did not change.

Interesting career! https://airandspace.si.edu/support/wall-of-honor/col-c-patnode-jr-usa-ret

[ShyTorque]

SAS, Shy and other former Army pilots:

Army? ‘Scuse me, John!

[JohnDixson]

Sorry Shy-just thought you were. Remembering the Day I joined Sikorsky there were only three former Army guys, and it was a great education being exposed to the other service guys experiences at personal level. The cross service humor was there occasionally, but in reality, one quickly realized that each service had its strengths and not so hot areas. 1966 and there were a few WWII and Korea folks, too.

[Blackhawk9]

Thinking about this acquisition , the 47 ex ADF MRH-90's (NH-90) will be up for sale soon , they have been a failure here with tech and parts support from Europe being one of the problems, but buying these 47 would give the RAF spare airframes and with the parts supply and support being just across the channel , I think the RAF could keep 36 going no problem and with spare frames to cycle thru the fleet at O/H keep the hrs down , they already have the RR engine in them and are Eurocentric in fit out and systems, and alot more compatible with other European users (France, Spain, Italy, eyc) be cheaper than 149 or 175 and be a better airframe (though still not a BH)

[minigundiplomat]

Thinking about this acquisition , the 47 ex ADF MRH-90's (NH-90) will be up for sale soon , they have been a failure here with tech and parts support from Europe being one of the problems, but buying these 47 would give the RAF spare airframes and with the parts supply and support being just across the channel , I think the RAF could keep 36 going no problem and with spare frames to cycle thru the fleet at O/H keep the hrs down , they already have the RR engine in them and are Eurocentric in fit out and systems, and alot more compatible with other European users (France, Spain, Italy, eyc) be cheaper than 149 or 175 and be a better airframe (though still not a BH)

Yeahnah mate. You can keep them......

[Blackhawk9]

Yeahnah mate. You can keep them......
I agree, but still better than either 149 or 175.

[BTC8183]

Thinking about this acquisition , the 47 ex ADF MRH-90's (NH-90) will be up for sale soon , they have been a failure here with tech and parts support from Europe being one of the problems, but buying these 47 would give the RAF spare airframes and with the parts supply and support being just across the channel , I think the RAF could keep 36 going no problem and with spare frames to cycle thru the fleet at O/H keep the hrs down , they already have the RR engine in them and are Eurocentric in fit out and systems, and alot more compatible with other European users (France, Spain, Italy, eyc) be cheaper than 149 or 175 and be a better airframe (though still not a BH)

Not likely, given the 'risk'
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/440x306/screenshot_20230314_092523_01_1a48828937c95b08d44dd605dc35b1 0e71cb64ad.jpeg
, but probably a bargain offer. NZ got a good deal with the similarly discarded Seasprites.
Some nations do seem to be able to get them to work, with Spain getting 11 aloft for a recent mass troop insertion excercise.

[Hilife]

......certified against DEFStan 00-970

Does DEFStan 00-970 (MAA), not simply mirror EASA CS?

[212man]

......certified against DEFStan 00-970

Does DEFStan 00-970 (MAA), not simply mirror EASA CS?
I think they take CS25/29 as baselines to ensure compatibility with operating in the civilian environment, but have a number of additional clauses to address battle damage, NBC etc
Edit - some more detailed background here. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/military-aviation-authority-maa-transformation-of-the-design-and-airworthiness-requirements-for-service-aircraft-defence-standard-00-970

[EESDL]

I think they take CS25/29 as baselines to ensure compatibility with operating in the civilian environment, but have a number of additional clauses to address battle damage, NBC etc
I vaguely recall reading in the press of the Italians approving the mil spec......
i dismissed it then for the same reasons I dismiss it now.

[SASless]

Can anyone compare and contrast the two Standards.....DEFStan 00-970 and the UTTAS Standard?

[212man]

Can anyone compare and contrast the two Standards.....DEFStan 00-970 and the UTTAS Standard?
A bit Apples and Oranges. 970 is a generic certification standard that is divided into multiple chapters to cover Fast Jet, Large FW Transport, Rotary, small FW etc, within which there are military specific requirements that cover ballistic tolerance, crashworthiness, Emergency Egress systems, NBC protection etc. UTTAS was a specification for a particular future platform, for the prospective bidders to base their design on, that included both the mission requirements, the maintenance requirements and the certification and safety requirements. John - please correct me if that was badly worded.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Other way round actually, the 189 is the civilian derivative of the 149. I know LH will use hype, as much as any contender, but they do seem adamant that they certified against DEFStan 00-970

ttps://www.gradcracker.com/hub/679/leonardo/blogs/4123/aw149-designed-to-survive-on-the-modern-battlefield-part-1
Based on my experiences in procurement, I don't trust anything that Leonardo say about any product until I've seen the results of truly independent testing in a representative environment.... Some elements of the company have given sterling service prior to being "absorbed" into the corporate culture, but the number of fast ones they've tried to pull (either through intent or through incompetence) significantly outweighs that. I'll also grant they're not alone in the defence industry in this.

Having said all of that, we all know what the NMH result will be, so here's hoping they have done an ok job this time around.

[JohnDixson]

212.SAS/pba: I looked up the DEFStan document with the same intent as you all, but for instance in the structural/crashworthiness area, I did not find any specific target, must have, numbers. On the other hand, if one looks up Mil-Std-1290, it’s a short document, but the values in Table 1 and para. 4.2 are clear.
The ballistic tolerance requirements are harder to find. They were in the Material Need Document, which was repeated in the Request for Proposal, and again in the Spec for the aircraft, but I do not have copies of any of those any more.

[212man]

Based on my experiences in procurement, I don't trust anything that Leonardo say about any product until I've seen the results of truly independent testing in a representative environment.... Some elements of the company have given sterling service prior to being "absorbed" into the corporate culture, but the number of fast ones they've tried to pull (either through intent or through incompetence) significantly outweighs that. I'll also grant they're not alone in the defence industry in this.

Having said all of that, we all know what the NMH result will be, so here's hoping they have done an ok job this time around.
I don't doubt you and I have no particular loyalty or otherwise with LH. Just that the 149 was launched about 5 years before the 189, so they do seem to have done more than just change model numbers, and it's factually incorrect to say that the 149 is the military version of the 189 (as often quoted).

[EESDL]

One train of thought is that the 149 was the failed entry to the Turkish competition (they opted for Black Hawk) - they then left it for a considerable while before trying to make an O&G machine out of it.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

212.SAS/pba: I looked up the DEFStan document with the same intent as you all, but for instance in the structural/crashworthiness area, I did not find any specific target, must have, numbers. On the other hand, if one looks up Mil-Std-1290, it’s a short document, but the values in Table 1 and para. 4.2 are clear.
The ballistic tolerance requirements are harder to find. They were in the Material Need Document, which was repeated in the Request for Proposal, and again in the Spec for the aircraft, but I do not have copies of any of those any more.

​​​​​​No hard numbers definitely worries me!

[Hilife]

The following links might shine a little light on some of the questions and from the horses mouth.

AW149: Designed to Survive on the Modern Battlefield

Part 1
https://uk.leonardo.com/en/news-and-stories-detail/-/detail/aw149-designed-to-survive-on-the-modern-battlefield-part-1

Part 2
https://uk.leonardo.com/en/news-and-stories-detail/-/detail/aw149-designed-to-survive-on-the-modern-battlefield-part-2

References DEFStan 00-970, MIL standard 1290A and ballistic vulnerability analysis for parts of the design thinking.

Good for a salesman's PowerPoint presentation, although it leaves plenty of unanswered questions.

[sycamore]

No mention of `ship compatabilty`,blade/tail fold etc...
..and I don`t like those little nosewheels to ,stand up to running landings/t/off in sandy,boggy rough terrain either...

[EESDL]

The following links might shine a little light on some of the questions and from the horses mouth.

AW149: Designed to Survive on the Modern Battlefield

Part 1
https://uk.leonardo.com/en/news-and-stories-detail/-/detail/aw149-designed-to-survive-on-the-modern-battlefield-part-1

Part 2
https://uk.leonardo.com/en/news-and-stories-detail/-/detail/aw149-designed-to-survive-on-the-modern-battlefield-part-2

References DEFStan 00-970, MIL standard 1290A and ballistic vulnerability analysis for parts of the design thinking.

Good for a salesman's PowerPoint presentation, although it leaves plenty of unanswered questions.

still laughing from how many hours Leonardo think is acceptable trial and testing - quite concerning really. Team Pallonia’s DAS is Sovereign so all NMH airframes can use it.

latest rumour is that NMH pushed back another 2 years.

[HeliHenri]

latest rumour is that NMH pushed back another 2 years.

In fact, they’re waiting for the V-280 :E
.

[JohnDixson]

Hilife: good points. Reminded that the requirements don’t end with a compliant design and analysis, there has to be a test program to prove the design and analysis using the actual aircraft and/or components as required.

[casper64]

No mention of `ship compatabilty`,blade/tail fold etc...
..and I don`t like those little nosewheels to ,stand up to running landings/t/off in sandy,boggy rough terrain either...

why would you make a running landing in the dirt in a modern helicopter? You designate a landing area with your HMSD and before you enter the dust cloud you couple your 4-axis AFCS for landing and touchdown in the dustcloud. (That’s how I would like it…) For emergency running landings you go to a strip.

[sycamore]

Done much military flying ,cas64...?

[trim it out]

Done much military flying ,cas64...?
Are wheels a new thing on military helicopters...?

[EESDL]

Are wheels a new thing on military helicopters...?
no, letting your 4-axis ap keep you in the threatband for longer than necessary is. An alarming lack of appreciation of what is required - maybe cas64 works for an OEM whom builds tricycle aircraft as is literally trying to reinvent the wheel?
i’m no Battlefield guru but refuse to ignore lessons learnt.

[Ammo Boiler]

No mention of `ship compatabilty`,blade/tail fold etc...
..and I don`t like those little nosewheels to ,stand up to running landings/t/off in sandy,boggy rough terrain either...

Is NMH intended to operate from ship also?

[minigundiplomat]

why would you make a running landing in the dirt in a modern helicopter? You designate a landing area with your HMSD and before you enter the dust cloud you couple your 4-axis AFCS for landing and touchdown in the dustcloud. (That’s how I would like it…) For emergency running landings you go to a strip.


I always thought you were a bit clueless when it came to military flying, but its nice of you to confirm it, and remove that element of doubt.

[9BIT]

In the latter years in Afghanistan zero/zero DVE landings were a technique for the analogue aircraft (CH47D); the preferred method for digital aircraft was for a coupled afcs auto hover approach (CH47F). A more protracted approach but far safer on a balance of risk basis, the coalition lost more aircraft to environmental hazards than it did to enemy action.

[EESDL]

Improving operational safety (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dKpx0lA1NSU&embeds_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fteamml70.uk%2F&embeds_origin=https%3A%2F%2Fteamml70.uk&source_ve_path=Mjg2NTksMjg2NTksMjM4NTE&feature=emb_title)

[sycamore]

Ammo,#364,irrespective of what the `notional` requirements are for the aircraft,in this case the Army, there will be times/events that require sea/coastal operations(depending who the `enemy `is/exercises),and may require operating from ships/carriers.The aircraft should have that compatible capability ,built in,as fuelling is usually pressure,stowage requires blade folding/tail folding,secure deck lashing points,possibly emergency flotation gear,etc,and when built should be properly corrosion proofed against sea-water.

[EESDL]

Jointery, Global Reach, Littoral etc etc You can expect it to be on the back of a boat at some point.....

[N707ZS]

New Pumas!!
Pictured: RAF Puma helicopters replace Griffin models in Cyprus (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/pictured-raf-puma-helicopters-replace-griffin-models-in-cyprus/ar-AA19mcBD?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=8dab8dafa8f34294879ed5b0728a0f04&ei=24)

[casper64]

Done much military flying ,cas64...?
About 15 years, 2000 hours, 5 deployments 👍

[casper64]

In the latter years in Afghanistan zero/zero DVE landings were a technique for the analogue aircraft (CH47D); the preferred method for digital aircraft was for a coupled afcs auto hover approach (CH47F). A more protracted approach but far safer on a balance of risk basis, the coalition lost more aircraft to environmental hazards than it did to enemy action.
At least somebody understands…👍 And the more modern the AFCS are, the quicker the approaches can be. Clearly no one likes to be a sitting duck on final of a hot LZ….

[212man]

About 15 years, 2000 hours, 5 deployments 👍
can’t find the “egg on face” imoji…..

[SASless]

Cowboy wisdom says "It ain't bragging if you done it!".:ok:

[JulieAndrews]

NMH = No Money Helicopter

[Numberscount]

A defence website has published a paper criticising the plan, on a site called Defence Synergia.
Current situ - Gov expected shortly to announce another step in the selection process, presumably reducing the comp to either AW or Blackhawk.

[Evalu8ter]

At least somebody understands…👍 And the more modern the AFCS are, the quicker the approaches can be. Clearly no one likes to be a sitting duck on final of a hot LZ….
To use the hackneyed old phrase, you honour the highest threat. If you're in the middle of nowhere, in a low threat environment, Red Illume, then I'm all for letting the Auto Trans Down complete the final approach and establish the hover before landing. However, a few counterpoints. An AFCS driven auto trans down remains a slow and highly predictable approach. It exposes the cab to the enemy, for longer, with no alteration or variation to the deceleration scheduling - and the enemy would quickly learn how the aircraft completes its decal profile (it has to be fixed and predictable to be certified…). Most D/AFCS I've seen/flown are derived from civil standards, and expect a civil style approach to be initiated, then coupled, or completed at the end of a Flight Plan - they are not the run in at low level / 140+Kts and flare hard into the 'gate' in terms of both pace and unpredictability. Having an Auto Trans Down also places the aircraft in any DVE for longer, robbing the crew of SA on threats and obstructions, and exposing the mechanicals to potentially more sand/dust/ erosion and damage. A combination of a nose gear aircraft and coupled approach will not get you on the ground as quickly at a 'hot LZ' as a machine with a tail wheel being flared hard to the ground, nor will be reliable (indeed, sensible) for multi ship tactical approaches, which is mostly what we do. In Afghan, NH90 crews were particularly concerned with their dust landing technique when in an opposed area as they had to rely heavily on their DAFCS lest they hit the tail rotor - not a problem for a Black Hawk or Chinook (well, the latter until about 26 degrees nose up….). I'd like to have the auto trans down/up in my golf bag for bad weather days in peacetime and benign areas on operations, but I'd rather have a DAFCS that stops drift/yaw at low speed/altitude in DVE, an active sensor and a 3-D Conformal Symbology suite on a display helmet to enable me as -3 or -4 to 'play' the flare to hit the ground ahead of Lead to keep us close on the LZ and minimise time in DVE. We rarely fly single ship insertions on Ops. If I were procuring an aircraft for a similar role to what the US Army uses the Lakota for, then I'd have no issues with 149 or H175M as their commercial DNA would likely either be irrelevant or, potentially, a useful facet. Having seen what we've expected the Puma force to do over the last 20 years, I'd be far more comfortable with our crews flying a UH-60 as the 'interim' platform until we work out our requirements to understand if we're going V-280 or the latest Franco-German lash up, the E-NGR, as the enduring Medium Lift platform (and Merlin replacement).

[JulieAndrews]

Last line reads:
"In short, choice of the AW149 is likely to become a large procurement failure"

[60FltMech]

“NH90 crews were particularly concerned with their dust landing technique when in an opposed area as they had to rely heavily on their DAFCS lest they hit the tail rotor - not a problem for a Black Hawk or Chinook (well, the latter until about 26 degrees nose up….).”

I would never have believed an aft blade strike on a chinook could happen, then I saw one one night back in the day when i worked on CH-47s with 3” of red dirt on each of the blade tips..

FltMech

[ericferret]

Last line reads:
"In short, choice of the AW149 is likely to become a large procurement failure"

It will be added to ze list

M.O.D procurement seems to have become a byword for failure.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Perhaps some lateral thinking is required.

LH are obviously going hard for NMH, but everything I read indicates that the AW149 is simply not fit for purpose where NMH is concerned. The Blackhawk seems to be the best contender of the available options in terms of lift, size, and proven battlefield capability, but it is not built in the UK. 'Social value' will undoubtedly play a significant part in the assessment criteria and scoring of the 3 likely bids.

What are the chances that LH decide to 'no-bid' rather than bidding and losing, and then partner with Sikorsky and offer to build the NMH Blackhawks at Yeovil? I appreciate it sounds rather far fetched, but it gets LH a slice of the pie, and gives Sikorsky the social value piece that they currently lack. I know there are multiple 'devil in the detail' issues with this, but if Airbus can partner with Boeing for NMH, why not LH and Sikorsky?

[ericferret]

Perhaps some lateral thinking is required.

LH are obviously going hard for NMH, but everything I read indicates that the AW149 is simply not fit for purpose where NMH is concerned. The Blackhawk seems to be the best contender of the available options in terms of lift, size, and proven battlefield capability, but it is not built in the UK. 'Social value' will undoubtedly play a significant part in the assessment criteria and scoring of the 3 likely bids.

What are the chances that LH decide to 'no-bid' rather than bidding and losing, and then partner with Sikorsky and offer to build the NMH Blackhawks at Yeovil? I appreciate it sounds rather far fetched, but it gets LH a slice of the pie, and gives Sikorsky the social value piece that they currently lack. I know there are multiple 'devil in the detail' issues with this, but if Airbus can partner with Boeing for NMH, why not LH and Sikorsky?

Not far fetched

https://hushkit.net/2021/02/12/whatever-happened-to-the-westland-ws-70-blackhawk/

[NutLoose]

Puma HC3 has a nice ring to it… the 21st century MRCA Must Refurbish Choppers Again.

it’s a farce isn’t it, when you look at the likes of Turkey’s myriad of new types in development from helicopters to supersonic UAV’s to fighters and the once great aircraft manufactures of the U.K. haven’t produced any indigenous military aircraft since the Hawk. And I’m talking U.K., not some multi country efforts. Ohh the Government will talk the talk while quietly killing off home produced military production.

[Numberscount]

There's some chat on Twitter about troop carrying capacities. What are the actual "fully equipped" capacities of the contenders?

[nowherespecial]

NumbersCount - UH60 formally listed at 11 troops with full equipment (SIK brochure lists at 290lbs/ 130kgs). AW149 brochure shows anywhere from 10-16 seats. H175M lists as 12 - 15 seats.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/black-hawk/sikorsky-UH60M-brochure.pdf
https://helicopters.leonardo.com/en/products/aw149
https://www.airbus.com/en/products-services/helicopters/military-helicopters/h175m/h175m-missions

I doubt very much you could get 16 fully equipped troops into a 149 given the seating type and ability to egress safely into a battle zone so the like for like is likely the 10 seat assault layout in the AW149 vs standard 11 seat in the Hawk and either 12 or 15 in a 175M. I'm still 100% sure I'd rather go into battle in a Hawk with fewer troops, bigger doors, more robust landing gear, weapons hanging off both sides and a famously crashworthy air frame than a 175 or a 149 but that's a personal view of course.

[Numberscount]

Thanks NWS. I cant see a photo or video of a 149 embarking or disembarking CEMO troops anywhere.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

NumbersCount - UH60 formally listed at 11 troops with full equipment (SIK brochure lists at 290lbs/ 130kgs). AW149 brochure shows anywhere from 10-16 seats. H175M lists as 12 - 15 seats.


I doubt very much you could get 16 fully equipped troops into a 149 given the seating type and ability to egress safely into a battle zone so the like for like is likely the 10 seat assault layout in the AW149 vs standard 11 seat in the Hawk and either 12 or 15 in a 175M. I'm still 100% sure I'd rather go into battle in a Hawk with fewer troops, bigger doors, more robust landing gear, weapons hanging off both sides and a famously crashworthy air frame than a 175 or a 149 but that's a personal view of course.

From the Defence Synergia paper (link earlier in forum), taking into account fuel load and typical operating environments.

Lift capacity Internal Space Fully equipped troops lift with 3 crew

Wildcat ~1.2 tonnes 6 sq metres ~5 troops Leonardo
AW149 2.5 tonnes ~ 6.5 sq metres ~6 troops
Airbus H175M <1.6 tonnes ~ 6-7 sq metres ~ 6 troops
Blackhawk 5 tonnes ~ 12 sq metres - ~11 troops

The Blackhawk has double the troop capacity of either the 149 or 175, and at least twice the USL capacity according to their figures. Given the operating cost per hour, this makes LH and Airbus options up to 3 times as expensive to achieve the same section lift.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

NumbersCount - UH60 formally listed at 11 troops with full equipment (SIK brochure lists at 290lbs/ 130kgs). AW149 brochure shows anywhere from 10-16 seats. H175M lists as 12 - 15 seats.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/black-hawk/sikorsky-UH60M-brochure.pdf
https://helicopters.leonardo.com/en/products/aw149
https://www.airbus.com/en/products-services/helicopters/military-helicopters/h175m/h175m-missions

I doubt very much you could get 16 fully equipped troops into a 149 given the seating type and ability to egress safely into a battle zone so the like for like is likely the 10 seat assault layout in the AW149 vs standard 11 seat in the Hawk and either 12 or 15 in a 175M. I'm still 100% sure I'd rather go into battle in a Hawk with fewer troops, bigger doors, more robust landing gear, weapons hanging off both sides and a famously crashworthy air frame than a 175 or a 149 but that's a personal view of course.
You can get loads of fully equipped troops into the 149, so long as you put their gear in the boot! Someone link to the Farnborough video!

[Blackhawk9]

Most machines don't run seats in combat zones anyway first thing to get dumped , seats are for peactime ops , 4 seats across the back in a UH-60 and one rear facing between the gunners seats and you can fit 18-19 in a B/hawk easy , 5 on seats , 6 sitting in doorway with guns pointing out and 6-8 on the floor in cabin. Std assault load.

[PlasticCabDriver]

From the Defence Synergia paper (link earlier in forum), taking into account fuel load and typical operating environments.

Lift capacity Internal Space Fully equipped troops lift with 3 crew

Wildcat ~1.2 tonnes 6 sq metres ~5 troops Leonardo
AW149 2.5 tonnes ~ 6.5 sq metres ~6 troops
Airbus H175M <1.6 tonnes ~ 6-7 sq metres ~ 6 troops
Blackhawk 5 tonnes ~ 12 sq metres - ~11 troops

The Blackhawk has double the troop capacity of either the 149 or 175, and at least twice the USL capacity according to their figures. Given the operating cost per hour, this makes LH and Airbus options up to 3 times as expensive to achieve the same section lift.

Sounds a bit more like it, although 6 is maybe a bit low. I would think 10-12 maybe. Our offshore fit in a 175 is 16 seats, it’s pretty full in there at max load, and of course there’s no bags in there. Disposable is about 2.7 tonnes, but that of course depends on the fit, remove dinghies but add Self Defence kit etc.

[minigundiplomat]

Most machines don't run seats in combat zones anyway first thing to get dumped , seats are for peactime ops , 4 seats across the back in a UH-60 and one rear facing between the gunners seats and you can fit 18-19 in a B/hawk easy , 5 on seats , 6 sitting in doorway with guns pointing out and 6-8 on the floor in cabin. Std assault load.

Most do actually run seats (whether the customers are strapped in is a different matter), getting off the floor fully laden is difficult and seats are designed to collapse on impact, added to which sitting in the door for a TR failure is not a great idea.

[chinook240]

Sounds a bit more like it, although 6 is maybe a bit low. I would think 10-12 maybe. Our offshore fit in a 175 is 16 seats, it’s pretty full in there at max load, and of course there’s no bags in there. Disposable is about 2.7 tonnes, but that of course depends on the fit, remove dinghies but add Self Defence kit etc.
I understand from a colleague who operated the 175 in the NS that the CofG was quite critical, with individuals being seated depending on weight? An interesting concept in military ops.

[JohnDixson]

Re Blackhawk 9 and his observation re seats. The unit I joined had B model UH-1s and the lift platoons had the seats across the rear cabin wall, and at was it.
Remembering that experience, when we were involved in a competition with Eurocopter in eastern Turkey, which was in fact a very realistic evaluation ( almost too realistic on one memorable occasion ) we had made a plan beforehand and upon arrival in Diyarbakir, took out all the cabin seats, leaving only the gunners and troop commander seats (3). Thus unencumbered, our typical troop load of Jandarma soldiers ( think infantry ) was 25-26. They were fully armed, spare ammo etc We had installed cargo tie-down straps in a matrix across the floor and had posters made with the assistance of an interpreter, showing how the troops should situate themselves.
Support’ressupply missions included the usual: food/water/ammo. Jandarma eschewed military rations-they used real food, which made for interesting loading challenges: usually we’d slide the cabin door shut on one side and load all the food etc up to the ceiling in the back. Slide the open cabin door shut. The two SA crew and the Turkish pilot would enter thru the gunners windows, strap in and we launched.
The Turkish pilot in the troop commanders seat had the assignment from his command to record every detail of every sortie. A lot of the time, that pilot would not have English.
The evaluation consisted of placing and supporting, various Jandarma platoons as they chased and brought to contact, the PKK terrorist units in far eastern Turkey.
Sound familiar, Blackhawk 9 ?

[SASless]

Brother Dixson must stop this confusing the issue with facts.....it is so unfair.:ok:

[EESDL]

I understand that there is a 20-seat fit in current European use for Black Hawks:
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x576/20_seat_fit_fwd_view_a28ce6d07499d6d15b23517a3ecfa4afd32c1d3 8.jpeg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/773x575/20_seat_fit_rear_view_san_1bdebeb1bf6975bd7c8c5d0b21d76f4244 ba4938.jpeg

[Blackhawk9]

I understand that there is a 20-seat fit in current European use for Black Hawks:
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x576/20_seat_fit_fwd_view_a28ce6d07499d6d15b23517a3ecfa4afd32c1d3 8.jpeg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/773x575/20_seat_fit_rear_view_san_1bdebeb1bf6975bd7c8c5d0b21d76f4244 ba4938.jpeg

Never seen that setup before , Turkey? , only seats that are crashworthy are the 4 x Sik seats along the backwall, obviously not a requirement by that operator. would sooner be on the floor than try and move around those seats with gear on.

[JohnDixson]

hello SAS-re facts: On that first Turkish competition Phil Pacini ( Mayaguez USAF pilot) and I were spelled after 3 months by Gary Kohler ( Cav-Vietnam ) and Andy Evans a West pointer too young for that event. Gary and Andy have the unofficial record: 53 troops-never heard whether they were equipped or even dressed, for that matter!

[EESDL]

Blackhawk9 - quite right, uncertified, but a case of 'needs must' for the mil operator during the fire season - I think.

[CopterDoctor]

With the news that the UAE has dropped its order for a dozen Caracal's
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/05/uae-cancels-e800m-military-helicopter-deal-with-airbus-government-official/
perhaps Airbus should offer the H225 as a late contender.......

[PlasticCabDriver]

I understand from a colleague who operated the 175 in the NS that the CofG was quite critical, with individuals being seated depending on weight? An interesting concept in military ops.

Never had to get to seating individuals by weight, but yes, it can get quite tight CofG wise. Sometimes it’s beneficial to have more passengers rather than fewer, to bring the CofG forward enough to get all the bags/fuel in. As long as the troops load from front to back it will probably be fine. In that context anyway…

[NutLoose]

Never seen that setup before , Turkey? , only seats that are crashworthy are the 4 x Sik seats along the backwall, obviously not a requirement by that operator. would sooner be on the floor than try and move around those seats with gear on.


But looking at the images, if you bin those two centre fore aft row seats, the four rear facing seats, the two outboard (door) forward facing seats and retain the two forward facing inner ones, that gives you the equivalent of a current Puma's fully equipped troop capacity with plenty of room to move around the cabin.. the extra possible seating for other roles is a bonus.

[chinook240]

Wow, didn’t see that coming!🙄

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/raf-puma-helicopter-fleet-could-soldier-on-until-2028/153340.article

[Hilife]

I recall a press release from an MoD/JHC source several years’ ago, saying something along the lines, that the price to sustain the Puma HC2 fleet in-service post 2025 was more than a ‘King’s Ransom’, so I dread to think what the cost to the UK taxpayer will be in its final years of service, until its well overdue OSD arrives.

Yet another example of the UK MoD’s inability to make a procurement selection on time, more so when you note that all three platforms in the run-off are OTS options.

[Evalu8ter]

Chinook 240. Indeed! I think NMH is now highly likely to be cancelled. Any delay to a 2025 ISD (which, as a fully operational and certified military platform only the UH-60 has a hope of making….) will nudge it closer to the window for the already delayed, for near term cash reasons, the much more important MH-4…..errr….sorry ‘H-47ER’ acquisition. That, and Chinook CSP, are the army’s aviation priorities now they’ve secured AH-64E. I doubt Army HQ’s / JHC’s budget runs to doing both at the same time. Furthermore, if Puma is extended to 2028 then the ‘gap’ between NMH entering service and the need to start scoping Merlin/Wildcat replacements shrinks to a handful of years - and MoD has ‘form’ with cancelling the likes of SABR and FRC, then combining programs, and announcing it as ‘new money’ (and the NMH money effectively disappears). MoD seem to think that, if it survives, NMH could be the ML backstop while Merlin is replaced - but without any ship compatibility requirements, that’s a bit of a non-starter. The only ‘interim’ that makes any sense continues to be Black Hawk, and the US Army is committed to the aircraft until the 2070s. Give Yeovil some cash to design the MUAS part of Wildcat replacement, and an assurance they will either licence build the V-280 with UK avionics/DAS (which I predict Leo will also do for the Italians….) or produce the Euro NGR (likely to be aligned with Franco-German needs to support Airbus), and buy 20-30 UH-60s would be my suggestion…..

[Evalu8ter]

HiLife - not strictly true that all 3 are ‘OTS options’. H175M doesn’t exist; it’s not certified as a military aircraft, has zero military provenance and it will take years to design, fit and qualify the necessary military equipment. The ‘H175M’ demonstrator is simply a H175 painted black, and still has its Chinese DNA. AW149 is better placed, but I don’t doubt that MoD would not be satisfied with the mission equipment choices or TTPs of such stellar reference customers as the Thai Police and Egyptian Navy. Black Hawk has an ‘out of the box’ capability, literally dozens of certified options and several high quality users to crib TTPs etc from.

[Stratofreighter]

Bidders likely to wait until September for next stage of UK New Medium Helicopter tender | News | Flight Global (https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/bidders-likely-to-wait-until-september-for-next-stage-of-uk-new-medium-helicopter-tender/153739.article)Procurement of a replacement for the Royal Air Force’s Puma HC2 rotorcraft under the UK’s New Medium Helicopter (NMH) programme appears to be further delayed, with no clarity on when the next stage of the tender will begin.

Shortlisted candidates for the £1.2 billion ($1.5 billion) contract for up to 44 helicopters were identified last October 2022, but the process has not advanced since then.



At that point, Ministry of Defence (MoD) officials were intending to issue an Invitation to Tender – detailing the precise requirements for the contest – to the selected bidders by the first quarter of 2023.

That deadline subsequently slipped to mid-year and now, FlightGlobal understands, the document will not be released before September 2023 at the earliest.

Further delays to the acquisition increase the likelihood that the MoD will fail to meet its target of introducing the NMH by 2025.

However, the MoD declines to comment on the timeline for the procurement. “Responses to a questionnaire have been evaluated to determine a shortlist of suppliers for the New Medium Helicopter competition,” it says.

“Suppliers were notified of the outcome in October 2022 and successful candidates will be invited to participate in the second half of the competition, due to be launched later this year.”



n addition to the RAF’s Pumas, the NMH is intended to replace three other types: Bell 212s and 412s, and Airbus Helicopters AS365 Dauphins used by the Army Air Corps for special forces missions.

The two Bell types, operated in Cyprus and Brunei, have already been retired and replaced by Pumas, seeing that helicopter’s life extended to at least 2025, if not beyond.

At recent House of Commons Defence Select Committee hearing (https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/raf-puma-helicopter-fleet-could-soldier-on-until-2028/153340.article), Air Marshal Sir Richard Knighton said a further extension, to 2027 or 2028, would be “feasible”.

Airbus Helicopters provides support for the Puma fleet through an ongoing sustainment contract that currently runs through 2025.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Unfortunately I am not permitted to post links yet, but the Aviation Press is publishing a statement today from Sikorsky, stating that if they win NMH then they would 'assemble' the aircraft in the UK and possibly use that facility to build export variants for other nations as well. This clearly makes their bid stronger in terms of UK social and economic benefit. Now, the term 'assemble' could mean many things and does not neccessarily imply a full production facility, but the fact that this is being mentioned at all is very promising in my view as the Blackhawk is clearly the only NMH contender that is fit for the role.

Let us hope this program survives and is awarded sooner rather than later. As things stand, it could potentially be put off into a new Government and then all bets would be off.

[minigundiplomat]

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/sikorsky-sees-opportunity-to-export-uk-built-black-hawks-if-it-wins-uk-nmh-tender/153864.article

Link for the article.

This significantly alters the dynamic and puts AH and Leonardo on the back foot.

[Non-Driver]

Numbers being scaled back:

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/uk-mod-denies-scaling-back-new-medium-helicopter-buy-despite-airbus-claims/154164.article

Very political that "up to 44" now sits in the range 25-35......

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Looks as though NMH is now on an indefinite delay. The longer the legacy aircraft are kept going, the closer we get to the advent of FLRAA and FVL being viable options. I suspect that the winner of the NMH program may end up being none of the current bidders.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uk-helo-programmes-delayed-rated-amber-nick-baird/?trackingId=

[SimonPaddo]

Looks as though NMH is now on an indefinite delay. The longer the legacy aircraft are kept going, the closer we get to the advent of FLRAA and FVL being viable options. I suspect that the winner of the NMH program may end up being none of the current bidders.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uk-helo-programmes-delayed-rated-amber-nick-baird/?trackingId=
Looks like the Puma is replacing itself at the moment :oh:

[[email protected]]

Well Leonardo were hosting an event this week very much aimed at promoting the 149 as heavily as possible - it looked very nice close up:ok:

It would mean jobs kept at Yeovil which we know historically plays well with the politicians.

[domperry76]

Well Leonardo were hosting an event this week very much aimed at promoting the 149 as heavily as possible - it looked very nice close up:ok:

It would mean jobs kept at Yeovil which we know historically plays well with the politicians.

You mean I was in the presence of forum royalty and never knew?

[[email protected]]

You mean I was in the presence of forum royalty and never knew? :) Who do you think flew the Sea King in:ok:​​​​​​​

[domperry76]

:) Who do you think flew the Sea King in:ok:

My compliments on a fine showing then. Whither the promised Wessex though?

[[email protected]]

A knackered starboard engine which has been hot starting for a while and is now toast and due a replacement:)
Fortunately we have a few spares.

[Northernstar]

Well Leonardo were hosting an event this week very much aimed at promoting the 149 as heavily as possible - it looked very nice close up:ok:

It would mean jobs kept at Yeovil which we know historically plays well with the politicians.


Are jobs really at risk given this week's news? Or is it the usual Yeovil grab of everything with associated threats to ensure no competition?

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/leonardo-helicopters-eyes-addtional-orders-for-wildcat-and-aw101/154670.article

[NutLoose]

A knackered starboard engine which has been hot starting for a while and is now toast and due a replacement:)
Fortunately we have a few spares.

Pssst.... you wanna buy some? sadly not Wessex ones.


https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/115628263430?hash=item1aebfb4806:g:JT0AAOSwovhgkS1J&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4FW6dSzBUHcf0Cbjfe52h5%2F%2F7Vg9%2FAGBV AAK5%2B88JcC%2FcJPkHTXr%2B%2FSmUrJ7NQ0tvjtJGj%2BeIoiZ0Y6cceN zu%2BHzlhAN97CEis1Tui7NbhIFp6KC1Md7dLuERc7d9Z3syCJY70cOBFr8M DmP4OnWqSzBBK%2Bi%2FhdKiKr%2FFZkrx5xYOtzD8%2BlTK4y1m7BX2IyXl wjQrEYkMnl8VHC%2Byqr%2Bnk291wp8sxQ3MCGPSOssbomTvBpIEHYrBamQ6 y%2Bs41KuzvEAP%2FKsW5ztbra2IsWiWhZ6tazcQPrfrB2vJNbhh2QD%7Ctk p%3ABk9SR5yIvNTFYg

[[email protected]]

Thanks Nutty but we have quite a few proper Wessex ones to choose from:ok:

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Are jobs really at risk given this week's news? Or is it the usual Yeovil grab of everything with associated threats to ensure no competition?

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/leonardo-helicopters-eyes-addtional-orders-for-wildcat-and-aw101/154670.article
I'd say it's a good opportunity to play a little waiting game then break the Yeovil stranglehold if they've got enough orders of WC/me from elsewhere. Get Sikorsky in with some actual battlefield helicopters

[trim it out]

I'd say it's a good opportunity to play a little waiting game then break the Yeovil stranglehold if they've got enough orders of WC/me from elsewhere. Get Sikorsky in with some actual battlefield helicopters
Why should the boots on the ground and in the air have to wait because some politicians and uniformed desk jockeys try and play a game with an industry they know don't really understand, or have a terrible reputation for playing poorly at.

Somebody just needs to get a grip and get on with it. "The only thing worse than a bad decision, is no decision".

[[email protected]]

Those politicians and desk jockeys have been playing this game for all the time I have been flying and will probably continue to do so because there isn't the money to have what we want - or so they keep telling us..

We wanted Blackhawk back in the 80's and we're still waiting.

[trim it out]

Those politicians and desk jockeys have been playing this game for all the time I have been flying and will probably continue to do so because there isn't the money to have what we want - or so they keep telling us..

We wanted Blackhawk back in the 80's and we're still waiting.
"We" never get asked though.

The people making procurement decisions (who get shuffled around every couple of years) likely will never operate in or with the kit they are on the project teams for. The only people that suffer are the end users. Defence industry sounds like a great place to work though from all the career fairs (circuses) I've been to!

[[email protected]]

But if 'we' were asked and came up with a different solution, we'd just be told we didn't understand the 'bigger picture' and the senior officers who start as pilots and then forget what their job used to be will just say yes to the VSOs and politicians.

[trim it out]

But if 'we' were asked and came up with a different solution, we'd just be told we didn't understand the 'bigger picture' and the senior officers who start as pilots and then forget what their job used to be will just say yes to the VSOs and politicians.
Followed by a continuous attitude survey with results like these...:E

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1439/afcas_6c5a39bdbfee69744d1bfb6d2135c4f3535db15b.jpg

[chevvron]

We wanted Blackhawk back in the 80's and we're still waiting.
I can remember G RRTM flying at Farnborough but then it disappeared.
I thought the intention was to set up a production run at Yeovil to produce WS70s with the possibility of exports to Europe.

[60FltMech]

I’m always cynical when talking about how any govt makes decisions when so many angles are considered (valid or not), but maybe if Australia (hopefully) with good success with H-60M, it will help push UK more in that direction?

Regarding the Australian Blackhawks, does anyone know what Australian specific modifications (if any) were incorporated in their order? I assume since the first aircraft have already arrived that they are pretty close to standard US Army spec, it seems like if they had tried to re-invent the wheel with their order the timeline would have been much longer.

As it stands currently all H-60M in Army spec come hoist/wench, external stores and extended range fuel capable, with additional mission equipment available in kit form, so pretty much a turn key solution for most situations it would seem, and I’m sure the domestic Australian aerospace industry is more than capable tackling any modifications needed in future.

FltMech

[JimL]

Nice for them to spec convivial company!

[60FltMech]

🤣 good catch! *Winch* I meant to say. And to think we fear AI taking over the world…

FltMech

[212man]

I can remember G RRTM flying at Farnborough but then it disappeared.
I thought the intention was to set up a production run at Yeovil to produce WS70s with the possibility of exports to Europe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_affair

[60FltMech]

A little searching around shows G-RRTM came back to
the states using registrations N3124B, N70C and N60FH, looks like it was deregistered in 2014 when Brainerd/Firehawk helicopters had it.

I would assume it’s still around but not in use as Brainerd has a lot of H-60s in storage.

FltMech

[NutLoose]

Well it looks like the Puma replacement may well have been kicked down the road for another three years.

The Ministry of Defence has released details regarding the extension of a contract with Airbus Helicopters UK Ltd.This comes from a recent tender notice, labelled as the “Puma HC2 Follow-On Support Arrangement PP3 CF VTN”.

The contract specifically pertains to support for the Puma Mk2 helicopter. The current agreement will be extended “for a period of up to three years – 31 March 2028”. This deal, valued at a substantial £320 million, covers services from 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2028.


So that is $400,320,000.00 at the exchange rate at the moment

Cost of a Blackhawk


It's a four-blade twin-engine, medium-lift utility military helicopter that a popular company Sikorsky manufactures for the United States Army. The one unit costs around $3 to $26 million depending on the variant because each variant has its pros and cons.


So for the three year extension you could have bought 15 of the expensive Blackhawk airframes without support etc..

Stupid isn’t it, no wonder this country is going down the tubes when they make decisions like this!


https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/airbus-helicopters-to-support-puma-in-320m-mod-contract/


..

[sycamore]

Nutty, you must remember `we` don`t know the real `big picture`,which has changed again; I`m sure Rishi promised more `foreign aid` to India,in addition to what we already give them ,in the hope of a `big deal`,and then there are all the schools,hospitals,council buildings suffering from `stoneworm`*,which have to be repaired,as well as some prisons....

`stoneworm`*..reference for those who remember `Last of the Summer Wine`....Howard,etc...

[Blackhawk9]

I’m always cynical when talking about how any govt makes decisions when so many angles are considered (valid or not), but maybe if Australia (hopefully) with good success with H-60M, it will help push UK more in that direction?

Regarding the Australian Blackhawks, does anyone know what Australian specific modifications (if any) were incorporated in their order? I assume since the first aircraft have already arrived that they are pretty close to standard US Army spec, it seems like if they had tried to re-invent the wheel with their order the timeline would have been much longer.

As it stands currently all H-60M in Army spec come hoist/wench, external stores and extended range fuel capable, with additional mission equipment available in kit form, so pretty much a turn key solution for most situations it would seem, and I’m sure the domestic Australian aerospace industry is more than capable tackling any modifications needed in future.

FltMech

The first 3 new UH-60M's have arrived , these are the first of 7 fast tracked from US orders to get the Specops role/CT back on line , the main order of the remaining 33 will start delivery in late 24, the first 7 are std US Army spec the remaining 33 with come with Radar, FLIR, ESSS and tanks, Robertson internal tanks and various weapons fits as well as a full EW package , all these mods are fitted in one or other 60 series in US service unlike the S-70A-9's these UH-60M's are compatible with US Army supply system, after the delivery of the last machine the first 7 will be brought up to the std spec of the other 33.
The CH-47F in Aust service are compatible with US Army versions already and tied into the US supply train , only differences being extra comms gear and rotor brake fit, the upcoming AH-64's will be the same with minimal Austalian extras added and once again tied into the US Army supply train.

[212man]

It's a four-blade twin-engine, medium-lift utility military helicopter that a popular company Sikorsky manufactures for the United States Army. The one unit costs around $3 to $26 million depending on the variant because each variant has its pros and cons.

I don't know the source of this quote, but it's clearly a long way off the mark!

[NutLoose]

212 man, from here

https://executiveflyers.com/how-much-does-a-black-hawk-helicopter-cost/

[212man]

212 man, from here

https://executiveflyers.com/how-much-does-a-black-hawk-helicopter-cost/
They are just using a random number generator I think! A civilian S-92 is north of 30 million USD......

[torqueshow]

Lockheed Martin throwing their hats in the ring with a promise of 40% of all Black Hawk production to be in the UK with some export rights. Would be mad not to.

Lockheed Martin Black Hawk for UK medium fleet (https://verticalmag.com/press-releases/lockheed-martin-launches-team-black-hawk-for-uks-new-medium-helicopter-requirement/)

[minigundiplomat]

They are just using a random number generator I think! A civilian S-92 is north of 30 million USD......

300ish S92A built, 5000ish BH built, plus I am pretty sure Uncle Sam picked up much of the R&D costs for the BH. And it works, no working around eurotrash 'concepts' that don't deliver, or supply chains dependent on the French or Italians.

[212man]

300ish S92A built, 5000ish BH built, plus I am pretty sure Uncle Sam picked up much of the R&D costs for the BH. And it works, no working around eurotrash 'concepts' that don't deliver, or supply chains dependent on the French or Italians.
I am not contradicting anything you're saying, but that doesn't mean you can pick up a Black Hawk for the prices being quoted! The S92 cost is literally for just an airframe - any military BH procurement will include additional through life costs that will escalate the apparent unit costs. This report shows the US assuming a unit cost for H-60s of 53 million USD in 2018 dollars! (Page 18)

[minigundiplomat]

I am not disagreeing with you either (I think we are in violent agreement)

My point being the headline cost (per airframe) is equitable with what AH and AW are quoting, and then there is a through life cost. Aside from the BH being an established workhorse and known performer, I personally would not pin my supply chain on Macron not having a tantrum over fishing/electricity/not getting Anne Widdecombes phone number and slowing supply side, or some EU future fudge on border controls. Yes, AH and AW say they will produce it all in the UK, as do LM, and I don't believe any of them. However, I do believe in something arriving from the US in a time of crisis, rather than Europe.

[OvertHawk]

I am not disagreeing with you either (I think we are in violent agreement)

My point being the headline cost (per airframe) is equitable with what AH and AW are quoting, and then there is a through life cost. Aside from the BH being an established workhorse and known performer, I personally would not pin my supply chain on Macron not having a tantrum over fishing/electricity/not getting Anne Widdecombes phone number and slowing supply side, or some EU future fudge on border controls. Yes, AH and AW say they will produce it all in the UK, as do LM, and I don't believe any of them. However, I do believe in something arriving from the US in a time of crisis, rather than Europe.

I love AH products - best helicopters i have ever flown. But the service and support is appalling to the point of downright negligent.

Even if Macron is our best buddy and we pay Anne Widecombe to jump out of his birthday cake in a white dress and blonde wig to sing Appy Birthday Monsieur President (Got that image in your head now haven't you! ;-) AH are still utterly cr@p in terms of support and servicing. I suppose the one thing to be said is that if Vlad does start moving West then they'll all run over here again and we might actually be able to get some work out of them!

[Cyclic Hotline]

Very interesting to see Standard Aero and assumedly their expansive Fleetlands facility as the assembly location. Standard Aero is owned by The Carlyle Group - if you're not familiar wth who they are, you might need to do some Googling! I did have to laugh at the final sentence.

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2023/09/12/lockheed-touts-local-links-in-black-hawk-based-helicopter-pitch-to-uk/Lockheed touts local links in Black Hawk-based helicopter pitch to UKBy Sebastian Sprenger (https://www.defensenews.com/author/sebastian-sprenger) and Andrew Chuter (https://www.defensenews.com/author/andrew-chuter)
Sep 12, 11:27 AMLONDON — Lockheed Martin’s U.K. subsidiary unveiled a local industry team, capped by aircraft assembly lead StandardAero, to support its Black Hawk-based bid for the British military’s New Medium Helicopter program.The roster of local companies is meant to put a British face on a U.S. military product, with the head of Lockheed Martin UK, Paul Livingston, saying the aim is to have 40% of the prospective program realized in Britain.
The offer responds to a requirement for a new helicopter type, envisaged by the U.K. government to cost more than £800 million (U.S. $1 billion), that will replace four variants that have been in service for decades.

Lockheed is the last of three contenders to announce its industrial lineup for the much-delayed New Medium Helicopter program. Alongside rival bidders Airbus and Leonardo, the U.S.-based company is still awaiting the release of an invitation to negotiate for up to 44 helicopters.

In the meantime, the three contenders have wasted no time dissing their rivals’ industrial offers while talking up the U.K. credentials of their own, with local jobs and an enduring domestic helicopter-making capability becoming key discriminators in their efforts to woo the Defence Ministry.

Italian company Leonardo, which has made helicopters in the U.K. for decades, recently launched a campaign supporting its AW149 bid by labelling its Yeovil factory where the rotorcraft would be built as the “Home of British Helicopter.” And French firm Airbus is proposing to assemble its H175M at its commercial jet wing factory in North Wales.

With a general election expected next year, who wins the industrial argument might go a long way toward deciding who secures the order.

According to Livingston, a win for Lockheed would translate into 600 new, high-skilled jobs in Britain, plus assured work for decades after the delivery of all helicopters. He pointed to the case of the Lockheed-made F-35 jet, parts of which are made in the U.K., as an example of how a U.S.-developed product would help boost the local economy in participating nations.

Livingston took several jabs at the “fragile” competitors’ offerings during a news conference at the DSEI defense show (https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/dsei/) in London, saying the Black Hawk proposal was the only option developed purely for the military.

“Some are designed to survive a bump on an oil rig; ours was designed to survive getting shot at,” he said.

[60FltMech]

As big a fan as I am of the platform, the Lockheed spokesman’s comment about the toughness of the H-60 seems pretty lame when you compare how the original Sikorsky team went after the UTAAS (and subsequent) contracts.

The best they can do is take cheap shots at the other companies, instead of being all in demonstrating why the product they are offering, (the product that *right now* can fill this role, unlike the other products on offer) should be chosen.

Of course, if the money isn’t there right now, none of that matters and maybe Lockheed sees that?

FltMech

[Nescafe]

“Some are designed to survive a bump on an oil rig; ours was designed to survive getting shot at,”

​​​​​​​Never were truer words spoken.

[ericferret]

​​​​​​​Never were truer words spoken.

I seem to remember that one of the deciding factors for UTTAS was the loss of a demonstrator Blackhawk.
Not an ideal way to demonstrate your aircraft but it proved it's ability to protect it's crew in a crash turning what might have been a fatal accident into a surviveable event.
Having spent the last 10 years working on Leonardo products I know what I would choose.
Blackhawk, proven, reliable, tough.
What we will get is a politically driven decision.
So I expect another NH90 type debacle.

[212man]

I seem to remember that one of the deciding factors for UTTAS was the loss of a demonstrator Blackhawk.
Not an ideal way to demonstrate your aircraft but it proved it's ability to protect it's crew in a crash turning what might have been a fatal accident into a surviveable event.
Having spent the last 10 years working on Leonardo products I know what I would choose.
Blackhawk, proven, reliable, tough.
What we will get is a politically driven decision.
So I expect another NH90 type debacle.
I think John Dixon has posted the photos previously

[Hilife]

I don't know the source of this quote, but it's clearly a long way off the mark!

Not at all. You can purchase an airworthy restricted category UH-60A for less than $3m.

- any military BH procurement will include additional through life costs that will escalate the apparent unit costs.

ALL, commercial or military helicopter procurements have through life costs.

The rule of thumb is that the platform acquisition cost is about a third of the 'Total Life Cost (TLC).

TLC’s would include the initial purchase price, then costs associated with scheduled and corrective maintenance, repairs, refurbishment, overhauls, etc, account for the additional two thirds of costings incurred for the remainder of the helicopter’s ‘In-Service’ life.

[NutLoose]

This was in the defence review 2020 thread in the military aned was published in The Times.

Ben Wallace was accused of sparking a diplomatic incident with the US government after threatening to cancel an order of American-made military helicopters intended for use by Britain’s special forces.

The former defence secretary issued the warning directly to his counterpart in the Pentagon last month before an agreed position had been reached among ministers back in London.

The row, which embroiled the British and American ambassadors, forced Downing Street to intervene in an attempt to defuse tensions.

Wallace, who formally stepped down as defence secretary on Thursday, had hoped to succeed Jens Stoltenberg as the secretary-general of Nato.

In June, Wallace acknowledged that his campaign to take over the military alliance had failed, after President Biden refused to back his candidacy.

Stoltenberg, a former prime minister of Norway, has extended his term by a year. Allied leaders are said to be looking for a former head of state to replace him.

Last month, Wallace publicly voiced his frustration over the lack of support from the White House, telling The Sunday Times: “Why do you not support your closest ally when they put forward a candidate? I think it’s a fair question.”

It can now be disclosed that Wallace, 53, spent his final weeks in office pushing to cancel the deal, worth billions, to buy military helicopters for UK special forces.

The contract involves the purchase of 14 Chinook H-47 extended-range helicopters made by Boeing, which is based in Arlington, Virginia. The first of the new aircraft had been expected to be delivered by 2026.

America said that the helicopters would improve the UK’s capabilities and its ability to contribute to joint operations with the US and other Nato partners.

However, UK sources said that in recent weeks Wallace began to express serious misgivings about the deal. During internal discussions, he proposed cancelling it as part of a cost-cutting exercise to relieve pressure on the MoD’s tight budgets.

Sources close to Wallace said he had tried to cancel the project during the last spending review, but had been assured that delaying it would produce savings of close to £200 million. The costs have since ballooned, rising by approximately £500 million to about £2.3 billion.

Wallace has argued that he could buy two Airbus A400M Atlas transport aircraft for £500 million. The UK’s 60-strong Chinook fleet costs approximately £14,000 an hour to run, a source said.

There is also a debate about whether the UK needs the capability. A source close to Wallace said Britain already had the biggest heavy lift fleet in Europe, and that the money could be better spent investing in medium-lift support helicopters, which are cheaper to run.

There are also concerns that the UK lacks the communications, satellite technology and transport to carry out special forces operations with the Chinooks. “Spending £2.3 billion on this will mean we will have less to spend on medium-lift helicopters that will be British-assembled and made,” the source added.

Others in government disagreed, with one describing the proposal as “mad”. A second added: “It seemed like he was trying to piss off the Americans. That is certainly how some have read it.”

Another said the move led to progress on the deal grinding to a halt. “Everybody realised this was mad and we’ve been sitting on it over the summer. It has certainly caused a flare-up. These things are done on a very long programme of activity, so disrupting all that is not cool.”

A source close to Wallace categorically denied that the issue was in any way related to the Nato job, branding any suggested link “pathetic” and pointing out that he had raised the prospect of cancelling the deal two years ago. They added that Wallace’s concerns were based entirely around cost, capability and the actual value of the deal to the UK.

With the US becoming increasingly alarmed, Jane Hartley, the US ambassador to the UK, wrote to No 10 on August 1 to seek clarity on the future of the deal. Downing Street is understood to have tried to provide assurances to Hartley.

Separately, Karen Pierce, the British ambassador to the US, is understood to have received representations from Washington. In a letter sent back to London, she is understood to have warned No 10 it was a “bad idea” to cancel the deal. “She was very unhappy,” a source familiar with her letter said.

A source said British officials had also tried to reassure their counterparts that the issue would be resolved when Wallace left government. “There has been a lot of reconciliation, just to keep the US reassured.” He was replaced as defence secretary last week by Grant Shapps.

In a letter on August 10 to Lloyd Austin, the US secretary of state for defence, Wallace is said to have made clear that he was considering cancelling the deal.

A source said Wallace’s letter was sent despite there being no agreed position in government. “Meanwhile Wallace is writing to his counterpart in the US saying this might happen, when it’s still being considered privately within the government. It’s quite destructive behaviour.”

It is unclear whether Downing Street was aware or authorised the letter. No 10 declined to comment when approached, as did spokesmen for Hartley and Pierce.

With Shapps taking over from Wallace, sources said the issue remained a “live discussion” in government and would be one of the top items in the new defence secretary’s in-tray. Sunak is understood to be of the view that Shapps should press ahead with the deal.

The Ministry of Defence said last night: “There has been no change to the UK’s future heavy-lift helicopter portfolio. We keep all capability requirements under review to ensure we have a balanced and affordable portfolio which best meets our needs. The US is one of the UK’s closest allies and our defence and intelligence partnership is, and will always be, one of the strongest in the world.”

[JohnDixson]

60 FM wrote:
”As big a fan as I am of the platform, the Lockheed spokesman’s comment about the toughness of the H-60 seems pretty lame when you compare how the original Sikorsky team went after the UTAAS (and subsequent) contracts.

The best they can do is take cheap shots at the other companies, instead of being all in demonstrating why the product they are offering, (the product that *right now* can fill this role, unlike the other products on offer) should be chosen. ”

What the original Sikorsky team did was design and flight test a vehicle that met all the performance, crashworthiness, and ballistic vulnerability/survivability standards that were specified in detail by the US Army. We then “went after it” by incorporating fixes for development testing problems into the test aircraft* before the fly-off, and winning fly-off competition against the Boeing UTTAS design, and by the way, demonstrating a hover lift performance advantage of roughly 2000 lbs over the Boeing ship along the way on two separate instances.
*it was learned later that Boeing chose to propose solutions to their development problems in their production proposal, which of course they were free to do.
* A key difference therefore was that the Army had one competitor with a product that met specs and was production ready and another with a good deal of retesting ahead of them ( larger main and tail rotor, e.g. ).

[212man]

I don't know the source of this quote, but it's clearly a long way off the mark!

Not at all. You can purchase an airworthy restricted category UH-60A for less than $3m.

- any military BH procurement will include additional through life costs that will escalate the apparent unit costs.

ALL, commercial or military helicopter procurements have through life costs.

The rule of thumb is that the platform acquisition cost is about a third of the 'Total Life Cost (TLC).

TLC’s would include the initial purchase price, then costs associated with scheduled and corrective maintenance, repairs, refurbishment, overhauls, etc, account for the additional two thirds of costings incurred for the remainder of the helicopter’s ‘In-Service’ life.
They stopped making UH-60As 34 years ago, so I'm not sure why that is even a conversation - clearly this programme will be buying new-build aircraft.

Of course civilian aircraft have TLCs, but they are not quoted when discussing purchase costs in the same way as a military procurement programme. They are more like cars - you just quote the sticker price, which is paid from CAPEX, and then budget the spares and maintenance costs (usually via a form of PBH) to be paid out of OPEX.

[Lonewolf_50]

l(Got that image in your head now haven't you! ;-) Not sure how much rye whiskey it will take to get that image out of my brain. :p
I don't know the source of this quote, but it's clearly a long way off the mark! Not at all. You can purchase an airworthy restricted category UH-60A for less than $3m. But can you afford to support it? The Army's A models were worked pretty hard over the years. Last I heard (and yes, this is second and third hand info) was that maybe a dozen or so A's were left, after the A to L conversion in the 00's kept the best ones in the inventory.
They stopped making UH-60As 34 years ago, so I'm not sure why that is even a conversation - clearly this programme will be buying new-build aircraft. Indeed.
The M is a good upgrade on the L.
Whether or not to hold out for the new GE engine (CT 901), go with the recently fielded YT706 (some of the Army's MH Blackhawks use that more powerful engine) or stick with the venerable and reliable T-700 is the kind of program decision that probably needs a thorough look.

For John D: thanks again, as ever, for clarifying the record on UTTAS. :ok:

[helihub]

A key differential between the potential bidders is the military experience each have with the platform they are bidding with.

Airbus - have delivered 52 H175s total - all in the civil market, and converted a civil demonstrator H175 to a mostly-military spec and painted "H175M" on the outside. The nearest they have to "military" are the 7 SAR examples in Hong Kong and a handful of VVIP role aircraft (which is not an NMH requirement)
Leonardo - have delivered 120 AW149/AW189s, of which 31 are the military AW149
Sikorsky - have delivered 5000+ UH-60s of many different variants. Practically every single one was delivered for military use (a few in recent years were produced solely for firefighting under the "FireHawk" nomenclature)

The NMH program for 44 helicopters replace Bell 212, Bell 412 Griffin, AS365N3 Dauphin and the venerable Puma - and these four types covered a wide range of roles, including troop transport, SAR, jungle ops, Special Forces Ops and many more no doubt. Given the experience built up by the Black Hawk, that means that Sikorsky effectively have off-the-shelf tried-and-tested variants of their platform ready to go. Airbus and Leonardo are thus a distance behind and most of the required roles will need design and testing time - I suspect some of the design work is being done now while we all wait for MoD to decide if/when they are going to issue the paperwork.

Interesting side note - the Airbus "H175M NMH demonstrator" is currently on a ferry flight back to Marignane after spending 10 days in Saudi Arabia

[Numbers from Parapex Media]

[chopper2004]

I have been here since tuesday....and I did attend the L-M Sikorsky brief on that dya, with L-M UK MD chatting and welcoming the Standard Aero to the club

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x2000/team_blackhawk_1_e6dcf284a08a34de7e93456bcc14eb33985a7cdb.jp g
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/team_blackhawk_3_9389f8c4c81c00385e563becd0e319f5230b25ca.jp g
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/team_blackhawk_4_0c05deda67fff038d9efcaa9defe44cf83212b3c.jp g
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x2000/team_blackhawk_5_c923b783e3ecb1f820ee3e5de2301fe100390cff.jp g
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/team_blackhawk2_4f6e012412bc15522f26a3e42b47c7203c66dc04.jpg

Leonardo brought their AW189 , trucked it in...

https://scontent-lcy1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/378291247_10161596520456490_4795395201301569485_n.jpg?stp=cp 6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5614bc&_nc_ohc=ZGPmqX3kntQAX9sSWhB&_nc_ht=scontent-lcy1-1.xx&oh=00_AfDsnd_pMQIESOPJ5iS2jruwBBL6zssF2B7wiPg5EVKi4w&oe=65092B6A
and I think its the same one they had 2016 Farnborough where they announced extra weight.

If anyone is wondering where the Airbus Helicopters H175M demonstrator it is in Saudi Arabia right now..

cheers

[60FltMech]

Interesting artists rendering, seems to use conformal fuel tanks on the ESSS fairings. Or it’s a cruddy picture they threw together. Also depicts no infrared suppression on the exhaust, great for maintenance and less drag, but probably not realistic for a combat aircraft.

Also seems to indicate the cabin seating will contain the old crew chief/gunner seats, which are terrible, instead of the rotating gunners seat, which is also made by Martin Baker.

Oh well, in the words of Monty Python: “It’s only a model…”

👍 on the 701D engines though!

FltMech

[SASless]

Nutty,

Might want to proof read what you post when you quote someone.

In a letter on August 10 to Lloyd Austin, the US secretary of state for defence, Wallace is said to have made clear that he was considering cancelling the deal.

Lloyd Austin is the US Secretary of Defense (SecDef) which is a Department of Defense (DOD) office.

US Secretary of State (SecState) is a separate position not held by Austin that is an office in the Department of State which is a completely different department from DOD within the Executive Branch of the Government.

Each are a member of the President's Cabinet.

[JohnDixson]

When the US Army issued their Request or Proposal in 1972, it was the result of at least 4 years of serious study. That request was based on a very detailed Material Need Document, which in turn was in part based on recent work providing standards for crashworthiness and ballistic survivability/vulnerability, studies of the UH-1 statistics from Vietnam ( which were being studied before that war came to a close ) etc etc. That document was in fact pretty much a detailed specification, including very specific performance and handling requirements ( the famous UTTAS Maneuver as only one example ).
Is there a similar spec-type document published for the Puma replacement?

[Bengo]

When the US Army issued their Request or Proposal in 1972, it was the result of at least 4 years of serious study. That request was based on a very detailed Material Need Document, which in turn was in part based on recent work providing standards for crashworthiness and ballistic survivability/vulnerability, studies of the UH-1 statistics from Vietnam ( which were being studied before that war came to a close ) etc etc. That document was in fact pretty much a detailed specification, including very specific performance and handling requirements ( the famous UTTAS Maneuver as only one example ).
Is there a similar spec-type document published for the Puma replacement?

I very much doubt it. The original US Army procurement was founded on wholly different assumptions . The US was prepared to pay ( and wait) for a design, build and support activity. The UK professes to want an OTS buy. Now, or next year, or maybe the year after that.

Just as War is the conduct of diplomacy by other means, military procurement in peacetime is an extension of domestic policy. Politics rules all.

N

[JohnDixson]

Understand-thanks.

John

[[email protected]]

The UK professes to want an OTS buy. Now, or next year, or maybe the year after that. Yes, they have been saying that for 40 years or more - started out as a Puma/Wessex replacement.......

[SASless]

The UK never does an OTS purchase (at least to my memory re helicopter purchases) as they always have to UK-ize whatever they buy.

Examples....Westland S-70's, Chinooks, and Apaches.

How off the shelf can the UK purchase of say.....the Sikorsky UH-60M be in reality and what would need to be UK specific differences?

[sycamore]

RH drive,`furry dice`,mirror for `make-up`,Sharon &Tracey` stickers on windscreens,fully automatic,as no-one can display `airmanship `these days,and camouflaged in rainbow colors,,,,,,

[JohnDixson]

SAS, I’d guess that there are folks still in harness that recall the previous Westland UH-60 effort aimed at the Saudi requirement. The Saudi’s ended up buying straight off the line UH-60s at FMS ( Foreign Military Sales ) pricing-essentially what the US Army was paying. One would assume this could be one option here, and then, if the RAF needed some specific radio gear for instance, they could do it themselves. I’m not at all plugged in to the specific RAF requirements, thus my suggestion may be at odds with RAF needs.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

The UK never does an OTS purchase (at least to my memory re helicopter purchases) as they always have to UK-ize whatever they buy.

Examples....Westland S-70's, Chinooks, and Apaches.

How off the shelf can the UK purchase of say.....the Sikorsky UH-60M be in reality and what would need to be UK specific differences?

64E is pretty off the shelf iirc, as is the apparently stalled CH-47 fleet expansion. We've gotten a lot better at OTS since we realised we are broke!

[Hilife]

An FMS UH-60M solution does not make sense for the UK, as the Mike is uniquely US Army specific, particularly on the COMM’s front, so the UK would just end up stripping out very expensive hardware and placing it on a shelf marked ‘Not for Use’ to gather dust, before it eventually ends up in a landfill site….or on eBay.

Better to purchase a baseline S-70M, which is cheaper, would also offer better weight margins for additional UK specific options, and also better performance than the 60M in a Baseline configuration side-by-side fly-off.

Regarding previous comments, I don’t see the YT706 as a realistic option, as this is not something Sikorsky offers customers, as it is a post-delivery modification (UH-60M to MH-60M upgrade) installed by LM and unique to the 160th.

The above PR photo is of an S-70M. The Baseline 70M does not include IRS exhausts or swivel gunner seats, as they are options, so I suspect LMUK are just sticking to the script on any PR photos.

Shame about the bitching comment, very unprofessional.

Oh, and yes I am well aware that the A series of this model is long gone, especially when the OEM is currently building Mike’s & Whiskey’s.

[212man]

Oh, and yes I am well aware that the A series of this model is long gone, especially when the OEM is currently building Mike’s & Whiskey’s.

So what was the point of your earlier comments?

[Rigga]

Talking of OTS purchases - How are the 100+ EC145 (UH-71?) fleet coping in the US? Are they still the Bee's Knees?
I'm interested because they're made of tinsel and honeycomb compared to brick 'sheds' such as Hueys, Chinooks and Blackhawks.

[HeliHenri]

Talking of OTS purchases - How are the 100+ EC145 (UH-71?) fleet coping in the US? Are they still the Bee's Knees?
I'm interested because they're made of tinsel and honeycomb compared to brick 'sheds' such as Hueys, Chinooks and Blackhawks.

there are about 500 UH72 in the US Army now but you can’t compare them with Blackhawks or Chinooks because they perform only logistics,support and now training missions.

[SASless]

Seems the Australians have figured it out and are going to Blackhawks while grounding the existing fleet currently doing the tasks following two accidents one of them being a fatal crash that killed four people.

That is a voter of confidence in the Blackhawk M model as I see it.

[trim it out]

Seems the Australians have figured it out and are going to Blackhawks while grounding the existing fleet currently doing the tasks following two accidents one of them being a fatal crash that killed four people.

That is a voter of confidence in the Blackhawk M model as I see it.
Slightly different situation as they have had BH previously so there is corporate knowledge there.

For the British, I'm yet to be convinced it's not a political decision, regardless of what the MoD advise/request/need.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Slightly different situation as they have had BH previously so there is corporate knowledge there.

For the British, I'm yet to be convinced it's not a political decision, regardless of what the MoD advise/request/need.

Unfortunately it is a purely political decision and I suspect that is why it has been delayed. Everything points to the Blackhawk being the best aircraft for the NMH program- proven, reliable and capable. However, the Government want the answer to be AW149. They are now panicking as there is no reasonable question for NMH to which 149 is the answer. They have now delayed the program so they can look for a way to slant the requirements so that the plastic non-troop carrier with no combat record can somehow be considered the answer.
As long as the Blackhawk is the clear answer to the question, the Government will not formally ask it.

[Mee3]

If political is not a factor, they did be flying S Pumas since a decade ago. Why bother with BH?

[PPRuNeUser0211]

If political is not a factor, they did be flying S Pumas since a decade ago. Why bother with BH?
You're confusing politics with "no money" there!

[212man]

If political is not a factor, they did be flying S Pumas since a decade ago. Why bother with BH?
Who is flying S (Super?) Pumas?

[Lucifer Morningstar]

With the Australian Army just announcing the permanent grounding/retirement of the Taipan fleet, am I the only person concerned that an NH90 fleet has become available at the same time the UK look for a new medium-lift helicopter? How may Taipans do the Aussies have? I know the running costs are astronomical, and the support is comical, but a 'fire sale' price might just attract the bean-counters in MoD to make yet another galactically stupid decision.

[Blackhawk9]

With the RAAF just announcing the permanent grounding/retirement of the Taipan fleet, am I the only person concerned that an NH90 fleet has become available at the same time the UK look for a new medium-lift helicopter? How may Taipans do the Aussies have? I know the running costs are astronomical, and the support is comical, but a 'fire sale' price might just attract the bean-counters in MoD to make yet another galactically stupid decision.
Its the Army not RAAF, RAAF haven't had choppers since late 80's and evidently the UK MD have already been approached and they are not interested.

[[email protected]]

If our Govt can kick the HS2 can down the road with impunity, what chance does NMH have of seeing the light of day?

[SASless]

The UK MoD does make some interesting decisions re buying, servicing, and operating fleets of aircraft don't they?

Not that the US DoD is much better but at least we do come up with some fit for purpose aircraft designs then keep them flying (although some decisions do. make one's hair itch).

How many times have the fighter mafia tried to kill off the A-10 Wart Hog?

Sometimes one just. has admit reality and go with a proven design that is entirely fit for purpose. and gain benefits due that product line being mature and well supported (if national pride and politics can be overcome).

Westlands might very well be able to build the UK 60M's under license from Sikorsky and the decision to do that can be inoculated against bone headed thinking at the Mod and Westlands.

[[email protected]]

Westlands might very well be able to build the UK 60M's under license from Sikorsky and the decision to do that can be inoculated against bone headed thinking at the Mod and Westlands. That's just rehashing the 40 year-old plan of Michael Heseltine and it hasn't got any better with age....

[ShyTorque]

RAF / NAVY / Merlins……only two (fairly) careful previous owners?

[NutLoose]

Time to dust off the old WG30 design :}

[PPRuNeUser0211]

RAF / NAVY / Merlins……only two (fairly) careful previous owners?
If the Army took the Merlins for NMH would they be the first airframe to serve in all 3 services? (Airframe, not type). Wondering if any of the gazelles switcheroo'd in their time?

[charliegolf]

Time to dust off the old WG30 design :}

Ah, the ole Westland Wardrobe:ok: When it's full, you can't move it!

CG

[NutLoose]

But it does look the part ;)


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1195x845/gwg30_2_0148632dc1b168d632acd0c83909914be8df8a72.jpg

[md 600 driver]

If the Army took the Merlins for NMH would they be the first airframe to serve in all 3 services? (Airframe, not type). Wondering if any of the gazelles switcheroo'd in their time?
gazelles were used by all 3 services 4 if you count the marines

[trim it out]

gazelles were used by all 3 services 4 if you count the marines
I believe pba was getting at have any specific tail numbers operated under all 3 services (Booties have RN ID cards). Some Gz gen here (https://gazellesquadron.co.uk/about/westland-gazelle)

It's probably a stretch to claim a training aircraft like the Juno has operated under 3 services, depending on which Sqn was flying it at the time?

[NutLoose]

Chipmunk served all three.

[OvertHawk]

But it does look the part ;)


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1195x845/gwg30_2_0148632dc1b168d632acd0c83909914be8df8a72.jpg

Looked the part then fell apart!

[SASless]

Legacy airframes have a lot of merit that new unproven, unbuilt, and un-tested designs have to offer.

The new Night Stalker Thread here at Military Aviation has a very nice photograph of a Blue Camo paint scheme on a 160th Blackhawk seen in northern Alabama.

[OvertHawk]

Anyone care to bet on when the Puma HC3 programme will be announced?

[212man]

Anyone care to bet on when the Puma HC3 programme will be announced?
sad but true

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Anyone care to bet on when the Puma HC3 programme will be announced?

The current Puma fleet will be wheeled into a secret hangar under cover of darkness. There will be sounds of drilling and hammering for many weeks, and then the new Puma HC3’s will emerge, and bear an uncanny resemblance to the Australian Taipan, albeit with RAF roundels. 😜

[Hot_LZ]

…and it’ll cost a fortune! Far more than just buying new helicopters in hindsight.

LZ

[NutLoose]

Or they could be wheeled out of the hangar and a mass scrapping carried out behind screens to be followed by a capability gap of many years…. Ohh wait, that was Nimrod.

[Ammo Boiler]

Legacy airframes have a lot of merit that new unproven, unbuilt, and un-tested designs have to offer.
.
Just keep the Pumas then?

[SASless]

NO.....as they are. not fit for purpose.....unless you dumb down the specification so they are.

How would YOU sped a new Puma variant that would match or exceed the capability of a UH-60M?

[Ammo Boiler]

I was winding you up SAS.
Blackhawk is the only logical choice... logic however being something we have lacked for considerable time.

[ericferret]

I was winding you up SAS.
Blackhawk is the only logical choice... logic however being something we have lacked for considerable time.


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/techandscience/the-lesson-of-britain-s-new-us-army-apache-helicopter-just-buy-american/ar-AA1iTMMl?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=608d1827db944ef9b1bbda01ddb500e8&ei=14

[melmothtw]

Legacy airframes have a lot of merit that new unproven, unbuilt, and un-tested designs have to offer.

The new Night Stalker Thread here at Military Aviation has a very nice photograph of a Blue Camo paint scheme on a 160th Blackhawk seen in northern Alabama.


All legacy airframes were once unproven, unbuilt and untested designs, so not sure your logic really holds up.

[Hilife]

True, but for anyone looking at a new and untried (In-Role) platform, 'Risk' and unknown 'NRE/RoM costs' alone, should be front-and-centre considerations on your KUR radar.