Helicopter Replacements?

[Rakshasa]

The danger inherent in this thread is the apparent acceptance is that the rotary wing fleet is adequate now, with the numbers outlined in the first post.

It ain't.

[snip]

What is needed is to boost numbers and address the shortfall with a really big buy of about 24 new helicopters (a fully folding Merlin would fit the bill) and then replace the aircraft being retired with new aircraft on a one-for-one basis. 44 NH90s or Cougars to replace the Pumas, a similar number of amphib Merlins to replace the Junglie Sea Kings and CH-47Fs to replace the Chinooks.

Doing some fag packet maths and assuming an ideal world, (ha!) you'd be looking at about 60 units to replace the 40 odd Pumas and make up the 38% cab shortfall (jungly lack not included).

Then assuming Merlins and not Cougars or god forbid, Superhawks, at a unit price around £23 mil a pop... we're talking about a £1.4 billion contract without all the needed extras and no accounting for snags....

Heh, not holding my breath.

[Gnd]

Just on minor point - the same idiots are still in power and we won't have people to fly any of these pie-in-the-sky theories anyway?

[Stitchbitch]

Why not 'westernise' helicopters such as the Mi-17 and Mi-26, which have proven hot'n'high capabilities and are dirt cheap and get them in as a stop gap until we can afford some wonderous 'wasteland' plastic cabs? Instant capabilities hole(s) fixed. Righteo, wheres my Gems award....

Stitch ducks for cover...

[PlasticCabDriver]

Why is that not the case now i.e. why is it not necessary to upgrade the gearbox and transmission now? Surely the increased available torque from the Makila engine will require these changes more so today with a much older airframe.

Very simple. It makes it unaffordable. Upgrading the gearbox would be a capability enhancement. The Puma is not being 'upgraded', it is being extended. Any hint of capability enhancement will be rejected at the first hurdle. A better transmission would be fantastic, with higher MAUM etc etc, but it is not necessary to upgrade the transmission, the aircraft will work just fine with the old one. The IPTs and requirements managers have to justify every aspect of every single requirement in an entire program to pass scrutiny, necessary will (usually) make it through, fantastic to have will not. It is a vast amount of work. And no, I have never been a requirements manager!

To answer your next question, the Makilas are not going in because they are more powerful, they are going in because they are the most economical option to provide Puma with engines with anticipators. The extra power is a bonus. The extra power will really make itself felt H&H where the 3C4s currently run out of puff. If it was just about power, we could go for 4C4s, but they don't have anticipators either. Elsewhere, where the performance is not limited by the engines, but by the transmission, there will be a torque limit, and a torquemeter to measure it on, just like any other helicopter. It will remain the pilot's responsibility not to exceed it.

Why do we have to go for these "making a purse out of a sow's ear" programmes which as we all know will result with a far greater bill than going for a modern replacement aircraft.

Because we do not have the extra upfront money now that a new airframe would cost. It will be cheaper (allegedly, I share your pessimism on this point!) over the planned 10 year life of the Mk2 than buying something new. By the time we need to start funding a Mk2 replacement by 2022, the money will be available (again, allegedly...). So we have to somehow keep going with what we have got. Yes, we should have a modern replacement. We should also have enough money to buy and own outright sufficient modern AT to sustain current ops, and we should have enough money to stop our quarters falling down, but we don't. Until we are funded better, we can complain all we like about what we should have, we still can't afford it.

Sorry, rambled on a bit, I'll stop there.

[MReyn24050]

PlasticCabDriver

Thank you for your response. Back in the late 1990s Turbomeca were very keen to come up with a "package" that would enable the MoD to buy and install Makila into the Puma but the the airframe desk at the time would not support an uprated engine installation without the corresponding transmission and gearbox upgrading. I find it a pleasant surprise that they are now happy to go down this route. There has always been a certain amount of disagreement between the engine manufacturer and the airframe manufacturer regarding the engine to airframe integration hence the problems that occured when the last flector pack mods were introduced. It is great news to hear that this has all been resolved and both manufacturers and the Puma IPT are supporting an upgrade that does not involve any requirement to upgrade the transmission. I am sure the Helicopter Engine IPT will fully support such a proposal as the operating costs of the Makila are far more economical than that of the Turmo IIIC4 and I am sure that Turbomeca would only be too pleased to come up with a total support package. Mind you I am sure there are still restrictions and a certain amount of confusion regarding what the limits are when about operating at the higher MAUW ( the figure of 1% of the life comes to mind), I hope that the introduction of the HC Mk2 will overcome this problem also.

[ppheli]

I heard that four N3 Dauphins were on order to replace the 109s, but in true Hereford style, it's being denied all round.

[Blackhawk9]

The Australian Army are replacing 34 (if they don't crash any more)S-70 Blackhawks with NH-90's(big mistake!) in the next couple of years i'm sure the RAF could buy them cheap and the guys at 33 sqn would be happy with second hand Aussie Blackhawks over refurbed Pumas.

[serf]

and the gazelles?

[PlasticCabDriver]

MReyn24050, your memory is better than mine!

Mind you I am sure there are still restrictions and a certain amount of confusion regarding what the limits are when about operating at the higher MAUW ( the figure of 1% of the life comes to mind), I hope that the introduction of the HC Mk2 will overcome this problem also.

The MAUM of the Mk2 will be 7400kg, without restriction, in line with models like the 330J and 330L. The airframe is quite capable of taking 7.4, it is the lack of SE performance of the 3C4s that limits the mk1 to 7t. There will also be no need for the 1% restriction either. The proposed scheme also involves a rewire of the entire airframe, this will reduce the basic weight, so there will be an effective payload increase of, I think, around 500 kgs (if that figure is wrong I'm sure someone will correct me!).

If the final product actually enters service with the current design intact, it will be a huge step up from the Mk1. We must wait and see whether it survives contact with the enemy first!

Blackhawk9

i'm sure the RAF could buy them cheap and the guys at 33 sqn would be happy with second hand Aussie Blackhawks over refurbed Pumas.

I'm sure the RAF could, and you would have to ask 33 whether they would be happy or not, but by the time you have established a Blackhawk IPT, set up supply contracts, paid QinetiQ vast sums of money to certify them iaw Def Stan blah blah blah, modified them to meet UK requirements for avionics, comms etc, had QinetiQ recertify it after the mods have been modded, written the RTS, set up an OCU, found a simulator somwehere, trained the QHIs in the US, trained the engineers in the US etc etc, they won't actually be that cheap, or that quick.

[PTT]

Question from Stitchbitch:

Why not 'westernise' helicopters such as the Mi-17 and Mi-26, which have proven hot'n'high capabilities and are dirt cheap and get them in as a stop gap until we can afford some wonderous 'wasteland' plastic cabs? Instant capabilities hole(s) fixed.

Answered by PlasticCabDriver:

by the time you have established a [Blackhawk] Mi-17/26 IPT, set up supply contracts, paid QinetiQ vast sums of money to certify them iaw Def Stan blah blah blah, modified them to meet UK requirements for avionics, comms etc, had QinetiQ recertify it after the mods have been modded, written the RTS, set up an OCU, found a simulator somwehere, trained the QHIs in the [US] Former Soviet Union, trained the engineers in the [US] Former Soviet Union etc etc, they won't actually be that cheap, or that quick.

[ericferret]

A number of Super Pumas have been sold off by Bristows and have gone to the German Border Police.

Wonder why the MOD had no interest in acquiring them or if they even new they existed.
The North Sea operators are renewing their fleets and I suspect a number of airframes will be for sale.

[NURSE]

so the Purchase of MAN trucks is unnecessary?
I would sugest the Humble Lorry is more flexible and moves more stores and pax than your precious support helecopter fleet. BTW what carries your fuel and spares and ground support elements the majority of the time?

Maybe if you want to save more money for flying trucks then why not downgrade the Drivers salaries to the equivilent of an RLC Private instead of the over paid egos normally found in the pilot seats.

[8-15fromOdium]

Not one to defend the 2 winged master race normally but I must take issue with:

over paid egos normally found in the pilot seats

I can't remember seeing to many of these in during my 12 years in the SH world.

NURSE you make a serious point about trucks, but gratuitous abuse always undermines an argument

The lesson 'identified' from operational theatres is we need more SH, now can we get back to the debate of how we get them.

[PTT]

I would sugest the Humble Lorry is more flexible...

Needs a road really. Not massively flexible in the mountains of Afghanistan or the Western desert of Iraq, is it?

why not downgrade the Drivers salaries to the equivilent of an RLC Private

Fishing?

[Razor61]

Found this on the MoD Website relating to the subject:-

The Puma/Gazelle Integrated Project Team (PG IPT) is part of DG Helicopters within DE&S. The IPT provides through life equipment management, and engineering and logistic support for the Puma and Gazelle helicopter fleets operated by Joint Helicopter Command (JHC). This includes technical support including airworthiness management, configuration control and publications provision, logistic support including spares provision and management of rotable component repairs, and management of Depth maintenance.

Puma Helicopter
The PG IPT has 5 locations, the Headquarters and Service Support Organisation is based at Yeovilton in Somerset and is divided into 4 principal areas: Engineering/Logistics, Business Management, Commercial and Depth Management. With the Puma Depth Support Hub at RAF Benson in Oxfordshire, the Gazelle Depth Support Hub at Middle Wallop in Hampshire, a Resident Project Officer at Eurocopter in Marignane in Southern France and the Puma HC2 Team at Abbeywood, the IPT comprises of approximately 110 military and civil service staff.

The IPT supports the Puma and Gazelle helicopter platforms on operations with:

The Puma HCMk1 operated by the Royal Air Force and used for transporting personnel and equipment around the battlefield. It can carry up to 16 equipped soldiers or lift a load of 2 tonnes, and has particularly good performance in hot temperatures and at high altitudes. The fleet is expected to continue in Service until 2010 when it will start to be replaced by the updated Puma HC2. The Puma HC2 will continue in Service until 2022.The smaller Gazelle AHMk1 is operated by the Army in the reconnaissance and liaison roles. While the formal Out of Service Date for Gazelle remains 2018, the MOD is examining options to replace Gazelle, and it is unlikely to remain in service much beyond 2012.

The IPT is effectively operating across the CADMID cycle with Gazelle AH1 and Puma HC1 operating in the In-Service Disposal phases, and Puma HC2 in the Assessment and Development and Manufacturing phases.

---- end snip---

So, what aircraft are the MoD looking at to replace the Gazelle? I take it they are looking towards Eurocopter with the EC-135/145 or not?

[MReyn24050]

Puma HC Mk2

Further to the posts of PlasticCabDriver and Razor61 here is a photograph of the present Puma/Gazelle Integrated Project Team's Leader : Gp Capt Tim Brandt ( standing second from the left) at the signing of the Assessment Phase (AP) contract for the Life Extension Programme for the RAF’s fleet of Puma Mk1 helicopters which took place at the Paris Air Show 2007 on the 21 June 2007.

As previously stated the Assessment Phase, scheduled for the next 12 months, will consider the detailed technical, operational and cost implications of the upgrade. Successful completion of the AP will lead to a full Development and Manufacture contract for delivery of the main programme.
It is also reported that in a development reflecting the Defence Industrial Strategy’s emphasis on an improved business environment, Eurocopter and the MOD will manage the AP in a Joint Project Office, soon to open in Bristol.
Commenting on the announcement, DG Helicopters Jonathan Lyle said: “The contract represents an important new phase in our relationship with Eurocopter. It offers the RAF the prospect of significantly enhanced Puma capability. We look forward to working with Eurocopter in the integrated Joint Project Office and to building a better understanding of how to enhance and sustain the UK Puma fleet into the future.”
So a year to do the study and then the design stage. As it is to be a "glass cockpit" and complete rewiring of the airframe QinetiQ will still have to be involved to approve these changes as well as the accompanying software, so there would be no saving there. It has been reported that this Mk will replace the Mk1 in 2012.
Forgive me for being pessimistic more likely 2015, if that. I just hope that, based on the experiences gained during the introduction of the Chinook HC Mk2 and Mk3, DPA get their act together this time.

[PlasticCabDriver]

So a year to do the study and then the design stage. As it is to be a "glass cockpit" and complete rewiring of the airframe QinetiQ will still have to be involved to approve these changes as well as the accompanying software, so there would be no saving there. It has been reported that this Mk will replace the Mk1 in 2012.
Forgive me for being pessimistic more likely 2015, if that. I just hope that, based on the experiences gained during the introduction of the Chinook HC Mk2 and Mk3, DPA get their act together this time.

An awful lot of the design work is already done, as this is not a completely new project for EC. The Mk2 is largely based on a very similar conversion that EC have done for a number of different customers. The engines (and associated mods such as installing torquemeter pick-off from the MGB), and the glass cockpit already exist and are already flying on these other models. The main difference between these other versions and ours is the comms & avionics fit, however the design for that it at an advanced stage already, being based on an already extant system.

QinetiQ have been involved almost from the start of this project, to head off at an early stage any of the sort of problems that beset the Chinook Mk 3.

As for 2015, I have been told that a prototype will be ready for flight trials next year, and that EC have the capacity to actually deliver the mk 2 as planned. However, experience has taught us to be pessimistic, it avoids disappointment later on!

[Kitbag]

PCD, I believe the Mk III Chinooks were also sold to us on the basis that 'its all been done before for a different customer' (USAF in that case). I also believe it was the comms and avionics fit, along with the flight instruments that caused the problems on the Wokka.

Standing by to be corrected/reassured that we do learn our lessons identified.

[PlasticCabDriver]

True, and if we had left well alone then they would be flying now. It is because they were f*cked about with to save a bit of money that the problem arose.

I think.

[Razor61]

I might sound dumb here but why do we mess around with the Avionics fit when it works for all the other nations with the same helicopter type.
If it works why tinker with it. What do we (the British) do to the avionics of each helicopter bought from another country to make it different to the one already fitted.
Are they not compatible with certain equipment we use or what?