Helicopter Replacements?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US Military upgraded their CH/MH-47F's with the CAAS (Common Avionics Architecture System) which would i believe open up their capability to be compatible with all future avionics fits no matter what was fitted in the flight deck. (I stand corrected if wrong).
Surely Boeing construct their new airframes with this CAAS installed so all future buyers including that outside the USA could fit anything they wanted into the flightdeck without any problems with it not fitting or installing properly.
So why have the British had such a problem with the avionics fit of the Chinook HC3, or did Boeing only produce this CAAS to fit US Avionics only creating a problem to buyers outside of the USA?
It is now going to take a a year or two for the HC3 to be downgraded into an HC2 fit just so we can get it into theatre...
If we had not farted around with the avionics in the first place they would have been flying years ago as PCD stated with pretty much all avionics.
Surely Boeing construct their new airframes with this CAAS installed so all future buyers including that outside the USA could fit anything they wanted into the flightdeck without any problems with it not fitting or installing properly.
So why have the British had such a problem with the avionics fit of the Chinook HC3, or did Boeing only produce this CAAS to fit US Avionics only creating a problem to buyers outside of the USA?
It is now going to take a a year or two for the HC3 to be downgraded into an HC2 fit just so we can get it into theatre...
If we had not farted around with the avionics in the first place they would have been flying years ago as PCD stated with pretty much all avionics.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Resource Accounting
Hang on a minute,
Wasn't one of the major justifications of introducing RAB that it is supposed to allow us to save in the long term by buying new instead of throwing good money after bad extending worn-out and obsolescent equipment?
Wasn't one of the major justifications of introducing RAB that it is supposed to allow us to save in the long term by buying new instead of throwing good money after bad extending worn-out and obsolescent equipment?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't it have been sensible to sort out all this kit before we started running two wars back to back ? I cannot recall the Luftwaffe starting the
Blitzkrieg and running out of steam half way through due to lack of Stukas!
What this all stems down to is the procurement of 'enough' - not a little more or indeed ample - just 'enough' . Couple that with a procurement procedure which is ponderous in the extreme and it's hardly suprising that we look to be up a creek without a paddle.
The reason that other countries are retiring their Puma's is that there is better and newer kit available. It's not luxury - Portugal for example is in the economic doldrums at the moment . They are savy enough however to see the wisdom of buying fresh rather than indulging in enless undate programs
to squeeze that extra pound of flesh out of a machine.
The RAF should have ordered far more Bell 412's and let these carry some
of the combat burden. These are tried and tested and would have allowed for off the shelf purchase rather than having to go down the route of scrounging
off our European neighbours for any surplus helicopters they have.
Blitzkrieg and running out of steam half way through due to lack of Stukas!
What this all stems down to is the procurement of 'enough' - not a little more or indeed ample - just 'enough' . Couple that with a procurement procedure which is ponderous in the extreme and it's hardly suprising that we look to be up a creek without a paddle.
The reason that other countries are retiring their Puma's is that there is better and newer kit available. It's not luxury - Portugal for example is in the economic doldrums at the moment . They are savy enough however to see the wisdom of buying fresh rather than indulging in enless undate programs
to squeeze that extra pound of flesh out of a machine.
The RAF should have ordered far more Bell 412's and let these carry some
of the combat burden. These are tried and tested and would have allowed for off the shelf purchase rather than having to go down the route of scrounging
off our European neighbours for any surplus helicopters they have.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bury St Edmunds.
Age: 60
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C27
Sorry for going off at a bit of a tangent but wouldn't the aquisition of a dozen or so C27's help with the helicopter shortfall? On some ops in the field it's either a C130 or a CH47 that has to carry out the operation. The Americans have recognised the need for a small-medium transport aircraft.
I wouldn't replace helicopters with them but augment airlift in general. The reality check is the cost of another type I guess.
I wouldn't replace helicopters with them but augment airlift in general. The reality check is the cost of another type I guess.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The U.S has indeed recongnised a shortfall and wishes to use a smaller less vunerable type like the C-27 . Amazingly this would fullfil a gap left in the U.S inventory by the C-7 Caribou - we employed the Andover which did the same role and would be very useful now!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would an Islander fit the bill for re-supplying troops to augment the Chinook or would it be too slow and small for the job?
It has impressive STOL performance and carry a bit of freight, a re-supply of ammo or food & medical supplies would surely work and even Casevac.
The new Beech 200ER's are nearing service and they could release the Islanders for another role.
Maybe a bit slow and obviously limited to what it can carry of course.
Can't see the UK buying a transport aircraft the size of the C-27 at any time myself but it would be nice to get a surprise once in a while!
As for Bell 412's. The USMC are having 100 UH-1Y built brand new as far as i am aware. surely these are much cheaper options for a stop-gap measure?
It has impressive STOL performance and carry a bit of freight, a re-supply of ammo or food & medical supplies would surely work and even Casevac.
The new Beech 200ER's are nearing service and they could release the Islanders for another role.
Maybe a bit slow and obviously limited to what it can carry of course.
Can't see the UK buying a transport aircraft the size of the C-27 at any time myself but it would be nice to get a surprise once in a while!
As for Bell 412's. The USMC are having 100 UH-1Y built brand new as far as i am aware. surely these are much cheaper options for a stop-gap measure?
Last edited by Razor61; 30th Aug 2007 at 00:50.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney, AU
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly some of the C-27s are to be in the hands of the US Army, something that's unlikely in the UK.
C-23 Sherpas in theatre at the moment:
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...04_C23,00.html
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...ttle_Heats.htm
C-23 Sherpas in theatre at the moment:
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...04_C23,00.html
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...ttle_Heats.htm
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RileyDove said:
The RAF should have ordered far more Bell 412's and let these carry some of the combat burden.
The RAF should have ordered far more Bell 412's and let these carry some of the combat burden.
Out of the box thinking: That will never catch on.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plastic cab driver,
I am scratching my head. You said the new engines had anticipators, but I have been told that this capability will be downgraded to match the rest of the fleet.
Any truth in this statement?
I am scratching my head. You said the new engines had anticipators, but I have been told that this capability will be downgraded to match the rest of the fleet.
Any truth in this statement?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am scratching my head. You said the new engines had anticipators, but I have been told that this capability will be downgraded to match the rest of the fleet.
Any truth in this statement?
Any truth in this statement?
Writing as an ex-military and now and offshore pilot I have knocked up about 12000 hrs on 330Cs/Js 332Ls/L1s. Lots of offshore Pumas have in excess of 15000hrs on the airframe, an unbelievable figure considering the comments about there structural strength when they were introduced at Odiham in 1970. The Makila is a fine engine, especially the version fitted to the L1. Pulling a Super Puma along at 8600kgs they will burn about 450kgs/hr. It will be less with a Puma Mk2 because the cruise torque will be lower, 14.5 pitch as opposed to 15.5/16. They are however, quite choosy about the sort of air that goes into the intake, compressor erosion can be quite rapid. Leads to lots of thumps and bangs especially if the bleed offsets are a bit dodgy.
Operating the Puma J at 7400kgs is about as much as a Puma can take as the rotor system starts to run out of ideas and it protests furiously if you start to crank it around. It would bulk out at that weight any way so there is little point in beefing up the gearbox to increase it.
A 500kg saving by rewiring it I would have thought was a bit optimistic. Admitted most of it resembles a Renault truck but with the Makila you collect lots of boxes for the ECUs, Anticipators, Overspeed protection, etc. I do not know whether you have HUMS but for our engineers it’s a godsend.
A drawback with the 330C is the fuel capacity. I would have thought that they would have the fifth tank fitted when the Decca was removed but the Puma Js always had the sponson tanks fitted, an extra 200kgs a side. They don’t weigh much and don’t affect the handling. On the 332 they can add an extra 4 knots.
I never thought that when I strapped on XW204 all those years ago that I would be looking through the same windscreen thirty-six years later. Only this one is just eighteen months old. It is also Chinese registered and I have a Chinese crew and I'm paid in US$. If I had forcast that in 1971 they would have called out the blokes in the white coats. I was surprised at the comment that Bristow were flogging their Super Pumas. With the price of oil as it is the industry is snapping up every spare airframe and every spare pilot too, like me.
Operating the Puma J at 7400kgs is about as much as a Puma can take as the rotor system starts to run out of ideas and it protests furiously if you start to crank it around. It would bulk out at that weight any way so there is little point in beefing up the gearbox to increase it.
A 500kg saving by rewiring it I would have thought was a bit optimistic. Admitted most of it resembles a Renault truck but with the Makila you collect lots of boxes for the ECUs, Anticipators, Overspeed protection, etc. I do not know whether you have HUMS but for our engineers it’s a godsend.
A drawback with the 330C is the fuel capacity. I would have thought that they would have the fifth tank fitted when the Decca was removed but the Puma Js always had the sponson tanks fitted, an extra 200kgs a side. They don’t weigh much and don’t affect the handling. On the 332 they can add an extra 4 knots.
I never thought that when I strapped on XW204 all those years ago that I would be looking through the same windscreen thirty-six years later. Only this one is just eighteen months old. It is also Chinese registered and I have a Chinese crew and I'm paid in US$. If I had forcast that in 1971 they would have called out the blokes in the white coats. I was surprised at the comment that Bristow were flogging their Super Pumas. With the price of oil as it is the industry is snapping up every spare airframe and every spare pilot too, like me.
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 31st Aug 2007 at 03:09.
Plastic cab driver,
I am scratching my head. You said the new engines had anticipators, but I have been told that this capability will be downgraded to match the rest of the fleet.
Any truth in this statement?
I am scratching my head. You said the new engines had anticipators, but I have been told that this capability will be downgraded to match the rest of the fleet.
Any truth in this statement?
I continue to be a little baffled by the comments after airframe life.
The high time North Sea S61's have over 40,000 hours.
Good quality maintenance will keep an airframe going almost for ever, spares availability is the issue.
So the purchase of second hand Super Pumas what ever their life should not be a problem.
As to availabilty, we are at war, so the government could always press gang a few!!!!!!!!!!
The high time North Sea S61's have over 40,000 hours.
Good quality maintenance will keep an airframe going almost for ever, spares availability is the issue.
So the purchase of second hand Super Pumas what ever their life should not be a problem.
As to availabilty, we are at war, so the government could always press gang a few!!!!!!!!!!
Fareastdriver, just noticed this in your post:
Its not a 500kg saving, it is a 500kg increase in effective payload, comprising roughly 100kgs saved due to rewiring and 400kg from upping the MAUM from 7000kg to 7400kg routinely. The Mk1 can go to 7400kg, but only in a couple of limited instances, which does not include routine trooping. The plan for theMk 2s also includes the 5th tank, but not sponsons unfortunately.
Wrt airframe hours, even the Mk1 fleet leaders are only just over halfway through their airframe lives, it has taken 35 years to get that far, the next 10 are unlikely to take it to the limit.
A 500kg saving by rewiring it I would have thought was a bit optimistic
Wrt airframe hours, even the Mk1 fleet leaders are only just over halfway through their airframe lives, it has taken 35 years to get that far, the next 10 are unlikely to take it to the limit.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sponsons?
P-C-D -
I thought I'd seen an RAF Puma with the larger sponsons at the Waddington airshow last year; potentially ex-South African? Or was I seeing things post-hospitality tent?
Thanks
S41
I thought I'd seen an RAF Puma with the larger sponsons at the Waddington airshow last year; potentially ex-South African? Or was I seeing things post-hospitality tent?
Thanks
S41
When G-BEIC was sold in 2000 it had 43056 hours on the clock.
The current UK S61 fleet has 9 over 30,000, and 9 over 20,000 out of 19 aircraft.
These figures are a couple of years old so a least 2 more will be over the 40,000 mark by now.
I think that the age of the airframes is immaterial it is the capability that counts.
The high time Bristow Super Puma G-TIGE had 34,000 a couple of years ago.
Most of the 332L on the north sea are pushing the 30,000 mark.
The 332L's Bristow just sold to the German border guard had between 22/24,000.
If the MOD wanted a quick fix fleet they should talk to the North Sea operators they would be delighted to get a reasonable price for their older aircraft!!!!!!
The current UK S61 fleet has 9 over 30,000, and 9 over 20,000 out of 19 aircraft.
These figures are a couple of years old so a least 2 more will be over the 40,000 mark by now.
I think that the age of the airframes is immaterial it is the capability that counts.
The high time Bristow Super Puma G-TIGE had 34,000 a couple of years ago.
Most of the 332L on the north sea are pushing the 30,000 mark.
The 332L's Bristow just sold to the German border guard had between 22/24,000.
If the MOD wanted a quick fix fleet they should talk to the North Sea operators they would be delighted to get a reasonable price for their older aircraft!!!!!!
Last edited by ericferret; 16th Sep 2007 at 03:36.
I shudder to think of the work required to turn a North Sea 332L into a military machine. It would take at least two years of committees to decide what to do. How many are you going to get? a dozen at the most. The S92s and 225s going in are being paid for by big oil companies, the smaller ones haven't got that sort of money. The British North Sea sector is not a major player in the offshore oil industry anymore and there is plenty of work for 332s overseas, especially in the Far East.
If they were lucky enough to get a dozen that would be about a 25% increace in the Puma fleet.
I agree that by the time the MOD and everybody else had decided what to do with them it would probably be quicker just to order new and wait.
Look at the fiasco over the SA Pumas.
To go to all the trouble of reconfiguring the aircraft to match the existing fleet was a waste of time and in this case less importantly money.
I am not sure that the comment that the North Sea is not a major player anymore is that accurate. There are currently about 70 helicopters operating oil and gas support.
I agree that by the time the MOD and everybody else had decided what to do with them it would probably be quicker just to order new and wait.
Look at the fiasco over the SA Pumas.
To go to all the trouble of reconfiguring the aircraft to match the existing fleet was a waste of time and in this case less importantly money.
I am not sure that the comment that the North Sea is not a major player anymore is that accurate. There are currently about 70 helicopters operating oil and gas support.
Last edited by ericferret; 16th Sep 2007 at 14:08.
Sorry mate, I was talking about the industry as a whole. Exploration, investment and production. Brown's oil revenue taxes have taken care of the first two.
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 17th Sep 2007 at 13:59.