U.K. May Drop Helo Life Extension, Advance Medium-Lift Craft

[rodneyn]

From Defense News

U.K. May Drop Helo Life Extension, Advance Medium-Lift Craft

By andrew chuter
Published: 2 Jun 2009 13:34
Print | Email



LONDON - Britain's Ministry of Defence is reconsidering whether to ditch two helicopter life-extension programs in favor of fast-forwarding a requirement to bring a new medium-lift rotorcraft into service.

A plan to extend the life of the U.K. Puma helicopter fleet could be in peril if plans for next generation of helicopters are pushed forward. (AFP)



The last-minute review of the program extending the life of much of the Puma fleet and some versions of the Sea King was revealed by Defence Procurement Minister Quentin Davis while he gave evidence on helicopter capabilities June 2 to the Parliamentary Defence Committee.
Related Topics

• Europe
• Air Warfare

The minister said a "complete re-examination, admittedly at the 11th hour" was now under way on the way forward.
"The alternative we want to fully explore is the possibility of dispensing with spending taxpapers' money on upgrading aircraft which already have a certain age … and bring forward the Future Medium Helicopter," he said.
For the moment, the formal position is to proceed with the life-extension programs, he said.
The MoD is reconsidering whether it is worth spending hundreds of millions of pounds extending the lives of old helicopters by about eight to 10 years rather than accelerating the future medium-lift requirement from its current in-service date of around 2017.
Eurocopter has for weeks been expecting to sign a deal worth more than 300 million pounds ($489.8 million) to extend the life of the Puma out to 2022 with a new engine, new avionics and other changes.
Eurocopter UK officials could not be contacted for comment.
AgustaWestland said the deal for the Sea King upgrade was due to be signed later this year.
"Sea King variants would be life extended out to 2017. If it proceeds, it will be a relatively small contract primarily addressing obsolescence issues. Under current plans, they would have remained operational until the first batch of medium helicopters came into service," an AgustaWestland spokesman said.
Either deal may still proceed. An MoD spokeswomen said a decision would be made in weeks rather than months. One of the key issues is whether the MoD could find a way to advance delivery of new medium-lift rotorcraft.
Davis said if the life-extension programs were abandoned, his "strong preference" would be to acquire a modified, off-the shelf helicopter to meet the medium-lift requirement.
The first of the Puma and Sea King variants start going out of service as early as 2012. One of the drivers in deciding whether to purchase new helicopters is how quickly the platforms can be delivered to ensure a gap doesn't open up in Britain's already stretched rotorcraft capability.
AgustaWestland, Boeing, Eurocopter and Sikorsky could all be possible contenders.
Local helicopter maker AgustaWestland with the Merlin and Boeing with the Chinook already have modern medium-lift helicopters in service with the British armed forces.
Davis said if the MoD acquired new helicopters, it would dispense with the normal competitive process.
He described the process he had in mind as, "Not an urgent operational requirement but not the rather laborious full-scale classic international tender."

[minigundiplomat]

Davis said if the MoD acquired new helicopters, it would dispense with the normal competitive process.
He described the process he had in mind as, "Not an urgent operational requirement but not the rather laborious full-scale classic international tender."

As it normally does, resulting in a fudge that only partly addresses the capability gap, but throws a lifeline to the ailing SW Aerospace Industry.

[Low Ball]

Whats The Alternative

Trouble is what is on offer at reasonabley short notice:-
Chinook - probably the RAF heli of choice, long lead time though I understand
Merlin - Expensive, RAF seem to knock it all the time
Cougar - Old design, probabley avail reasonably quickly but take some time to militarise
Blackhawk - Old design, even with RTMs, small low cabin
S-92 - Don't know much about it but hear there are problems with it
A149 - Not flown yet probably too small

Nothing else really on the stocks, maybe the drawing board but gestation too long. So a toss up between size and offshore purchase. I still think a mix would be better you don't want half full Chinooks. So some Chinook and Cougar or Merlin with A149 as an ousider.

Comment anyone

LB

[Tiger16]

Given the choice: a combination of 20-odd new Chinooks, plus at least 3 Sqns worth of AW149s.

The Chinooks speak for themselves - their utility for air assaults and as heavy transports has been proven conclusively on HERRICK.

The AW149s would presumably operate in pairs in high-threat environments (thus reducing the burden on AH as escorts), they're ideally sized for light transport / patrol inserts / EVCPs / Admin tasking etc, and they're comparatively small. Which, in itself, has advantages - being able to use smaller HLSs and being more difficult to hit, to name but 2....

[Footnote]

Having flown all the aircraft mentioned other than the AW149, cost and politics aside, I would go for a Chinook/Blackhawk mix. Both are Operationally proven and both have recently updated versions that are flying now.

[fallmonk]

I would have thought that a chinook/merlin mix would be the best bet if you wanted a " off the shelf " deal as there is already production lines , already supply chains i asumme that both could be "stepped up" for a speedier delivery schedual.

They are both combat proven , ok maybe the merlin is still to iron out the faults as its still a relitivly new platform ! and as mentioned it maybe expensive but the more you buy the cheaper it will be (wont it???)

[Hilife]

This isn’t about Heavy Lift, so Chinook out of the equation.

Regarding Medium Lift, I’m stunned that anyone would even suggest the AW149.

IF both LEP’s are cancelled in favour of New (And why would you invest £400m+ on 40 year old platforms for an 8-10 year extension when a fleet of proven and capable new delivery ships with a 40-year useful life ahead of them could be purchased on the saved LEP money alone?). And knowing of the fast approaching OSD, likely the MoD will be looking at a relatively quick and risk free solution, so why gamble on a paper helicopter?

IF the MoD goes for New, then the platform has to be a low risk, low (ish) cost, battle proven, OTS solution and that’s not the AW149.

[Footnote]

Point taken about heavy lift, however if you want to lift more than a couple of troops in hot and high conditions the Chinook is the only aircraft that will do it. There's not much point having a fleet of new 'medium lift' aircraft that cannot carry the required payload, hence a mixed fleet.

Just idle thoughts, no more!

[Double Zero]

How about Hinds ?!

[minigundiplomat]

Not a great deal of mention for the NH90?

[Finnpog]

...which considering the debate surrounding the NH90 vs the Blackhawk on here a couple of months ago for Australian usage is a suprise.

[Squirrel 41]

Call me cynical....

... but is this a saving-by-stealth, inasmuch as it probably postpones spending from this FY and next FY to the FY after that (2011-12) or later? And though I applaude the decision to go for new over LEP - the long term makes this a much more sensible choice - surely this would have been done to death in options analysis prior to decision, which should mean that the staff work has been done, so it's a quick decision.

Or perhaps not.

Which is more worrying, as the work really should've been done - otherwise how would we know that the LEP was value for money anyway?

Curiouser and Curiouser!

S41

[Low Ball]

What's the alternative - Round 2 - Put Your Money Where Your mouth is Time

Ok good contributions from those since I last posed the question.

Fair point Hilife and Tiger 16 Chinook is not medium so not in the arguement, but will have to be in the mix so 20 Chinooks it is then. Given to the RAF should they be marinised?

MDG I didn't mention NH90 because all I hear is bad press, performance specs not met deliveries late and customers not happy. Looks as if its not a runner from a timeline standpoint. Pity since it is new and presumably with many years till OOS if it could only meet performance requirements. Would like to hear more from any NH90 operators to balance this.

We have Merlin and although as I said before it seems to have a bad press (and I don't know why) except those who fly it, more than half the problem seems to be cost. Again comment from a user would be useful. So not wanting to waste an asset or spend funds on LEPs or mid life updates, here's the radical bit, give all the Merlins to the FAA as SK4 replacements making the FAA an All Merlin operator (less Lynx more on this later bear with me).

Now we have to find a Puma/Merlin replacement for the RAF in the Medium category. We have discounted Cougar and S-92, or rather no one has spoken up for them. This leaves Blackhawk, old but then so is Apache, Puma or SK. Given the latest glass cockpits etc and RTM 322s is it up for the job? Lets have somewhere between 40 and 60.

Lets bin Wildcat for the AAC and have A149 I think its worth the risk and will certainly cost less and prove more adaptable in the long run. This leaves a problem with SCMR. I thought the back end of all new ships were Merlin sized so why do we need SCMR when Merlin ASW could do the job. (We need some RN/FAA balance here to help with this bit)

Lets also develop some b***s and hold suppliers feet to the fire! In the SOR we state we want the heli to move this much stuff (men or materiel) to this height at this OAT and DA and have this much endurance. If your offering cannot meet this then either withdraw or promise a fix in a short time AND you pay for the short fall in lift (additional aircraft) to meet the requirement. Let's remember that when our shiny new product fails to meet the SOR that puff of dust on the horizon is the marketing man who made you a lot of promises.

So no prizes for guessing my background, Army pilot with expirience of Operational Requirements and operations including hot and sandy places, but now watching on the sidelines during interesting times and hoping you rotary guys get the tools to do the job.

Lets have your views and help to finnesse this new fleet.

LB

[andyy]

I would argue that whatever cab we choose it should be marinised as we can't guarantee that over the life of the platform that it won't have to operate from a ship, no matter who "owns" or "flies" it originally. Can Chinook be marinised (I mean inc folding rotor heads).

As for more Merlin for the FAA - OK and a significant upgrade in some capabilities, but very expensive & you won't therefore get one for one vis a vis Lynx. The Merlin would need an upgrade as it has no air to surface weapon system at the moment or Passive ID System (as far as I am aware) the and the Mk1 that is currently in service doesn't actually meet the original service requirement of being able to take off in sea State 6 and have 4 hour time on station. That may be OK in the different threat environment that now exists, though.

[Postman Plod]

So what IS the problem with Merlin? (other than cost, and how does that compare with the other options?) Nobody has yet criticised it in this thread, and I can't recall seeing much criticism other than cost and some "Just because its British it must be crap / just because its American it must be great" comments that Wastelands built it?

With regards to such an 11th hour change in programme / priorities, do you really think you'd be getting new cabs in 2012? Surely such a late change would effectively mean a new programme, and all the inherent costs and delays? You'd also have the Puma and Sea King soldiering on with no upgrade until the new aircraft are eventually (if ever) delivered....

[Tiger16]

The perceived problems with Merlin are cost (£32M each is often quoted), and a lack of robustness in the contemporary operating environment. True or not - open to debate!

Returning to the issue of Chinooks for a moment - "Medium Lift" refers to a capability, not necessarily to a particular size of SH. A loosely-defined capability perhaps, but traditionally we're talking about a helicopter capable of lifting somewhere between 12+12 and 20+20 troops. Given that we're likely to be operating in Afghanistan for much of the next decade, any Future Medium Lift helicopter would presumably need to be able to lift at least 12+12 in the prevalent hot-and-high conditions. That requirement rules out virtually all bar Merlin and Chinook. Notwithstanding the sterling work done by Merlins on TELIC, from a user perspective the preference for Chinook is clear and unambiguous. Hence more Chinooks should be part of the Future Medium Lift equation, whether they meet the general perception of medium SH or not.

That said, there is a definite need for a smaller SH type to perform smaller tasks in theatre; South Armagh-style tasking, for us old farts. I've no particular axe to grind regarding a preferred type, but I wouldn't dismiss AW149 out of hand. As a development of the widely-used AW139 it's a fairly low-risk programme, flying in 2009 with IOC in 2011. Further, AW149 is quoted as maintaining ISA performance in temperatures of ISA+35, whilst price is quoted at £15m each (versus £25m for NH-90). Whilst I take these figures with a huge pinch of salt, I would say that AW149 certainly merits consideration for the lower end of a "hi/lo" Future Medium Lift force mix - particularly given the political advantages of supporting AgustaWestland. It'll be quite interesting to see how AW149 gets on in the Turkish competition, versus Black Hawk...

Anyway, enough of my blah-ing; it's lunchtime!

[andyy]

£32M for Merlin - is that for the SH variant? The cost for the ASW version was quoted as £44M per cab way back im 1991.

[Pegasus#]

There have been a number of good comments from contributors who drive the cabs but perhaps still too little focus on what we are actually carrying, and the combat power that we may (or may not) be able to deliver with our respective choices.
My observation is that we have experienced 3 clear and irreversible trends in UK support helicopter operations over the last 1-2 decades:
- Pax have become both physically larger (body armour, patrol packs/bergans are the norm, not the exception) and heavier (the load we plan for a soldier to carry has effectively doubled, from 25kg to 50kg+: body armour, radios, ammo, water all drive this).
- The number of seats available have fallen dramatically for each existing helicopter due to Duty of Care, and the consequent increasing requirement for crashworthy - as opposed to the original canvas & tube - seats: we brought Chinook into service with a declared capacity of 44 pax, including those sitting on the floor in the middle (and it was proven to be able to carry 80+ on Op Corporate), but we now plan on as few as 30 pax for the same airframe.
- The parasitic burden of DAS compounds the issue further.
Net, the UK can no longer afford to play with small airframes and small cabins (eg UH60, NH90, AW149), IMO, no matter what the superficial attractions might be in terms of size/signature and HLS requirements (as an aside, Merlin can land on a frigate deck, so how much smaller do we realistically need?). In this respect a 12-pax cab becomes an 6 to 8-pax one (or worse) well within its operational life, an erosion of capability that we cannot aford.
This would point to focusing on Chinook and Merlin only, with AW159 Future Lynx, since we are now contractually bound to take it, used for carrying very small numbers of pax only, probably largely in a liaison role. In addition, a reduction in the number of airframe types were we to phase out Sea King and Puma and focus on the remaining two large airframes could actually improve our ability to support the remaining fleets on the (long-term) campaign basis that our Lords & Masters are now planning for.

[minigundiplomat]

There are only two platforms with advantages over the Chinook:

The Sea King has a better door for winching, but then that is not a primary role and the Chinook has far better hover performance crosswind.

The Puma has a smaller footprint, a point noticed in the last few years and utilised to good effect overseas.

Other than that, the Chinook beats all comers hands down in every respect. So, we either need something small enough to offer an advantage in footprint, like the Puma offers presently, or just buy more Chinooks.

The Merlin is fine, but has a similar footprint with less capability in terms of lift capacity, begging the question, what's the point?
(Before anyone starts - you have a similar footprint to carry 22, instead of 44 which despite what Pegasus says, still happens occasionally, in all conditions)

NH90 is unproven, but could fit the bill.

Augusta, possibly and could gel nicely if it entered service with DHFS negating a long OCF and reducing lead-in times.

[andyy]

I don't pretend to be an expert, & others may not be either, so please excuse me from posting these details from the RAFs own web pages (yes, I know this may be different from operational reality slightly):

Chinook:

Engines: Two Textron Lycoming T55-L712F turboshafts Thrust: 3,148shp each Max speed: 160kts Length: 30.18m Max altitude: 15,000ft Span: 18.29m Aircrew: 4

The HC2 and HC2A aircraft are used primarily for trooping and for carrying internal and/or underslung loads and can carry up to 55 troops or 10 tonnes of freight. The cabin is large enough to accommodate two Land Rovers, while the three underslung load hooks allow a huge flexibility in the type and number of loads that can be carried externally. Secondary roles include search and rescue and casualty evacuation, in which role a total of 24 stretchers can be carried.

Merlin:

Engines: Three Rolls-Royce Turbomeca RTM 322 turbines Thrust: 2263shp each Max speed: 167kts Length: 22.8m Max altitude: 15,000ft Span: 18.6m Aircrew: 4

The Merlin is able to carry a diverse range of bulky cargo, either internally or under-slung. Cargo can include artillery, Land Rovers or light-strike vehicles and over five tonnes of freight. The spacious cabin can also accommodate up to 24 fully equipped combat troops and, when required, will convert to carry 16 stretchers for casualty evacuation or during humanitarian and disaster relief operations.

Puma:

Engines: Two Turbomeca Turmo 3-C4 turbines Thrust: 1300shp each Max speed: 147kts Length: 14.08m Max altitude: 17,000ft Span: 15.09ft Aircrew: 3

The aircraft can carry 16 fully-equipped troops, or up to two tonnes of freight carried either internally or as an underslung load. The other major role is that of casualty or medical evacuation support, for which up to six stretchers can be fitted.

.......

Seems to me that there are significant differences between all 3 & no doubt each type has their place in the scheme of things but am I right in saying that only the Merlin can be deployed at sea for long periods (inc having the capability to be rotors folded automatically & struck down in to a ships hangar)?

.......

As an aside, these specs are from a US Army Site:

BlackHawk S70A:

Main Rotor Diameter 53ft 8in Maximum Gross Weight 22,000lb

The S-70 is qualified as a launch platform for the laser-guided Hellfire anti-armour missile. The Black Hawk can carry 16 Hellfire missiles using the external stores support system (ESSS). The ESSS has the capability of carrying a 10,000lb payload of missiles, rockets, cannons and electronic countermeasures pods. The S-70 can mount 7.62mm or .50-calibre machine guns in the windows.

The cabin provides accommodation for 11 fully equipped troops or four litters (stretcher patients) with a medical officer for medical evacuation missions.

The S-70A can carry external loads up to 9,000lb (4,072kg) on the cargo hook - for example, a 155mm howitzer.
...........

The Puma stacks up pretty well on this basic comparison, although the ability to displace troops & carry hellfire is a significant advantage for me.

More Chinooks then, with Puma replaced by Blackhawks, and the Merlin transferred to 845/6.

OK, I know its not that simple & its dreamland.