Private Eye story about Puma upgrade
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone help me out please.
Ive read a post from Proone calling someone racist when NOT even talking about any race, then when corrected (and not admitting error), continues to call someones post insultingly inaccurate!
Am I missing something. Is Proone a Romanian, or are they feeling insulted on the behalf of others....Who may not feel insulted in the slightest (just as other posters may have not felt insulted).
I have heard of folks who like to be insulted for others benefit, and am wondering if this is what is occuring in this instance. Perhaps this is just an instance of a poster forgetting to add 'IMHO' and so making their post appear to be fact.
Ive read a post from Proone calling someone racist when NOT even talking about any race, then when corrected (and not admitting error), continues to call someones post insultingly inaccurate!
Am I missing something. Is Proone a Romanian, or are they feeling insulted on the behalf of others....Who may not feel insulted in the slightest (just as other posters may have not felt insulted).
I have heard of folks who like to be insulted for others benefit, and am wondering if this is what is occuring in this instance. Perhaps this is just an instance of a poster forgetting to add 'IMHO' and so making their post appear to be fact.
One wonders who is actually doing the upgrade as most of the Romanian populace are living and claiming in the UK
lovely eclectic diverse place that it is
Of course one mans idea of eclectic diversity is another mans idea of a dogs dinner of an immigration policy
Last edited by xenolith; 23rd Jun 2011 at 07:38. Reason: In the interests of fairness.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,880
Received 2,823 Likes
on
1,203 Posts
Puma upgrade.......anyone?
Please note Ppr00ne, although the Blackhawk is an American Indian tribe I am in no way infering the Blackhawk tribe should up sticks and move to the UK......
Just getting that straight, one doesn't want you putting on your pearly Queen suit, leaving the sound of Bow Bells and coming up north to give me a good seeing to with your musical spoons..............
Last edited by NutLoose; 23rd Jun 2011 at 19:50.
SAAF Oryx
I have no right to post here but I thought I might timidly point to this:
Atlas Oryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Oryx is apparently a remanufactured Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma. Good things have been said about them. I'll quote one bit:
"South Africa chose the IAR airframe over existing airframes due to the Romanians use of carbon-composite materials which are lighter, stronger and also include sponson fuel tanks which give an extended range."
I'm just mentioning this because it seems that the Romanians do probably have unique experience and skills and it might not make sense to build uk capability in upgrading an outmoded system that is on it's last upgrade. This is just my uninformed impression.
Atlas Oryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Oryx is apparently a remanufactured Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma. Good things have been said about them. I'll quote one bit:
"South Africa chose the IAR airframe over existing airframes due to the Romanians use of carbon-composite materials which are lighter, stronger and also include sponson fuel tanks which give an extended range."
I'm just mentioning this because it seems that the Romanians do probably have unique experience and skills and it might not make sense to build uk capability in upgrading an outmoded system that is on it's last upgrade. This is just my uninformed impression.
RAF Puma LEP
t43562 - The MoD doesn't (or shouldn’t ) do timid, so how about you Wiki this.
Suitability for Military Operations – Since Jan 2001, eleven RAF Puma helicopters have been involved in major incidents (Six of these in 2007 alone - Source - Strategic Review of the Puma Helicopter Force 2008), with 3 A/C Cat 4 and 3 A/C Cat 5. (Source Hansard, so please, no cries of beadwindow)
As a result of its age, design (narrow undercarriage, high centre of gravity and a nose wheel tricycle gear), outdated crashworthiness limitations and flying and handling characteristics, you have to question the suitability of the design of the early Puma helicopter (SA. 330 models) in any modern hostile military theatre (particularly during brown-out landings) and future challenging roles and therefore the value of investing further (both from a financial and H&S perspective) in this aging platform.
Aircraft Vulnerability. A comparison of the SH accident records, at Annex C, supports a common belief that Puma is more vulnerable to crash damage (and to subsequent loss of life) than other types of BH involved in similar missions. A likely explanation for this may be the fact that, relative to other BH, Puma has a particularly high C of G. The resulting high crash moments generated by its gearbox and engines, coupled with a relatively short wheel base and tricycle undercarriage, makes for relatively poor crashworthiness compared with, for example, Chinook which has a low C of G and wheels on each corner. The propensity of Puma to turn over after a heavy landing is well known, and increases the vulnerability of crewman and passengers who are not properly restrained. We are aware of, and support, the work into crashworthy seats being carried out by MOD as part of the Puma HC2 Assessment phase.
Source - Strategic Review of the Puma Helicopter Force 2008 - Para 2.2.1
Crashworthiness.
Arguably, insufficient emphasis has been given in the MOD equipment programme to the replacement of the older BH such as Puma, Sea King and Lynx. For example, a feature of the Chinook accident record in theatre is that, by comparison to Puma, a greater robustness of design is translating into better survivability. An illustration of this is to consider the experience of recent Chinook incidents where, during desert/dust landings at night, aircraft have lost wheels but still survived (and in some cases even flown away). The difference with Puma is that these same conditions will be far more serious. While the relatively low crash tolerance of the Puma does not absolve crews, training staff or the JHC HQ from ensuring that the fragility of the aircraft is mitigated (and SOPs already do this), the fact remains that, given its characteristics, the aircraft is less ideal than some modern designs for operations in demanding theatres. The MOD has taken the view that Puma is still capable of carrying out its current XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXe. However, given the reliance of our soldiers on the helicopter force in both theatres (possibly for some time to come), we sense that the time has come for a reassessment by the JCG of their procurement priorities to reflect the need for more capable and survivable aircraft. We recommend the JCG examines the priority they accord to the procurement of BH, with emphasis on replacing legacy platforms.
Source - Strategic Review of the Puma Helicopter Force 2008 - Para 3.3
UAE Puma LEP Woes
The Plan - The UAE Air Force operated a fleet of around 25 IAR 330SM - Originally SA.330C and SA.330F Puma Helicopters (almost identical to the RAF’s Puma SA.330E fleet) that form part of the UAE Air Force Transport Wing and are based at Al Bateen Air Base.
In 2004, the UAE Air Force & Eurocopter Romania agreed a LEP package for the enhancement of 15 original UAE Air Force SA330 transport helicopters (to include Turbomeca Makila 1A1 turboshaft engines, a Collins avionics package including four-axis autopilot, and other special equipment – very similar to RAF LEP) and the acquisition of 10 New-Build SA330’s (the new designation for these post LEP Upgrade Puma’s is IAR 330SM) with the first two returned to service in April 2006.
In 2006/2007, ten of the Post LEP IAR 330SM Puma helicopters were handed over to the UAE Special Operation Command.
Reality - Within 2-years of receipt (2008), the 10 upgraded Spec OPS IAR 330SM Puma helicopters were handed over to the Critical National Infrastructure Authority (CNIA) (Abu Dhabi Government Para Military Division tasked with the protection and security of critical infrastructures within Abu Dhabi). (Why?)
In late 2009, the UAE Government took the decision to donate all ten of the upgraded IAR 330SM Puma helicopters operated by the Critical National Infrastructure Authority CNIA (Ex Spec OPS) received in only 2008 to the Lebanese Air Force, with the first batch of 4 scheduled for delivery in February 2010 and the deliveries of the rest scheduled for delivery by mid-2010. (Why?)
The UAE Air Force is looking to sell or remove from service the remaining 10-15 Upgraded Puma helicopter. (Why?)
Why indeed?
Having taken delivery of 25 rebuild and re-furbished Puma SA330 helicopters from Eurocopter Romania, the UAE Air Force learnt the hard way that serviceability was incredibly poor and they were too hard to sustain after the LEP resulting in them being ‘Cost Prohibitive’ and as a result after only 3-years of post LEP service, a decision was taken to sell, giveaway or withdraw the Puma fleet from service and replace it with more reliable and less costly to maintain helicopters.
t43562 - The MoD doesn't (or shouldn’t ) do timid, so how about you Wiki this.
Suitability for Military Operations – Since Jan 2001, eleven RAF Puma helicopters have been involved in major incidents (Six of these in 2007 alone - Source - Strategic Review of the Puma Helicopter Force 2008), with 3 A/C Cat 4 and 3 A/C Cat 5. (Source Hansard, so please, no cries of beadwindow)
As a result of its age, design (narrow undercarriage, high centre of gravity and a nose wheel tricycle gear), outdated crashworthiness limitations and flying and handling characteristics, you have to question the suitability of the design of the early Puma helicopter (SA. 330 models) in any modern hostile military theatre (particularly during brown-out landings) and future challenging roles and therefore the value of investing further (both from a financial and H&S perspective) in this aging platform.
Aircraft Vulnerability. A comparison of the SH accident records, at Annex C, supports a common belief that Puma is more vulnerable to crash damage (and to subsequent loss of life) than other types of BH involved in similar missions. A likely explanation for this may be the fact that, relative to other BH, Puma has a particularly high C of G. The resulting high crash moments generated by its gearbox and engines, coupled with a relatively short wheel base and tricycle undercarriage, makes for relatively poor crashworthiness compared with, for example, Chinook which has a low C of G and wheels on each corner. The propensity of Puma to turn over after a heavy landing is well known, and increases the vulnerability of crewman and passengers who are not properly restrained. We are aware of, and support, the work into crashworthy seats being carried out by MOD as part of the Puma HC2 Assessment phase.
Source - Strategic Review of the Puma Helicopter Force 2008 - Para 2.2.1
Crashworthiness.
Arguably, insufficient emphasis has been given in the MOD equipment programme to the replacement of the older BH such as Puma, Sea King and Lynx. For example, a feature of the Chinook accident record in theatre is that, by comparison to Puma, a greater robustness of design is translating into better survivability. An illustration of this is to consider the experience of recent Chinook incidents where, during desert/dust landings at night, aircraft have lost wheels but still survived (and in some cases even flown away). The difference with Puma is that these same conditions will be far more serious. While the relatively low crash tolerance of the Puma does not absolve crews, training staff or the JHC HQ from ensuring that the fragility of the aircraft is mitigated (and SOPs already do this), the fact remains that, given its characteristics, the aircraft is less ideal than some modern designs for operations in demanding theatres. The MOD has taken the view that Puma is still capable of carrying out its current XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXe. However, given the reliance of our soldiers on the helicopter force in both theatres (possibly for some time to come), we sense that the time has come for a reassessment by the JCG of their procurement priorities to reflect the need for more capable and survivable aircraft. We recommend the JCG examines the priority they accord to the procurement of BH, with emphasis on replacing legacy platforms.
Source - Strategic Review of the Puma Helicopter Force 2008 - Para 3.3
UAE Puma LEP Woes
The Plan - The UAE Air Force operated a fleet of around 25 IAR 330SM - Originally SA.330C and SA.330F Puma Helicopters (almost identical to the RAF’s Puma SA.330E fleet) that form part of the UAE Air Force Transport Wing and are based at Al Bateen Air Base.
In 2004, the UAE Air Force & Eurocopter Romania agreed a LEP package for the enhancement of 15 original UAE Air Force SA330 transport helicopters (to include Turbomeca Makila 1A1 turboshaft engines, a Collins avionics package including four-axis autopilot, and other special equipment – very similar to RAF LEP) and the acquisition of 10 New-Build SA330’s (the new designation for these post LEP Upgrade Puma’s is IAR 330SM) with the first two returned to service in April 2006.
In 2006/2007, ten of the Post LEP IAR 330SM Puma helicopters were handed over to the UAE Special Operation Command.
Reality - Within 2-years of receipt (2008), the 10 upgraded Spec OPS IAR 330SM Puma helicopters were handed over to the Critical National Infrastructure Authority (CNIA) (Abu Dhabi Government Para Military Division tasked with the protection and security of critical infrastructures within Abu Dhabi). (Why?)
In late 2009, the UAE Government took the decision to donate all ten of the upgraded IAR 330SM Puma helicopters operated by the Critical National Infrastructure Authority CNIA (Ex Spec OPS) received in only 2008 to the Lebanese Air Force, with the first batch of 4 scheduled for delivery in February 2010 and the deliveries of the rest scheduled for delivery by mid-2010. (Why?)
The UAE Air Force is looking to sell or remove from service the remaining 10-15 Upgraded Puma helicopter. (Why?)
Why indeed?
Having taken delivery of 25 rebuild and re-furbished Puma SA330 helicopters from Eurocopter Romania, the UAE Air Force learnt the hard way that serviceability was incredibly poor and they were too hard to sustain after the LEP resulting in them being ‘Cost Prohibitive’ and as a result after only 3-years of post LEP service, a decision was taken to sell, giveaway or withdraw the Puma fleet from service and replace it with more reliable and less costly to maintain helicopters.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm way out of my depth as said before, I just hoped it might be of interest to note another Puma upgrade done with some Romanian input.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how much of a difference would it make that these are Westland - built examples? And presumably most are from the last (attrition) batch from the 1980's that were knocked up at Weston-super-Mare, several years after the main production run at Yeovil. There were lots of comments at the time at Yeovil was that they were significantly different in body parts, though no-one ever seemed to publicly say how
There were lots of comments at the time at Yeovil was that they were significantly different in body parts
Why, Why, Why didn't they put the 332 single wheel navy undercarriage on it. It solves half the rolling problem and at a 900ft/min rating solves the hard landing problem too.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how about a new build of Westland WG30, using the engine & transmission from the Lynx Wildcat?
Minimal design cost with that idea
Minimal design cost with that idea
I hear that if Puma LEP survives contact, the AAC may have some shiny new(ish) toys ;-)