Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Will Puma Survive?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Will Puma Survive?

Old 18th Dec 2011, 20:24
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: uk
Age: 46
Posts: 58
Evolution of forces aviation. Since day one it has evolved and I do not see it changing here. FAA FW will face an almighty challenge to stay viable for the incoming carriers. The RAF will have a single although large SH force. At some stage all the forces will need to reduce the infighting to look at realistic options for the future footprint of all aviation. The SDSR is all to raw and leaves a bad taste, the political statement was about re-shaping when in reality it was straight forward butchering of us. At some stage all concerned will have to agree on the way forward. Wrong I could well be but I don' t think I'll be wide from the mark.
Misformonkey is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2011, 11:57
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Asia Pacific
Age: 49
Posts: 1,763
llamaman/xenolith,

some equally valid points. However, my point was that it is not quite as simple as blaming all the Puma's woes on ex-chinook mates.

Neither are ex-chinook mates the answer to everything - god knows we've bred some howlers that have reached ranks far higher than their abilities or personalities should have allowed.

But in summary, the ex-chinook mates may well be part of the problem - but they are contributing to a bigger problem than just them. Llamaman's comments may not be incorrect, but they seem to suggest everything was fine and dandy until these people arrived - it wasn't.

xenolith - very well, it's nice being ahead of the drag curve for once!
minigundiplomat is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2011, 18:21
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: DEVON
Posts: 36
Puma: French and made of plastic; 2 reasons, maybe, why the MOD are having a rethink?
tramps is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2011, 19:55
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,604
So was the Blackhawk. It started with the US Army in 1979.
Compare the current Blackhawk to the A model version....and it is a very much different aircraft. Compare the current Puma to the original Puma...how different are they?

It is not an apples to apples comparison you offer!
SASless is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2011, 20:12
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
Compare the current Blackhawk to the A model version....and it is a very much different aircraft. Compare the current Puma to the original Puma...how different are they?

It is not an apples to apples comparison you offer!
Have you seen our track record with buying replacement kit, go take a peek in the Wildcat thread and look at the under funded under equipped ending to that project. We are that bad I suspect you could sell us some A models and still make a tidy profit on the deal
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2011, 03:11
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,604
SFP....for sure the RAF cannot figure out how to buy a Chinook! I think you folk may have picked up some bad habits from us....thinking Commanche, Lakota....and a few other ripe picks.
SASless is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2011, 16:47
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 624
Without any bad news to hide it behind........as usually befits such a press release, has a decision been made? Or have they decided to wait until 2012, and let everyone sweat over the festive period?
Could be the last? is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2011, 22:56
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 57
Posts: 552
Not RAF bashing but the writing is on the wall as far as i see it. All fixed wing to RAF and rotary to be AAC & Navy
... Assuming the RAF survive as a single service
althenick is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2011, 09:29
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Speculation: 17 Jan 12: Pre-briefed Redundancy Pt II Announcement Day.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the next round of redundancies will effect (insert number) men and woman from the Armed Forces (expand with single service breakdown of numbers); but we are trying our best; look we have even cancelled (insert project as required) to try and reduce the human misery we distribute. We are good....

Followed by some diversionary tactic about Schools, NHS, Clean beaches because nobody can afford holidays etc etc

To be followed the next day with 'Sun' headlines about the next Falklands War kicking off 30 years to the day etc etc.

Though in reality; Olympic Fever will kick off early in the New Year, if not January and will provide a good smoke screen for smoke and mirror tactics. Govt are almost certainly banking on the Olympics providing a 'Feel good factor' to the UK public and if is combined with good weather they may get it. I will find it funny if the spiralling costs of the Olympics leads to some seriously bad press and widespread discontent.
Tiger_mate is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2011, 12:26
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darling - where are we?
Posts: 2,499
[quote] Not RAF bashing but the writing is on the wall as far as i see it. All fixed wing to RAF and rotary to be AAC & Navy [quote]

... Assuming the RAF survive as a single service
I wouldn't be so sure about all rotary going to the AAC & Navy for one reason - costs. I can't really speak with any authority on the RN side, but JHC is funded by the Army and it takes up over 40% of the Army's funding line - RW is horrendously expensive for the numbers you actually get. Now whilst the Army are the main users of aviation assets, they already grumble about the costs they have to foot to keep JHC going at the expense of historic infantry regiments, armour and artillery. I'm sure they would love to have full command of all Defence battlefield aviation, but when you take into account the extra associated costs on top of what they already pay, they simply can't afford it without getting rid of other capabilties, and I can't see the Army as a whole being happy about sacrificing more capabilities to fund what is a relatively small part of their ORBAT.

I assume the RN are in a similar situation - mortgaged up to the hilt already with the costs of carriers, SSBNs and Type 26s - to take anymore costs on by subsuming an increased share of RW would be an extra burden I don't think they would be willing or able to take on.

In short, when it comes to RW, I think the Army and the RN are both a bit like wives with expensive tastes but limited means - they would love to get their hands on shiny RW capabilties and, but I simply don't think they can afford it without further unpalatable cuts being made.
Melchett01 is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2011, 20:44
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 469
Melchett,

I am not sure I follow you. In the unlikely event the transfer of capability were to take place surely the funding lines (equipment and manpower) ie it should be a cost neutral transfer.
Bismark is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2011, 21:06
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 57
Posts: 552
I wouldn't be so sure about all rotary going to the AAC & Navy for one reason - costs. I can't really speak with any authority on the RN side, but JHC is funded by the Army and it takes up over 40% of the Army's funding line - RW is horrendously expensive for the numbers you actually get. Now whilst the Army are the main users of aviation assets, they already grumble about the costs they have to foot to keep JHC going at the expense of historic infantry regiments, armour and artillery. I'm sure they would love to have full command of all Defence battlefield aviation, but when you take into account the extra associated costs on top of what they already pay, they simply can't afford it without getting rid of other capabilties, and I can't see the Army as a whole being happy about sacrificing more capabilities to fund what is a relatively small part of their ORBAT.

I assume the RN are in a similar situation - mortgaged up to the hilt already with the costs of carriers, SSBNs and Type 26s - to take anymore costs on by subsuming an increased share of RW would be an extra burden I don't think they would be willing or able to take on.

In short, when it comes to RW, I think the Army and the RN are both a bit like wives with expensive tastes but limited means - they would love to get their hands on shiny RW capabilties and, but I simply don't think they can afford it without further unpalatable cuts being made.
Melchett01
You obviously have a good idea of the workings of JHC and as an interested observer (onlooker that is) I have a fair Idea of how the FAA operates as I have on occasion had to work with them and also had a father in it for 22 years (so my mother tells me ;-) ) Based on that (ok its flimsy I know) and whilst also applying some simple arithmetic I must question why the FAA/AAC would cost more to run JHC.
My take on it it this
1/ You'd get rid of a thrid of the Admin
2/ The 2 air services operate more helicopters than the RAF. In future - If the end is in sight for Puma - will only operate 1 R/W type. Couple that with the fact that WSO(P) trade is going to be practically non-existent in the Light-blue then is there any point in the RAF being in the R/W game at all?

Or am I missing something?
althenick is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2011, 22:18
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darling - where are we?
Posts: 2,499
Bismark, Althenick,

In broad terms, I doubt that the costs for the day to day running of the fleets i.e. the aircraft, training, fuel costs etc would change drastically, and in that sense it should be cost neutral.

However, if the RAF were to cut all RW capabilities across to the other services, there would no requirement for the RAF to maintain funding for Benson and Odiham and their personnel - remember that although JHC is in the Army chain, single service Full Command issues and responsibilities remain in place. Plus you would have to find funding for any other capabilties associated with aviation e.g ATC at JHC units, TSW, fire and crash provision, support / R&D currently provided from within the Air domain e.g. AWC type support, recruitment of and training for long term personnel sustainability (air and ground crews) plus dealing with the fallout from those that refuse to change service and walk etc etc. All of these are crucial elements for ops that have to continue to be provided to allow the ac to continue to operate and many of them are not provided outside of Air.

Actually rebadging the cabs and calling it JHC Benson, Odiham etc is one thing and you probably wouldn't notice much change in the short term (maybe a bit more grumbling from the crewmen and the neighbours when they realise they are now living next door to an Army unit ). But longer term, trying to sustain such a capability when you take all the other aspects that are provided by elements outside of the Army / RN into consideration, that is where the costs will come into play and bite the Army and RN. Cutting RW across to the end users is one of those ideas that is deceptively simple on the surface but would have significant structural issues for each of the services and as such comes with the caveat of be careful what you wish for stamped all over it in big red letters.

That said, and before the black Omega turns up outside the house to ruin Boxing Day, this is all just Melchett's opinion based on previous experience in JHC - I honestly have no idea what is going to happen to Puma, or any other longer term JHC structural issues. I may have some prior JHC experience, but I'm still a peasant way down the information food chain.
Melchett01 is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2011, 22:51
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 1,549
Thoughts from Arrse...not entirely complimentary.

Save the puma!!!
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2011, 23:25
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kammbronn
Posts: 2,007
........not entirely complimentary.
Are you referring to the topic, or to opinions on the originator of that particular thread?

Last edited by diginagain; 27th Dec 2011 at 02:35.
diginagain is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2011, 01:59
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 134
Can somebody, please, just make an announcement about the future of of the Puma Force. Too many good people are hanging onto the promise of a future here.

And as for those who are using this issue to push single-service agendas, get a fecking life. The only service which has the potential to move SH forward is the RAF - fact. Having done a (very enjoyable) tour with the AAC I know they would be overwhelmed and massively undermanned (can you really see the requisite blue-suiters swapping for brown suits - really?).

The AAC do very good work in theatre, and long may that continue. Why mess with that. The CHF, hopefully, will develop a a very useful future capability with the Merlin. Who benefits from a bonfire of JHC - no one..

I would hope that the unrelenting diminishment of UK Defence capability would bottom out soon. Let us not "self-hack" by doing each other over - don't comply with the efforts of those who wish to divide and conquer.
Father Jack Hackett is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2011, 09:06
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where-ever nav's chooses....
Posts: 656
I'm not sure how much extra cost would be involved on the RN side of life. AFAIK the RAF provide no capability (in the RW side) that the RN doesn't already via CHF, Merlin Force and Lynx Force. I would suggest that Culdrose and Yeovilton could fit in another squadron or two.
alfred_the_great is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2011, 11:11
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 786
Can somebody, please, just make an announcement about the future of of the Puma Force. Too many good people are hanging onto the promise of a future here.
You mean members of the RAF?

And as for those who are using this issue to push single-service agendas, get a fecking life.
Like you did in your opening statement?.....

The only service which has the potential to move SH forward is the RAF - fact.
Why? The RAF are the only service who have been resourced to operate SH. CHF do a stirling job with with a fraction of the resources. Explain what you mean when you say the RAF is the only service to move SH forward?


Having done a (very enjoyable) tour with the AAC I know they would be overwhelmed and massively undermanned (can you really see the requisite blue-suiters swapping for brown suits - really?).

The AAC do very good work in theatre,
Which is where it counts I guess.

Blue-suiters reluctant to swap for brown suits? The unrelenting diminished UK Defence capability may require that and thus putting any single service selfishness to one side..... You may find that most AAC and FAA wouldn't give a stuff what coloured suit they wear so long as capability isn't compromised. Can't see the same ideology from the RAF.
wg13_dummy is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2011, 11:31
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,717
FAA wouldn't give a stuff what coloured suit they wear so long as capability isn't compromised
Dream Along!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fareastdriver is online now  
Old 27th Dec 2011, 11:41
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 786
Fair one but I think they'd cry less than CrabAir
wg13_dummy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.