Will Puma Survive?
Thread Starter
TorqueOfTheDevil
Good spot.
Quote from Minister for International Security Strategy:
'And the SDSR clearly laid out plans for a helicopter fleet based on four core platforms from 2025 -Apache, Merlin, Wildcat, and Chinook'.
Did it, really? Lets hope there's never any requirement for a platform that can carry a useful number of troops a decent range into tighter LS's (urban, jungle etc).
Good spot.
Quote from Minister for International Security Strategy:
'And the SDSR clearly laid out plans for a helicopter fleet based on four core platforms from 2025 -Apache, Merlin, Wildcat, and Chinook'.
Did it, really? Lets hope there's never any requirement for a platform that can carry a useful number of troops a decent range into tighter LS's (urban, jungle etc).
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: uk
Age: 50
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fixed wing will become a RAF activity and rotary in it's entirety will be RN & AAC. The RAF comprehensively out foxed the RN in the initial force reduction, i do not think that will happen again and the RN & AAC will take no prisoners in my opinion as it's survival of the fittest.
For what it's worth, Sec of State referred to the Puma upgrade in his evidence to the Select Committee last Wednesday:
(from the uncorrected evidence).
It reads to me as though any decision not to continue hasn't reached SofS yet and that he might be a tad surprised to discover the upgrade isn't going ahead.
By the by, Howarth's observations were about 2025 - Flight and various other open sources have Puma 2 going out of service in 2024/25, so the fact that he failed to mention it isn't necessarily indicative of cancellation (and aren't there suggestions that Puma 2 has some influential supporters amongst those in charge of chaps resident in the Credenhill and Poole areas?) - Puma's meant to be replaced by a future medium helicopter capability, which translates as 'we'll all be retired, out of office or doddering about in the Lords by the time that comes to fruition, so someone else can worry about the specifics and how to bodge the project when we get closer to the date if there's any cash'.
Q84 Bob Russell: I am not sure whether you have read Jane’s Defence Weekly for November-I must admit I have not-but I have an extract: "MoD chiefs are to receive the Defence Rotary-Wing Strategy document later in November, which contains further plans for cuts in spending on the helicopter capabilities of the Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force." We are now in the first week of December, so are you able to enlighten the Committee on what that strategy document says? Or has it not yet arrived with you?
Mr Hammond: It has not yet arrived on my desk. What I can tell you is that I was able to see at Colchester on Monday the upgraded version of the Lynx, which will, of course, in due course be replaced by the Wildcat when that is delivered into service. As you know, we have committed to the delivery of 14 additional Chinooks, which will take our fleet to 60 aircraft. We are already under way with the upgrading of the Puma fleet, and the first upgraded aircraft have been delivered. So there are a number of steps in place to maintain the helicopter fleet at the level required for current operations and to support the contingency element.
...
Q87 Bob Russell: Will there be a shortfall against Future Force 2020?
Mr Hammond: I do not believe so. My understanding is that the programmes that we have in place, including the Lynx replacement, the Puma upgrade and the new Chinooks, will deliver us the requirements to deliver the-
Q88 Bob Russell: We may need to focus on that when you come before us in a future session. Finally, Secretary of State, are you in a position, either today or subsequently, to outline the plans and timetable for bringing rotary wing capability into balance?
Mr Hammond: I am not sure what you mean by bringing it into balance.
Q89 Bob Russell: Well, you are telling the Committee, as I understand it, that there are sufficient helicopters in theatre and ordered. You are absolutely convinced that when we get to Future Force 2020, everything will be okay.
Mr Hammond: My understanding is that the Joint Helicopter Command believes that we have the existing equipment, the planned upgrades and the newly ordered equipment that will deliver the capability that we need for Future Force 2020. If, when I check that, Chairman, I find that I need to correct it, I will write to you.
Mr Hammond: It has not yet arrived on my desk. What I can tell you is that I was able to see at Colchester on Monday the upgraded version of the Lynx, which will, of course, in due course be replaced by the Wildcat when that is delivered into service. As you know, we have committed to the delivery of 14 additional Chinooks, which will take our fleet to 60 aircraft. We are already under way with the upgrading of the Puma fleet, and the first upgraded aircraft have been delivered. So there are a number of steps in place to maintain the helicopter fleet at the level required for current operations and to support the contingency element.
...
Q87 Bob Russell: Will there be a shortfall against Future Force 2020?
Mr Hammond: I do not believe so. My understanding is that the programmes that we have in place, including the Lynx replacement, the Puma upgrade and the new Chinooks, will deliver us the requirements to deliver the-
Q88 Bob Russell: We may need to focus on that when you come before us in a future session. Finally, Secretary of State, are you in a position, either today or subsequently, to outline the plans and timetable for bringing rotary wing capability into balance?
Mr Hammond: I am not sure what you mean by bringing it into balance.
Q89 Bob Russell: Well, you are telling the Committee, as I understand it, that there are sufficient helicopters in theatre and ordered. You are absolutely convinced that when we get to Future Force 2020, everything will be okay.
Mr Hammond: My understanding is that the Joint Helicopter Command believes that we have the existing equipment, the planned upgrades and the newly ordered equipment that will deliver the capability that we need for Future Force 2020. If, when I check that, Chairman, I find that I need to correct it, I will write to you.
It reads to me as though any decision not to continue hasn't reached SofS yet and that he might be a tad surprised to discover the upgrade isn't going ahead.
By the by, Howarth's observations were about 2025 - Flight and various other open sources have Puma 2 going out of service in 2024/25, so the fact that he failed to mention it isn't necessarily indicative of cancellation (and aren't there suggestions that Puma 2 has some influential supporters amongst those in charge of chaps resident in the Credenhill and Poole areas?) - Puma's meant to be replaced by a future medium helicopter capability, which translates as 'we'll all be retired, out of office or doddering about in the Lords by the time that comes to fruition, so someone else can worry about the specifics and how to bodge the project when we get closer to the date if there's any cash'.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it just me or is the RAF and the Navy taking the full brunt of money cost saving cuts. It appears nobody else seems to be getting hit as hard as us with relation to public sector workers. I know its easier to take from us as we cannot go on strike but there is only so much pruning you can to to a tree stump. Last October we dealt a bitter blow, but after time we dealt with it but its been blow after blow to the forces and its no bloody wonder people are leaving in droves now. Todays decision on the Olympics is another slap in the face as I know not one person supports the most ridiculous money saving decision ever dressed up as " the troops would be privelaged to take part in such an event" what utter lies to the public. I for sure am not going to be living in a tent for 2 weeks in London, having to pay for my own accomodation and food only to claim it back when the RAF and JPA can be arsed to give it back. Im not going to be subject to abuse and slander from the general public.Id rather spend 4 months in Kandahar than let the government get another get out of free jail card. 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Melchett
I'm sorry, but if CHF and the RAF SH community are both part of JHC, why should it matter who is operating the Merlins? I don't think you've answered Nicholas Howard's question beyond stating that the RAF need to operate both types to remain 'balanced', but the operator is irrelevant as long as the types remain in service with JHC, which is the organisation that needs to remain 'balanced'.
This is, of course, a separate argument to whether or not Merlin fulfils the 'medium' SH requirement currently occupied by SK4 and Puma. From a size perspective, Merlin isn't that different from SK, because the Merlin was designed to operate from the same spots at sea, so the footprint is very similar. Merlin length (rotors running) 22.8m, rotor diameter 18.6m, SK length (rr) 22.15m, rotor diameter 18.9m.
The downwash is a different issue!
Because like it or not, the RAF is still the primary operator of SH in Defence. The CHF have a very good, albeit relatively small SH capability to support 3 Cdo, but by and large, SH is still an RAF function. Just as AH and LUH is still an Army function.
This is, of course, a separate argument to whether or not Merlin fulfils the 'medium' SH requirement currently occupied by SK4 and Puma. From a size perspective, Merlin isn't that different from SK, because the Merlin was designed to operate from the same spots at sea, so the footprint is very similar. Merlin length (rotors running) 22.8m, rotor diameter 18.6m, SK length (rr) 22.15m, rotor diameter 18.9m.
The downwash is a different issue!
Last edited by snafu; 15th Dec 2011 at 23:53.
Snafu,
I didn't say the CHF operating Merlin was an issue. What I did say was that in RW terms, the RAF is in danger of becoming operationally ineffective if all it had was CH-47 and nothing smaller to offer the flexibility required to operate in an complex urban scenario.
All I can think is that Nicholas, and possibly yourself, are alluding to RW capability being a Defence capability rather than a single service capability. Well on paper, maybe it is, but that argument would only work if we were a single Defence Force rather than the single services that we are. To take your argument to its fullest extent would be akin to saying that the Infantry belong to Defence not the Army. In practice, JHC is far from being Joint and has single service rivalries running right the way through it (apart from at the operator level, when the guys just crack on) which means that the RAF still very much fight their own corner within JHC as do the Army and the RN / RM and assets are still viewed very much as being RAF or Army or RN/RM. Be under no illusion, the loss of Puma would have broader political implications for the RAF outside of pure capability. The day the RAF were unable to provide the required SH support because we lack a balanced capability is the day the Army then make a bid to take over RW in total, arguing that the RAF cannot provide the effect required.
So if Puma does end up getting the axe, at a stroke, not only have we reduced our overall RW flexibility & capability in the manner already described (Wildcat will never be an effective Puma replacement), but the RAF could also end up facing more base reductions and the loss of more personnel associated with those defunct capabiltiies as the bean counters start to question the need for retaining Benson, the SHF construct and associated appointments and broader RAF manning liabilities. And in the current febrile atmosphere of SDSR and PRs, any chance for any of the services to get one over their sister services is being taken with both hands.
Plus, I just happen to believe that the SH role is still an RAF role. That is my opinion, many would question it, but in terms of operational experience over the years, numbers of aircraft and crews and associated personnel and infrastructure, the RAF has and continues to provide the lion's share of the capability. And as I don't see any other SH sqns outside of the RAF and the CHF's much smaller capability, in that respect, I don't see how I am wrong in describing SH as a primarily RAF capability.
I didn't say the CHF operating Merlin was an issue. What I did say was that in RW terms, the RAF is in danger of becoming operationally ineffective if all it had was CH-47 and nothing smaller to offer the flexibility required to operate in an complex urban scenario.
All I can think is that Nicholas, and possibly yourself, are alluding to RW capability being a Defence capability rather than a single service capability. Well on paper, maybe it is, but that argument would only work if we were a single Defence Force rather than the single services that we are. To take your argument to its fullest extent would be akin to saying that the Infantry belong to Defence not the Army. In practice, JHC is far from being Joint and has single service rivalries running right the way through it (apart from at the operator level, when the guys just crack on) which means that the RAF still very much fight their own corner within JHC as do the Army and the RN / RM and assets are still viewed very much as being RAF or Army or RN/RM. Be under no illusion, the loss of Puma would have broader political implications for the RAF outside of pure capability. The day the RAF were unable to provide the required SH support because we lack a balanced capability is the day the Army then make a bid to take over RW in total, arguing that the RAF cannot provide the effect required.
So if Puma does end up getting the axe, at a stroke, not only have we reduced our overall RW flexibility & capability in the manner already described (Wildcat will never be an effective Puma replacement), but the RAF could also end up facing more base reductions and the loss of more personnel associated with those defunct capabiltiies as the bean counters start to question the need for retaining Benson, the SHF construct and associated appointments and broader RAF manning liabilities. And in the current febrile atmosphere of SDSR and PRs, any chance for any of the services to get one over their sister services is being taken with both hands.
Plus, I just happen to believe that the SH role is still an RAF role. That is my opinion, many would question it, but in terms of operational experience over the years, numbers of aircraft and crews and associated personnel and infrastructure, the RAF has and continues to provide the lion's share of the capability. And as I don't see any other SH sqns outside of the RAF and the CHF's much smaller capability, in that respect, I don't see how I am wrong in describing SH as a primarily RAF capability.
Last edited by Melchett01; 16th Dec 2011 at 09:34. Reason: To make a little more sense after a strong coffee
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Melchett
Errrr....last time I checked, we're all part of Defence, irrespective of which colour uniform we wear. I think the RM and RAF Regt might have something to say about their role as infanteers as well!
Inter-service rivalries about who owns what are one of the root causes of the bad behaviour between senior elements of each Service, because they've lost sight of the fact that we're all supposed to be working towards the single aim of providing the military contribution to Defence. The colour of your cloth should be irrelevant in comparison to whether or not you can provide the capability asked of you in the land, air or maritime evironments. I agree that the seams between those environments are the most complex areas for the high-priced help to decide who is going to get the funding to do what, but in our cash-strapped circumstances there's not much scope for unneccessary duplication.
I also disagree with you that JHC isn't joint, it looks pretty joint to me! There are always going to be single service tensions, but show me a 'joint' organisation where there aren't! The tensions are more evident back at home, where people are polarised by separate basing, but on ops it's about as joint as any organisation I've ever seen and is routinely producing the goods for the customers day in, day out. Without realising it, most of JHC are probably among the most 'joint' of all of the Armed Forces, because working alongside each of the other two Services is second nature. I would argue that the only groups that are more joint are within certain specialist organisations, where the colour of your original uniform is almost irrelevant to your role and position within whichever of those organisations you're working.
Getting back to the original thread, Puma's upgrade might still be on the cards at the moment, but I'm not sure I'd hold my breath about any project requiring a financial commitment right now, because there's still a bit of a hole in the finances that has to be closed somehow. I think you're probably relatively safe if your project or equipment is part of the future structure of the Forces beyond 2025, but if you're not.....!
To take your argument to its fullest extent would be akin to saying that the Infantry belong to Defence not the Army.
Inter-service rivalries about who owns what are one of the root causes of the bad behaviour between senior elements of each Service, because they've lost sight of the fact that we're all supposed to be working towards the single aim of providing the military contribution to Defence. The colour of your cloth should be irrelevant in comparison to whether or not you can provide the capability asked of you in the land, air or maritime evironments. I agree that the seams between those environments are the most complex areas for the high-priced help to decide who is going to get the funding to do what, but in our cash-strapped circumstances there's not much scope for unneccessary duplication.
I also disagree with you that JHC isn't joint, it looks pretty joint to me! There are always going to be single service tensions, but show me a 'joint' organisation where there aren't! The tensions are more evident back at home, where people are polarised by separate basing, but on ops it's about as joint as any organisation I've ever seen and is routinely producing the goods for the customers day in, day out. Without realising it, most of JHC are probably among the most 'joint' of all of the Armed Forces, because working alongside each of the other two Services is second nature. I would argue that the only groups that are more joint are within certain specialist organisations, where the colour of your original uniform is almost irrelevant to your role and position within whichever of those organisations you're working.
Getting back to the original thread, Puma's upgrade might still be on the cards at the moment, but I'm not sure I'd hold my breath about any project requiring a financial commitment right now, because there's still a bit of a hole in the finances that has to be closed somehow. I think you're probably relatively safe if your project or equipment is part of the future structure of the Forces beyond 2025, but if you're not.....!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Yawn...... The Puma can operate from ships, the French have done it for years. We chose not to do it, but that could change if they were prepared to do the trials. Not sure where they have stashed the blade folding kits though. Probably in Lord Lucans new house. Never a funnier sight than a 33 Sqn Crewman Leader winching down to HMS Intrepid with his monkey harness still attached. I nearly fell off the side!
Snafu,
I do agree that many have lost sight of the bigger picture and single service rivalries do us no favours - especially when the Treasury is the real enemy. But having now done 2 tours in JHC in 5years, I have a pretty good take on just how joint JHC really is. That aside, agreed - lets get back to the original thread rather than going down the semantics rabbit hole of single or joint service.
I still think we need something Puma-sized to offer maximum operational flexibility in the future operating environment.
I do agree that many have lost sight of the bigger picture and single service rivalries do us no favours - especially when the Treasury is the real enemy. But having now done 2 tours in JHC in 5years, I have a pretty good take on just how joint JHC really is. That aside, agreed - lets get back to the original thread rather than going down the semantics rabbit hole of single or joint service.
I still think we need something Puma-sized to offer maximum operational flexibility in the future operating environment.
If we still need a small(ish) cab (which we probably do), given that the Pumas were primarily early 70's build and a large chunk of the HC4 fleet are mid to late 80s build (albeit with high-time frames), why was Puma put forward for a SLEP instead of the HC4? That would have left the RAF with a straight choice between Merlin / Puma.
Not that I think CHF don't need a new cab (they do), I'm just somewhat surprised that the potential consequences weren't seen beforehand.
Not that I think CHF don't need a new cab (they do), I'm just somewhat surprised that the potential consequences weren't seen beforehand.
Thread Starter
MGD
For a LONG time all the dross graduating out of Shawbury were posted to the Wokka. It's a shame that some of them were promoted a long way and ended up running (and now selling-out) the SH force.
For a LONG time all the dross graduating out of Shawbury were posted to the Wokka. It's a shame that some of them were promoted a long way and ended up running (and now selling-out) the SH force.