Will Puma Survive?
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,307
Likes: 18
From: Southern Europe
Indeed. If we think the cuts have finished yet, we're dreaming. It might be more a case of when than if. But you could probably say that for all sorts of things at the moment.
However, to answer your question, no, I'm not in the know.
Courtney
However, to answer your question, no, I'm not in the know.
Courtney
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 222
Likes: 11
I see the blinkered thinking of HMG is rubbing off on those in 'town' as well. Nice to see we're structuring ourselves with a well-balanced force for the future, or b)?
The country isn't totally broke, plenty out there are. Brainwashing the population to believe it is is a very convenient way to get people to roll over and accept any decision made by our glorious leaders.
I feel deep sympathy for the many aircrew and support staff who will be without a job in the very near future in an ever more competetive job market.
Obviously it's still only a rumour though.
The country isn't totally broke, plenty out there are. Brainwashing the population to believe it is is a very convenient way to get people to roll over and accept any decision made by our glorious leaders.
I feel deep sympathy for the many aircrew and support staff who will be without a job in the very near future in an ever more competetive job market.
Obviously it's still only a rumour though.
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,582
Likes: 10
From: Darling - where are we?
Well if Puma gets axed and Merlin goes to the Navy, the RAF will have a totally unbalanced capability which won't be FCOC compliant. Given that the doctrine wallahs are predicting a future of complex interventions in littoral / urban environments, that is going to need at least some relatively small, flexible RW assets if the RAF wants to operate SH in that context.
As we found all too often in the early days of HERRICK, trying to get CH-47 into small compounds doesn't always work, and you either end up a) trashing the cab b) trashing the compound or c) doing an insert to an offset HLS and having to fight your way in and out - which is just about fine in a relatively open area, but do you really want to do that in an urban environment?
Unfortunately, much of this seems to have been overlooked and hasn't been helped by the Chinook mafia dominating the RAF's RW decision making and planning processes. So now, given that we are skint and that Puma isn't on ops, regardless of the capability requirement for a reasonably small and flexible platform capable of operating in all environments, anything we might say will just be seen as a fighting a rear-guard action by the Army and RN who will quite happily see Puma go.
As we found all too often in the early days of HERRICK, trying to get CH-47 into small compounds doesn't always work, and you either end up a) trashing the cab b) trashing the compound or c) doing an insert to an offset HLS and having to fight your way in and out - which is just about fine in a relatively open area, but do you really want to do that in an urban environment?
Unfortunately, much of this seems to have been overlooked and hasn't been helped by the Chinook mafia dominating the RAF's RW decision making and planning processes. So now, given that we are skint and that Puma isn't on ops, regardless of the capability requirement for a reasonably small and flexible platform capable of operating in all environments, anything we might say will just be seen as a fighting a rear-guard action by the Army and RN who will quite happily see Puma go.
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,307
Likes: 18
From: Southern Europe
I think it's always been a bit like that, Llama. Perhaps (partly) because the guys in town see the severity of the cuts "close-up" and have to act on them. I agree with you about aircrew and support staff who will be without a job in the very near future.
I think it's also going to be very difficult for those still serving who find themselves deployed more and more frequently and trying to do more with less. Ops aren't over yet and there will always be more to come. Trick is, the politicians need to decide what they want to do in the world and then equip and man (sorry, person) the armed forces accordingly. They cannot keep cutting and expecting to keep being big actors on the world stage.
Courtney
I think it's also going to be very difficult for those still serving who find themselves deployed more and more frequently and trying to do more with less. Ops aren't over yet and there will always be more to come. Trick is, the politicians need to decide what they want to do in the world and then equip and man (sorry, person) the armed forces accordingly. They cannot keep cutting and expecting to keep being big actors on the world stage.
Courtney
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
From: Hampshire
regardless of the capability requirement for a reasonably small and flexible platform capable of operating in all environments
Don't get me wrong but I have the ultimate respect for gold old 'Percy' but I'm afraid the glory days of AMF heroically galavanting across land-locked Europe to only worry about keeping the 'Reds' in check are long gone.
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,582
Likes: 10
From: Darling - where are we?
dc1968,
I really don't have any personal loyalty to the Puma - I do not, never have and never will fly it, so my comments were not driven out of any sense of loyalty to the platform. I was merely arguing that whilst the CH-47 is a good ac, having nothing but CH-47 will leave the RAF's rotary fleet unbalanced, potentially putting the RAF at a disadvantage if the future operating environment does indeed develop in the way Defence seems to think it will.
Plus, if you can't get a Puma on a ship, you're going to have even more problems with a Merlin!
I really don't have any personal loyalty to the Puma - I do not, never have and never will fly it, so my comments were not driven out of any sense of loyalty to the platform. I was merely arguing that whilst the CH-47 is a good ac, having nothing but CH-47 will leave the RAF's rotary fleet unbalanced, potentially putting the RAF at a disadvantage if the future operating environment does indeed develop in the way Defence seems to think it will.
Plus, if you can't get a Puma on a ship, you're going to have even more problems with a Merlin!
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
if you can't get a Puma on a ship, you're going to have even more problems with a Merlin!
Joined: Dec 2001
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 2,979
Likes: 488
From: The Roman Empire
llamaman,
As to how broke the government is, try looking at this...
UK National Debt | Economics Blog
We may not be as "broke" as some other countries, but we are still broke, and still borrowing £140Bn odd each year to make ends meet (despite the "massive cuts" Labour keep referring to), so continually increasing the size of the overall national debt. Indeed, when the coalition talked about getting rid of the deficit by 2015 (which they probably won't now be able to do), as opposed to Labour which planned to half it, they were talking about the ANNUAL deficit, not the overall one.
If we don't put our own house in order, and end up going cap in hand to the IMF, then any cuts undertaken nationally will be as nothing to any imposed on us externally - external ones will be far more draconian.
As a country we are living beyond our means, and it cannot continue indefinitely.
Cuts in government spending are necessary, where they are made, welfare, defence, education, NHS, etc are decided by the people that our supposed democratic system placed in power.
As to how broke the government is, try looking at this...
UK National Debt | Economics Blog
We may not be as "broke" as some other countries, but we are still broke, and still borrowing £140Bn odd each year to make ends meet (despite the "massive cuts" Labour keep referring to), so continually increasing the size of the overall national debt. Indeed, when the coalition talked about getting rid of the deficit by 2015 (which they probably won't now be able to do), as opposed to Labour which planned to half it, they were talking about the ANNUAL deficit, not the overall one.
If we don't put our own house in order, and end up going cap in hand to the IMF, then any cuts undertaken nationally will be as nothing to any imposed on us externally - external ones will be far more draconian.
As a country we are living beyond our means, and it cannot continue indefinitely.
Cuts in government spending are necessary, where they are made, welfare, defence, education, NHS, etc are decided by the people that our supposed democratic system placed in power.
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
From: DEVON
Biggus
Your words are music to the ears of the Chinese. The Chinese government, in 1998, asked their military leaders as to how they could best defeat the West. Their Generals said that the West should first be defeated economically; our glorious leaders have, of course, fallen headlong into that trap.
In my view they now have the money, the military hardware, the manpower and the will to, well......do what they like
Anyway, back to the thread: Maybe the Puma is being mothballed because 1. it is French, and 2. it is made of plastic.
Incoming, Tin hat on, straps tightened
In my view they now have the money, the military hardware, the manpower and the will to, well......do what they like
Anyway, back to the thread: Maybe the Puma is being mothballed because 1. it is French, and 2. it is made of plastic.
Incoming, Tin hat on, straps tightened
Last edited by tramps; 15th December 2011 at 15:01.
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
From: England
The RAF and helicopters
having nothing but CH-47 will leave the RAF's rotary fleet unbalanced,
the RAF will have a totally unbalanced capability which won't be FCOC compliant. Given that the doctrine wallahs are predicting a future of complex interventions in littoral / urban environments, that is going to need at least some relatively small, flexible RW assets if the RAF wants to operate SH in that context
Nick
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 222
Likes: 11
Biggus,
Thanks for the lecture in Thatcherite economics. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a balanced Armed Forces (across the board) that is properly equipped to adequately defend UK interests and support a realistic foreign policy. You can't save huge sums of cash that quickly if you have a Bullish administration who consider themselves a world player and pander to the beck and call of our American friends.
I'm not arguing that Puma is necessarily the best solution but the Chinook is not the answer to everything. Unless you're a Chinook driver.
Thanks for the lecture in Thatcherite economics. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a balanced Armed Forces (across the board) that is properly equipped to adequately defend UK interests and support a realistic foreign policy. You can't save huge sums of cash that quickly if you have a Bullish administration who consider themselves a world player and pander to the beck and call of our American friends.
I'm not arguing that Puma is necessarily the best solution but the Chinook is not the answer to everything. Unless you're a Chinook driver.
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 632
Likes: 3
From: UK
So if the Puma doesn't survive PR12, and the Merlin goes to the RN, why not give the CH47 to the Army? No requirement for JHC as the main users have their own assets and can utilise them as they see fit.
Save a fortune....... Simples!
Save a fortune....... Simples!
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,582
Likes: 10
From: Darling - where are we?
But why does the RAF need a balanced capability? Surely as long as JHC or Defence has a balanced capability then that ought to suffice?
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
From: England
Mel
Understood, but that doesn't quite answer why the RAF needs a balanced (whatever that means) SH force.
Nick
, the single services still retain Full Command of their assets and personnel. So whilst JHC may operate the ac, they are still the RAF's.
Nick
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,196
Likes: 1
From: Among these dark Satanic mills
But why does the RAF need a balanced capability? Surely as long as JHC or Defence has a balanced capability then that ought to suffice?
Just came across this...doesn't make happy reading for Puma folks... Ministry of Defence | About Defence | People | Speeches | Minister for International Security Strategy Speeches | 2011/10/19 - Heli-Power Conference & Exhibition
Last edited by TorqueOfTheDevil; 15th December 2011 at 16:16. Reason: Addition
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,582
Likes: 10
From: Darling - where are we?
Understood, but that doesn't quite answer why the RAF needs a balanced (whatever that means) SH force.
And by balanced I mean that to guarantee operational flexibility, you might want something other than a 100ft x 60ft ac weighing in at smidge over 10 tons. There are times when size really does matter - regardless of what CinC Home Command tells you - and there are times when small really is better. But if all you have is a CH-47, you could well be operationally limited which you wouldn't necessarily be with a balanced force of large and small SH.