Puma Upgrade Delay
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Puma Upgrade Delay
Defense News: RAF Delays Timetable To Field Upgrade Puma Helo
LONDON — Royal Air Force plans to field an upgraded version of the Eurocopter Puma helicopter have been delayed until at least the middle of next year, according to Britain’s defense procurement and support minister.
The Ministry of Defence said that the crash of a civilian version of the Puma in France in July, which killed key Eurocopter flight test crew, was partly to blame for the delay.
“There have been some delays to aspects of the project and work is being undertaken to understand whether this will impact on fielding plans” Procurement Minister Philip Dunne admitted in a parliamentary written response today. Dunne failed to specify the cause of the problem.
A Ministry of Defence spokesman later said that one of the reasons for the delay was the crash in the French Alps, which killed key Eurocopter test pilots. “A review into the causes of the delay has not yet been complete, however, the Eurocopter air crash [in July] was a factor, as are other unexpected delays — mainly, work we had not expected has had to be done,” said the spokesman. Eurocopter declined to comment.
Signed in 2009, the £339 million pound ($538.2 million) program to significantly update 24 Puma Mk 1 tactical transports operated by the British has seen the helicopter emerge with new engines, flight controls and other upgrades. At one time, the life-extension program of the tactical transport helicopter was a candidate for the axe as part of the budget-cutting strategic defense review in 2010.
The first production standard aircraft undertook its maiden flight in September 2012 and 21 of the 24 helicopter’s in the program have either been delivered or are in the update program being undertaken at a Eurocopter factory in Romania.
Dunne said the MoD “currently expects to field the initial aircraft for training by mid-2013 and incrementally expand the capacity and capability of the Puma Mk2 force over the subsequent two years.” When the deal was signed in 2009, it was expected the Puma Mk2 would enter service this year and reach full operational capability in 2014. The procurement minister said the upgrade is still forecast to be delivered within budget.
British rotorcraft plans envisage tactical helicopter lift being provided by Boeing Chinooks and Mk2 Puma’s, while with the AgustaWestland Merlin machines, which are also operated in that role, will be being used moved over to provide amphibious lift for the Royal Navy’s Commando forces, as its Sea King capability is finally pensioned off.
LONDON — Royal Air Force plans to field an upgraded version of the Eurocopter Puma helicopter have been delayed until at least the middle of next year, according to Britain’s defense procurement and support minister.
The Ministry of Defence said that the crash of a civilian version of the Puma in France in July, which killed key Eurocopter flight test crew, was partly to blame for the delay.
“There have been some delays to aspects of the project and work is being undertaken to understand whether this will impact on fielding plans” Procurement Minister Philip Dunne admitted in a parliamentary written response today. Dunne failed to specify the cause of the problem.
A Ministry of Defence spokesman later said that one of the reasons for the delay was the crash in the French Alps, which killed key Eurocopter test pilots. “A review into the causes of the delay has not yet been complete, however, the Eurocopter air crash [in July] was a factor, as are other unexpected delays — mainly, work we had not expected has had to be done,” said the spokesman. Eurocopter declined to comment.
Signed in 2009, the £339 million pound ($538.2 million) program to significantly update 24 Puma Mk 1 tactical transports operated by the British has seen the helicopter emerge with new engines, flight controls and other upgrades. At one time, the life-extension program of the tactical transport helicopter was a candidate for the axe as part of the budget-cutting strategic defense review in 2010.
The first production standard aircraft undertook its maiden flight in September 2012 and 21 of the 24 helicopter’s in the program have either been delivered or are in the update program being undertaken at a Eurocopter factory in Romania.
Dunne said the MoD “currently expects to field the initial aircraft for training by mid-2013 and incrementally expand the capacity and capability of the Puma Mk2 force over the subsequent two years.” When the deal was signed in 2009, it was expected the Puma Mk2 would enter service this year and reach full operational capability in 2014. The procurement minister said the upgrade is still forecast to be delivered within budget.
British rotorcraft plans envisage tactical helicopter lift being provided by Boeing Chinooks and Mk2 Puma’s, while with the AgustaWestland Merlin machines, which are also operated in that role, will be being used moved over to provide amphibious lift for the Royal Navy’s Commando forces, as its Sea King capability is finally pensioned off.
The quotes attributed to the Minister are taken from a written answer to a Parliamentary Question. The answer contains nothing that is incorrect (as far as I can see) but at the same time gives no more detail than is strictly necessary to answer the question - which is par for the course for these things.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Many?
Just a thought but if we asked nicely how many nice big chunky Russian Helicopters could the MOD buy for £335 million?
You know the ones that work in Afghanistan...
Still I am sure the Romanians will do a great job...
You know the ones that work in Afghanistan...
Still I am sure the Romanians will do a great job...
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 413 Likes
on
218 Posts
Is that a delay from the 1980s when the first accident reports stated that engine anticipators should be fitted urgently.....?
We managed to cope all right, but they obviously can't get the staff of the same calibre these days.
Having said that, the most responsive Puma I ever flew was one in NI that was red-lined for lack of engine matching at low power settings (they were set up manually with a screwdriver after flight testing, sometimes took ages). It had a 10 or 11% Ng split; IIRC the max book figure was 3 or 4%.
Whatever you did to the Nr, the high engine wouldn't back off to flight idle and the rotor response was far better. It felt like a totally different aircraft!
As an aside, the old Wessex lags said that the Puma would never last in RAF service because the airframe was built too lightly. 41 years in service as a Mk1 has proved them totally wrong!
In 1979 I gained access to a Boscombe Down TP's report that recommended that the aircraft shouldn't be accepted into service without engine anticipators fitted; it was dated quite some years before 1979 (first HC1s came into service in 1971).
The ultimate was when Den Holland and Phil Bleasedale had a doghouse come off and disable the tail rotor at 200 ft. They had to shut down both and carry out an engine off landing and if it wasn't for a wheel snagging a rabbit burrow they would have got away with it. They were dragged over the coals for not finding 'a power and control combination to enable flight to be continued'. A phrase lifted straight out of the Wessex checklist.
As Shy Torque says, 41 years later.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Puma v Mi 17 v Blackhawks
On 28 October 2008 the Royal Thai Army announced a deal to buy 6 Mi-17s to meet its requirement for a medium-lift helicopter. This is the first time the Thai military has acquired Russian aircraft instead of American.[6] Flight International quotes the Thai army’s rationale: "We are buying three Mi-17 helicopters for the price of one Black Hawk. The Mi-17 can also carry more than 30 troops, while the Black Hawk could carry only 13 soldiers. These were the key factors behind the decision."[7]
Actually I think £339 million would buy more capability for hot/high ops than a Puma Upgrade.
Lastly must we always go down this route after decades of service. Would the RAF have considered a Spitfire upgrade 40 years after its first flight?
Actually I think £339 million would buy more capability for hot/high ops than a Puma Upgrade.
Lastly must we always go down this route after decades of service. Would the RAF have considered a Spitfire upgrade 40 years after its first flight?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 413 Likes
on
218 Posts
The Spitfire(s) remained in front line service for less than two decades and it wasn't really the same aircraft by the time the Mk 24(!) came along.
I reckon the Pumas have given the RAF mighty fine service, despite the design shortcomings. There can't be many other aircraft of any type that have retained the original Mk1 status after forty one years.
But at the end of the day, it's all down to money, as always.
I reckon the Pumas have given the RAF mighty fine service, despite the design shortcomings. There can't be many other aircraft of any type that have retained the original Mk1 status after forty one years.
But at the end of the day, it's all down to money, as always.
Bigpants,
May I suggest that, in part, the answer to your question is the way the armed forces of the UK procure capital equipment and then support it in service.
If 'the system' took a 'through life' view of the procurement and ongoing support, plus the likely requirements for upgrades and set down a plausible replacement strategy - should that requirement have been identified, the outcome for many of our weapons systems would be very different.
The major impediment to realistic costings is the annualisation arrangements and the grubbing around which goes on just to keep a weapon system viable against all the other claims for funding. The method by which future costs are measured against inflation leaves something to be desired and this without political interference in the process (would we have bought SA80 if it wasn't seen as important to keep a factory open?).
Old Duffer
May I suggest that, in part, the answer to your question is the way the armed forces of the UK procure capital equipment and then support it in service.
If 'the system' took a 'through life' view of the procurement and ongoing support, plus the likely requirements for upgrades and set down a plausible replacement strategy - should that requirement have been identified, the outcome for many of our weapons systems would be very different.
The major impediment to realistic costings is the annualisation arrangements and the grubbing around which goes on just to keep a weapon system viable against all the other claims for funding. The method by which future costs are measured against inflation leaves something to be desired and this without political interference in the process (would we have bought SA80 if it wasn't seen as important to keep a factory open?).
Old Duffer
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 413 Likes
on
218 Posts
You sure it wasn't Neil Mitchel?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 119K East of SARDOT
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They had to shut down both and carry out an engine off landing
If I recall, wasn't Neil criticised (in his incident) by the BOI for not shutting the engines down (exactly) iaw FRCs whilst executing a EOL?
Picky, picky BOIs?
S4G
