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

If RAF / AAC had the WS-70 then what ......

Wikiposts
Search
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.

If RAF / AAC had the WS-70 then what ......

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12th Sep 2014, 09:43
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 3,158
Received 101 Likes on 54 Posts
If RAF / AAC had the WS-70 then what ......

Referring to reply I posted earlier , here is the magic million pound question - what if the great Tarzan / Westland scandal had not happened and we had RTM powered WS-70 ....( my thermodynamics lecturer worked for RR Leavsden and one of his projects was partaking in engine and flight tests of the only G reg WS-70 )

Speaking to a couple of SHF Wessex guys in the early noughties - it was interesting to hear their opinions 'if' we had the Balckhawk. Some may have said it be better choice than Merlin.....

any thoughts here ?

Cheers
chopper2004 is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2014, 10:13
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,709
Received 38 Likes on 23 Posts
The CHF would be getting a new airframe rather than hand-me-down ones.
Davef68 is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2014, 19:18
  #3 (permalink)  
GipsyMagpie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I thought hand me downs were cherished much-loved items which are handed down to younger relatives. Seems in this case its a raid on the VHS collection at a charity shop by the older generation.
 
Old 12th Sep 2014, 19:29
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So many aspects of SH warfare have changed since the 80s that the UH60 being the optimum platform may no longer have merit. Its attraction was that the tricycle undercarriage with a tail wheel is seen by almost all to be the perfect composition of a battlefield helicopter, especially when sized to fit inside a C130 facilitating global reinforcement. This was at a time when Britmil rejected both C5 and second hand (cheap) C141 Starlifter due to a policy of not being prepared to lose a lot of troops in a single accident.

This policy faded with the introduction of C17 and an acceptance that Chinook was the optimum SH helicopter having shaken off its image of the Boeing death ship that it inherited in early (82 -90) accidents. Trooping with Chinook is accepting the risk of losing 44 troops in one go, a pragmatic approach given early teething problems being a thing of the past.

A Puma sized airframe remains the SF cab of choice for urban warfare - anti terrorist Ops. This is where longevity of UH60 was possible for the low cabin of UH60 is its Achilles heel for most of the time. Had UH60 been embraced, Merlin would have almost certainly been the exclusive domain of the Royal Navy and italian - Danish AF. Puma 2 probably would not have happened and Puma 1 would be retiring on time about now. Leaving a fleet of UH60 and Chinook which would have been no bad thing. Would we have embraced Cougar or NH90? That perhaps is the question of the day, for austerity has probably influenced the decision to upgrade Puma; a fleet that has almost universal Cat 3/4 repaired airframes extant including the odd cut and shunt airframe.

In the end Westlands were considered worth saving even if Rolls Royce suffered.
Tiger_mate is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2014, 19:31
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 463
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
If RAF / AAC had the WS-70 then what ......

We would have bought 22 more CH47 instead of Merlin, to meet the Army's lift requirement in the mid 90s. Ultimately we would have been able to provide more capable lift in Helmand. Less vehicle convoys. Less ..........

Last edited by chinook240; 13th Sep 2014 at 07:01.
chinook240 is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2014, 23:17
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Be honest....MD's Blackhawks, Apaches, and Chinooks are the right answer for any number of reasons. That is why the US Army have so many of all of them.

Being different does not make it better as proven by the MOD decisions re helicopters. They got the right Types with the Apache and Chinook but dropped the Ball big time on the the rest.
Boudreaux Bob is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2014, 00:19
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,709
Received 38 Likes on 23 Posts
I seem to recall (vaguely) that the UH-60 was considered too small for the size of unit the Army wanted SH to carry.

There was a time in the early 80s when a Super Puma buy looked likely to replace the Wessex
Davef68 is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2014, 14:58
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Conspiracy theory: Early eighties and the supply of Exocet to South America probably put paid to any aspiration of Super Puma replacing Puma.
Tiger_mate is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2014, 23:51
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sitting on the toilet of Europe.... the UK
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"the UH-60 was considered too small for the size of unit the Army wanted SH to carry."

Now it's fixed with Wastelands Wildcrap aye?
Faithless is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2014, 23:56
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Or was it that the BlackHawk would not fit under a standard issue Camo Net?
Boudreaux Bob is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.