Jamesd,

If my (fading) memory serves me correctly, the Puma has some serious issues with high CG and deck motion, as well as a startling lack of tie down points and any serious structure to fit them.

The phrase 'properly marinised' can be interpreted in a number of ways - but for my money I'd want a tough, medium sized helicopter, with decent corrosion protection, avionics suited for maritime ops, and power folding blades. Low CG, plenty of tie down points, and good all weather capability.

Puma (in its current form) doesn't fit my bill - but I'm happy to be proved wrong. SK4 does a very decent job, but it's old and going.

Best Regards

Engines

I wouldn't disagree with you - but the question was what whether the Chinook could do everything the Puma could.. Or not...... I was just pointing out it couldn't
I agree - rebuilding the SK fleet would have been better than Puma, but politics were at play.. No way Westland were going to be given a contract after the issues with Merlin and Apache (which weren't caused by them..) and of course the Romanians could undercut anything with their cheap labour. Truth is, for a proper rebuild the Pumas should have gone to South Africa, but thats another story

The Puma has always had that problem. It was addressed with the single wheel main undercarriage in 1978. That can take an incredible amount of punishment and is stressed to 8 m/s ground impact without further investigation. The 'Puma Mk2' will be the only surviving version of the Puma in service with anybody with the six-wheel undercarriage. What will and has resulted by not fitting the later system is a complete waste of time and money.

llamaman,

and the Puma Force has built an enviable reputation for being soooo well run of recent years?

Suggest you check the construction of your roof before lobbing rocks.

Loads of six-wheel Pumas out there, in both military and civilian use. Do they all get axed when Puma 2 comes into service?

Not convinced new wheels lowers the C of G either, but I await enlightenment from those in the know; including from those who like to land on soft ground.

Minigun....
 

Quite right, there has been a plethora of ex Chinook bods running the Pumas over the last few years:ugh:

Yep, they were moved across the M4 to provide some leadership and oversight when it was discovered the Puma Force was lacking quite a bit of both.

The real question is not "will the Puma survive" but rather "should the Puma survive".

I would suggest Blackhawks would be a far better airframe for the mission than the Puma....less the one fact that the Puma is in the inventory and the purchase of the Blackhawk would cost money the UK Military just does not have.

After all...the Puma was "new" in the 1980's.

But then...with Blackhawks/Sea Hawks....the Lynx and Puma would both be indangered species. Perhaps Westland could do the same deal as they did with the Apache. Throw in some Kiowa's and you lot could be flying an all US Designed fleet less the Merlin.

Is Westland's licence to build the Black hawk still valid?
Remember they built one in 1987 but got no orders

Mini.......

I think you will find there were several ex-CH47 'leaders' in-situ, or putting further strain on the Puma Force by proxy, around the time you are referring too. But if you feel you know better, then feel free to come across and explain!

Minigun
 

Your timing is way out pal in fact as I heard it a recently departed senior officer at JHC suggested that the answer to all the Puma's 'problems' would be to post in a load of Chinook Flt Cdrs, untill it was pointed out just how many of their ilk were in charge at the time. Is changing history part of the Chinny CR work up? Hoist with ones own petard I think Mini.:ouch:
That said, I have known some seriously top blokes on the Chinook fleet over the years, they arn't all bad, even you have some good points;). How's the job hunting going?

It was even newer in the early 1970s when the RAF first brought the Puma HC1 into service.

An Air Staff Target was put forward in the early 1980s for finding a Puma/Wessex/Lynx replacement. Many of us flying the Puma could see that the Blackhawk would have been ideal for the RAF's role back then. A re-engined (Makila) HC1 was also one of the contenders. As usual there was no money and all went quiet.

I would hope that MOD will not throw away the money being spent on the ongoing Puma upgrade to HC2 specification (especially as it's taken another 30 years to get there), but stranger things have happened.

Yes; civilian ones do. I cannot think of any major operator still using them. Even the 332Ls are being farmed out to second level owners.

I have landed both in soggy ground in both the UK and overseas and the single wheel has a far better footprint than the old twin bogie. Because the undercarriage leg cants back if the wheel gets tangled up with rock and bricks it is allowed to roll over them. I have been witness, ie in the cockpit, to some horrific arrivals that would have Cat 4d a 330 even if it had stayed upright. They can roll over; but most have been as a result of a strong crosswind either being towed or offshore refueling.

However it's done now and it will not involve me.

So was the Blackhawk. It started with the US Army in 1979.

Those with an intelligent enough viewpoint (stand-fast MGD) know that the Puma force was pushed to beyond breaking point by senior commanders, not those running the force at the time. Some of those senior commanders were ex-Chinook, some were not.

There are usually around the same percentage of strokers on every squadron, believe it or not even those equipped with Chinook. Anyone who disagrees would most likely be one of them.

MGD

I assume that's why Odiham had to import ex Puma and SAR mates to be Ch Flt Cdrs then too!!

:E

Its a Puma Jim, but not as we know it...
 

For those that are adamant the Puma is to get scrapped, do you actually know what is involved in the upgrade and the capability that will be gained?

I suspect you don't know the details and whilst it is a rumour network, for your own credibility it might be worth finding out. It could save embarrassment in the not too distant future as the LEP is giving a 'brand new' aircraft back to the RAF that is nothing like its Mk1 cousin :E

This is not a rant or 'having a go' at anyone, just hoping that there is no needless Puma bashing that is based on 'fact' :ok:

HG

This programme will extend the operational life of the Puma helicopter fleet and is to significantly enhance its capability – particularly in demanding hot and high conditions. It will improve the safety and performance by providing new engines, a digital flight control system, increased platform survivability and enhanced navigation and communications.

Read more: Upgraded RAF Puma Mk 2 Makes First Flight | Air Force News at DefenseTalk

A complete new aircraft i doubt, same fatigue life on the airframe but maybe a life extension. I agree it will be an enhanced aircraft over it's predecessor but as in the lynx 9 it will not be new. The RAF guy's are getting anxious as the possible loss of the Puma 2 on top of the Merlin is a massive hit in the SH role it has had a large foot print in for so long. 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.

FW to RAF and RW to AAC & FAA - so FAA give up all future FW capabilities - I don't think so, no deal.

I do love it when the uninformed start arguing about their own speculations, increasing their own belief in their own flawed information. :ok:

PTT
 

Know something then do you?;)

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.

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!

Puma: French and made of plastic; 2 reasons, maybe, why the MOD are having a rethink?:E

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 :(

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.

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?

... Assuming the RAF survive as a single service :sad:

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.

[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]

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.

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.

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?

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 :E). 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.

Thoughts from Arrse...not entirely complimentary.

Save the puma!!!

Are you referring to the topic, or to opinions on the originator of that particular thread?

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.

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.

You mean members of the RAF?

Like you did in your opening statement?.....

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?


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.

Dream Along!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fair one but I think they'd cry less than CrabAir