and if we hadn't chucked money at the Puma life extension program we could probably have afforded new Blackhawks at a reasonable cost and be looking forward to a 30 year service life. However back to the thought, that won't help keep AW/L in business.

Eric, Was it not Eurocopter not AW/L that did the Puma 2?
My own view. I thought it was daft at the time. I was told the whole rationale was about SF getting into tight spots and Merlin was too big. Should have stuck with the Scout! is the Dauphin too big also. Why do they need both?

SB-1 defiant I reckon the airframe can replace puma merlin and apache

It helps if you can get a battalion in position in less than two days.

Eric,
Airbus Helicopters did the Puma 2 (post #19).

The arguments about fuselage plugs and different undercarriage are all well made but fail to appreciate that the Pu2 project was not about capability enhancement, it was about life extension and that was the sole basis for funding. The Turmo engines had long been recognised as the aircraft's achilles heel and the risk held by RTSA had a calendar backstop of the proposed Pu1 OSD. Extending Puma was only possible with new engines. The cockpit came with the engines as it was already a CS29 certified combination and was considered the least risky way of doing it. This also explains why there was no moving map or other tactical integration done when the project was approved - there was no funding for capability enhancement. The DAS was lifted straight out of the Chinook TES enhancement (Project BAKER) and, despite my attempts, retained the small DAS MFD as every single money saving corner was cut to keep the aircraft alive (it would have cost too much to re-qual the larger display with the DAS Controller and possibly some cockpit structure work). Please do not think that those who worked tirelessly to keep Puma (one of them currently in the desert in Oz) did not try every avenue to upgrade the old girl through sleight of hand, but in the end just keeping the project alive was a minor miracle. They did what they could. The UH-60 is undoubtedly a capable aircraft (and I enjoy flying it whenever I can), but old UH-60As (cheap) have obsolescence issues already (hence why a number of aftermarket companies are re-working them) but a newer, more capable, UH-60L are a lot more money. Either would have faced the long drawn out certification/release period and either re-equipping with UK grade DAS/avionics (with time/cost delays) or accepting a potentially lower capability. IMHO, for what we spent, considering the need to do it quickly and maintain capability while Chinook went through the fleet Julius fit (please, don't start me on that one...) and the Merlin transition occurred, all in all, I see it as "job done". That's not to say a few more spares wouldn't be handy....

:D:D:D

Exactly what Evalu8ter said. Part of the initial brief was "don't ask for a new helicopter, there isn't any money ". The published cost of the Puma programme included (AIUI) a fair amount of through-life cost as well, so cannot be directly compared to the simple upfront cost of a new replacement.

Leasing 532/725's was eye-wateringly expensive, even before you got to the questions of what happens if you get bullet holes in them (we had 2 shooting wars going on at the time) or need urgent operational mods in less than the 20 years it would take the manufacturer/owners to approve them.

The choice was between refurbed Sea King Mk6s or life-extended Pumas. The Puma option was chosen, the rest is as Evalu8tor has most clearly explained above.

139 - good call but may not fit all needs???
Blackhawk - yes but v-expensive to service in small numbers?

SASless, IIRC there is an S-70 line (Blackhawk) in Poland. Not sure if that fits what Puma replacers want/need.
Sikorsky has produced the UH-60M for a few years now(10?) and I hear that there is a back fit to make some UH-60's into a V model (more digitized cockpit, not sure what else) in the works. As I read this thread, what people are looking at is a later generation of tech than S-70/Blackhawk, just as the US Army is looking at things like Defiant or Valor. Blackhawks a fine machine, but I don't think "refurbished UH-60's" is going to meet a requirement five years hence. (On the other hand, C-130's been around forever, so maybe Blackhawk will be around forever ...)

Slightly baffled as nowhere have I stated who did the Puma extension mods. I am fully aware that Airbus were lead contractor. I didn't think it was relevent who did the mods to the point I was trying to make.
Spot of RTFQ or my grammar is crap.

Alternatively you are just a bit cr@p at putting your point across...

Not my fault if people cant read.

You can blame the audience Eric, but in a Puma 2 thread you managed to post 3 times about AW/L. In your opening salvo you offered a quick conspiracy theory that the MoD had a secret (and unlawful) plan to artificially help AW/L and suggested that its means to achieve this was to not give them the Puma 2 contract.

I wish you well in your written English as you put together your coherent argument so we can all read it correctly and understand your reasoning.

In all my years, including many dealing with Westland, I was only instructed to favour a stated company twice. The first, in 1992, was when my boss, a retired Army officer, told me to cancel Litton OMEGA contracts and award them forthwith to his new next door neighbour, whom he'd chatted to in the pub the night before and ran a one man and his dog company near Heathrow. OK, two men, sharing one rented office. The last time, in 2001, after a programme was delivered early, under cost and to a better spec, I was criticised for not cancelling the contracts on the point of completion, and starting all over again with a certain French company; denying the RN capability for at least 5 years. Chief of Defence Procurement concurred. Their UK base was in the Minister for Defence Procurement's constituency, but I'm sure that was coincidence and had nothing to do with the decision to award them contracts without even bidding.

I'm happy to say Westland never once let me down, and can think of quite a few examples of MoD awarding contracts to others, only for Westland to dig us/them out. Puma Nav Update in the 90s was one.

If you blokes reckon the Puma 2 cabin is too small, then you haven't flown in the Blackhawk cabin. Years' ago Westland built a WS70 (?) (Westland Blackhawk) and we trialled it at Odiham. Good helicopter but the cabin is even smaller than the Puma cabin. Which AFAIR was one of the reasons we didn't buy it.

It is certainly the case that the Black Hawk cabin is no place for a stroll but in representative fits it does work.

With 2 dedicated positions for gunners, complete with seats, with storage space for aircrew kit and aircraft consumables the troop/cargo space remains uncluttered with both doors completely unobstructed. Not to mention usable doors for the front end....

Dress a Puma for war, with guns out of the only doors, with crewman & gunner kneeling or sitting on a box, with aircraft consumables sympathetically littered around the CofG and aircrew kit stashed wherever possible, the cabin becomes considerably less troop/cargo friendly.

"........
....

I must add that the way the US operates the -60 is equally impressive. Working with a rather specialist unit, the crew and troops readied the aircraft, weapon systems, got the seats comfy, installed fluffy dice, stashed kit ready to go, before a quick circuit to land to check all was ok then landing and taxiing to the waiting airlifter. The -60 was then hitched to the winch whilst blades were stowed and the remaining fuel sucked into the C-17, followed by the -60.

At the other end it was quite literally airborne in minutes few, with the -60 ready in the time taken to refill its tanks from the C-17.

Parabellum.

the way things are going, I'm not sure that the Puma will make it into the 2018-9 timeframe...

If its a pure urban role, then Little Birds. If its a stepped back capability from the CH47, then how about the Bell 525?

Just this once....
I agree with most of your points but if you fill the Blackhawk cabin with troops there is virtually NO room to work the USL hook. There is much more room in the 'war frenzy' Puma cabin despite the random kit stowage. Another fuselage plug would be luxury - pure luxury...