What do you think will come after Puma
 

Any predictions on what you think will replace or what you would like to see replace Puma in 2025?

It will be something Agusta Westland or as we have to say now Leonardo. That was why the MOD re-engined the 330's to give AW/L the chance to get something available. Shocking waste of tax payers money. I believe there were alternatives to that program. If an alternative had been chosen AW/L would not have a UK customer for (based on the Puma experence) about 50 years.

I would guess that the replacement is already a drawing board project. The primary aim is to make it as expensive and complicated as possible.

FED in that case they had better buy the NH90.

Call me cynical......Yet another "loss of a capability."

It will run on battery power and can only be charged via solar. You'll also need to be a vegan to get certified on it.

As a mere plank there I was thinking 'Merlin'.

Given current development times it almost has to be something already flying or we have another life extension programme

For what it cost, the Puma HC1 to HC2 upgrade was excellent value - significantly upgrading the aircraft's performance, increasing fuel/payload and, at last, fitting engines with anticipators. As for what comes next, well there are a few options. I think Puma 2 will likely carry on into the 2030-35 timeframe - there is not even, AFAIK, a Future Medium Lift (FML) project team stood up - the last one was folded with the additional Chinook buy and the Puma 2 project. I'm a member of the NATO Next Generation Rotorcraft Capability study group which is looking at the 2035 timescale to field a new platform (if not a derivative of JMR/FVL). My guess is that for the UK it boils down to 3 options. Firstly, a pan-NATO helicopter that will replace NH90/EC225/EH101, second the US JMR/FVL aircraft or thirdly a dual-certified Civ / Mil aircraft from Airbus Helicopters or Leonardo. The final decision will doubtless have influences from Brexit, doctrinal / threat changes and further Industrial rationalisation - in the main if Yeovil is still open in 2030 who owns it.....

Ideally whatever the USA chooses to replace the UH-60, so possibly either the Boeing-Sikorsky Defiant

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/...7173242740.jpg

or Bell-Lockheed V280.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/...7169450521.jpg

Blackhawk or its replacement.
Why did they even bother with Puma 2 ? :}:}:}

I agree that Puma HC.2 will be around for some time after 2025, and have no doubt that its replacement will be wrapped up along with a Merlin HC.4 replacement. As to what it will be, well now, there's the question.

Wessex!!!!

What Evalu8ter and Willard said. The ideal is to get Puma to 2035 and tag on to whatever medium multi-role platform the US are getting in the same weight class. I think the days of propping up AWHL/Leonardo are over...

Herod a man after my own heart, if only they had spent money on uprated shafts and blades we would still have been flying the ''Mighty Wessex'' today. Puma Paah!:rolleyes:

Procurement program will be such that one these will win the contract. They will have learnt their lesson from that complicated tandem rotor 47 behemoth.

"""""For what it cost, the Puma HC1 to HC2 upgrade was excellent value - significantly upgrading the aircraft's performance, increasing fuel/payload and, at last, fitting engines with anticipators."""""

The Bundesgrenzschutz had the same problem operating ageing 330's. Their answer was to buy ex oil industry 332's and apply their mods. These aircraft while high time had lived a relatively quiet life relative to a military aircraft. I would bet my house that this program was nowhere near the cost of the MOD program. A good answer for an interim fix and better value for money than modifying a 40 year plus airframe. Sikorsky apparently offered Blackhawks at a very low price. A permanent fix but again no work for AW/L for 50 years.

With Chinook as our SH backbone then surely any Puma replacement would need to fill the requirement to land in a confined urban environment?

Eric,
Every nation will take a different approach to airworthiness, certification and capability.For example, the Bundesgrenzschutz Pumas, IIRC, don't have DAS/ASE or many of the other military systems the Puma 2 has. Replacing the airframes would have required extensive modification and re-qualification of the aircraft's survivability systems and other UK avionics. AW didn't do the work either - it was done by Airbus Helicopters, run out of Kidlington (but with much of the engineering done in Romania). Blackhawk always enters the mix, and it is a great aircraft (for the pilot). It gets very small in the back very quickly, but is a robust "built from the ground up" military helicopter. I'd rather fly the -60 into combat than the Puma, especially if I needed to do a DVE landing at the end....However, there was little/no offset and the cost/time churn of introducing, certifying, training and qualifying a completely new type with assorted support was likely a non-starter as Puma 2 had to be done quickly to uphold capability whilst the rest of FRC played out....JTO, agreed - the answer is two chinooks unless you want to assault a building in a congested built up area. You need something Puma/Blackhawk size not something -47/EH101 size....

They upgraded everything and called it the Blackhawk.
Shame the MOD wouldn't buy it.

At least the Puma now has the engines it should have had in 1971.

A bit difficult. From Wiki.

In service with the 332 Super Puma in 1980.

I saw the first 'Super Puma' with Makilas in 1977. It was one of the original six prototype 330s with the flat Huey type nose. There was a one metre plug at the rear of the fuselage and single main wheels. The instrumentation inside hadn't changed a lot since 1966.

I doubt we'll be able to afford any new helicopters by 2025 - never mind 2035...............

A lot of kit will need replacing in the 2020's - SSBN, T26, T31, C130, Tornado, UK-MBT..............

You could lease or buy 332L2/ EC225 for next to nothing. Last time I looked there were 9/10 in mothballs at Humberside alone.
Nobody expects them to return to offshore flying.

Eric,
Indeed you can, but buying the aircraft is a small part of the Through Life Costs. Modifying them, testing them and certifying them for anything other than benign theatres will cost an awful lot of money. If I were still in the mil, looking at the recent safety record of the 225 family (flying straight & level) I'm not sure I'd want to stick a whole load of DAS, armour and guns on it then fly tactically at low level.....

Flying at max continuous cruising torque within 90% of maximum weight..

It beats the hell out of a helicopter. When the BV234 came into service the Boeing engineers could not believe the punishment their ultra reliable Chinooks were taking.

There's the rub, under the MAA's regulations the Risk to Life from the rotor head unexpectedly departing the aircraft would probably have to be held by CAS if not the SoS. Can't really see them being that keen on being personally responsible for that just to get a fleet within a fleet.

a quick fix on the 225 would to be the 332 gearbox; restrict the engines to 1800 shp and the Max to 9,000 kilos.

Cougar deliveries are continuing with Kuwait just taking some. Clearly some operators are unfased by the gearbox issue. In many ways the gearbox issue is no different to other aircraft problems over the years. Other than bolt on specialist kit there is nothing special about the 330 except maybe the acc drive.
The civil 330J were built on the same line as the military aircraft. In fact from a civil perspective the EC 225 and the 332's are all variants of the 330. They are all on the same type certificate. In the end it depends on what you want it to do. Further up the thread it is suggested that the 330 is low in the queue for replacement.

A 225 would work as a direct 330 replacement. If you are looking for more bells and whistles then it will wait in the queue beyond the higher priorities. Nothing happens in the MOD in a hurry so I think that any window to do this will close and we will be looking at the next generation of logging aircraft.

By 2025 the oldest Pumas will be 54 years old and the RAF will be 107, so it will have been flying the same helicopters for more than half of its entire existence by then. :eek:

Those dyed in the wool Wessex pilots always said the Puma would never last....

I think that you can forget any variation of the Puma; i.e. the 225. It's a 1966 concept with its fuselage designed to go into the back of a Transall or on a SNCF truck which is why it is so low and narrow.

Soldiers are now taller as anybody knows when you compare the height of sixth formers now to the sixties and they cannot run around a Puma sized cabin in the crouch position. By definition the cabin has to be taller and that will be the end of the Puma line.

The replacement will have a taller wider cabin, a much wider undercarriage preferably nosewheel so as to minimise the landing foorprint and a onboard situation update program that can be actioned during a sortie.

Fifteen hours/month flying plus thirty in the simulator seems about right. After a full career one might have enough hours to get a job.

I hope deiced rotor blades will come back. The Puma had them. Essential for winter flying in central Europe.

So Puma replacement back of the queue and the new super helicopter at what cost.
Starting to sound like an off the peg solution long after I am dead.
Makes the Puma upgrade program look even more stupid as they will probably soldier on after 2025.
Well some of the Alouette 2 made 60 before retiring. So who knows what will happen.
Look at the B52 and that is a first line combat aircraft first flight 1952 heading for 70..

Indeed, and the last rolled off the production line in '62 and was delivered in '63.

None. It will be Heavy (Ch), Attack (AH) and Niche. so no Pu or Wc. Probably only one RW force as well - the FJ community will take all the cash.

Gnd,

Militarised 139 for Niche? Footprint is smaller than Pu, but bigger than Wc. Can take off in heat, very well proven design. Fast, reliable, tons of spares, tons of power, relatively recent design can actually take a whole section of army in 1 ac with kit. And cheap.

What do you think?

They'll never go for it!

I think the Puma replacement will be the complete opposite of 'niche', it will need to be fully multi-role to justify it's existence which imho means minimum 10 troops, EO/IR camera, min .50 cal weapon that can be stuffed in the back of a C17/A400 easily or self-deployable at speed (e.g. tilt rotor). Unfortunately pretty much anything out there at the moment is based on a 50 year old idea of how a helicopter should work, so hopefully we will see some innovation over the next decade that will give us some really interesting options.

In a past forum about the refit of the Puma 1 to Puma 2 specification, I waxed lyrical about the 'idiocy' of not including an extra fuselage plug in that programme. However, despite the lack of the extra fuselage plug, the resulting Puma spec has produced a very impressive helicopter. I still reckon that if a fuselage plug was inserted at a time when Puma 2 needs to be 'replaced' (2025), plus a darn good refurbishing of course, it would be a cheap alternative to keep the wonderful Puma flying well past my 'sell by date'. :E

The biggest mistake with the Puma 1/2 conversion, IMHO, was the omission of the single wheel undercarriage. Having flown both the 330 and the 332, 3,000/9,500 hrs. I am a world authority on heavy landings. The 332 is rated to 5 m/s (950 fpm) and the maintenance manual isn't worried until it exceeds 7.5 m/s.

Blackhawks? Would be my guess.

Hand me downs from the US Army would be best bang for the buck.