Helicopter Replacements?
 

Okay i know there are plenty of threads on here recently about the various orders and lack of airframes.
But as of January 2007 the British Forces had the following (together with their Out of Service Date)
It just shows an insight of what we have and won't have.
112 x British Army Lynx AH7/9 and 73 x Royal Navy Lynx HAS3/HMA8 with an OSD of 2012. Total of 185 (+/- a few)
To be replaced with 70 x Future Lynx, 40 for the British Army, 30 for the Royal Navy. This is costing over £1bn.
So, the £1.2Bn going towards the new MAN 4x4 and 6x6 utility trucks to replace the Bedford 4 tonner (and other variants - a lot of which are still going well) could have gone towards another 75 Future Lynx to bring the replacements back up to 145 atleast... still short of the replacement order but better than 70!
44 (ish) x Puma HC1 of the RAF with an OSD of 2010. We currently have no replacement on order as i am aware of. It's now nearing 2008 so why haven't the MoD pulled their finger out for an urgent requirement?
115 x Gazelle AH1 of the British Army with an OSD of 2018. These are dwindling already with some Gazelles being replaced i believe by the Lynx AH7 in the Scout role. So what helicopters are filling the gaps for the Lynx?
We currently have no replacement on order for the Gazelles either.
33 (ish) x Seaking HC4/6 with the Royal Navy with an OSD of 2012. We currently have no replacements on order. We have 4 years left to acquire it.
4 x Agusta 109 of the British Army for the SAS. OSD of 2008. We currently have no replacement on order for next year.
6 (ish) x Lynx AH7 of the Royal Marines. OSD of i take it the same as the Army airframes. No replacement on order, and no replacement on order for the Gazelles they lost either.
34 x Chinook HC2 with an OSD of 2015. We currently have no replacement for these on order. We have 6 more HC2A's downgraded from HC3 standard which have been sitting in a hangar for 8 years and they still haven't been re-configured, this will take a few years. OSD for these will be 2025.
I have left out the Merlin HM1 and HC3/HC3A as these won't be mothballed until atleast 2030.

Puma HC2:

Source.

This includes i take it, airframe fatigue being sorted out in all the aircraft, so basically a big overhaul with enhancements and new engines. Not exactly a replacement though just an MLU which will need addressing later on down the line which is like saying "ahh sod it, lets put a new engine in it, make it a bit more powerful and worry about replacing it in a few years time"
By then we will still be in the same situation as we are now, strapped for cash and no incentive to procure anything 'new'.

Lets all overhaul the old Seakings, fit Carson Blades and worry later on...
:hmm:

Or put some Carson blades on it and extend it to 2017.

44? You wish! OSD is 2012. There is no replacement as we cannot afford it. See below for the urgent requirement.


The fleet leaders are at just over half life in terms of airframe hours, and its taken us 36 years to get that far, so another 10 or so won't run them out.

Not too far off, more like "a life extension programme which will need addressing later on down the line which is like saying "we can't afford a new helicopter now, so lets put a more powerful and fuel efficient engine with anticipators in it, about 25% effective extra payload, about 20% more fuel, add in a glass cockpit, sufficient nav and comms equipment to make it CNS/ATM (or whatever its called this week) compliant, and sufficient, open architecture, secure comms to enable to it work properly in theatre, and worry about replacing it in about 10 years time along with the Sea Kings in one big buy".

Regards

PCD

Thanks for clearing that up PCD,
Now throw in the number of years it will take to do those upgrades plus the number of years they will be delayed to get it started in the first place.

Other nations just bought the Cougar. But we can't afford too. We spend £1.2bn on trucks we don't really need instead.

Razor,
Take your point about lack of future funding completley, however to say that replacement of a 20-30yr old vehicle with a modern and reliable workshorse is a little aviation centric!. Undoubtedly there will always be a bun fight over who gets money and new equipment, I suggest that the funds spent on new vehicles is money very well spent. The issue of new rotary platforms across all three services is one which has continually been highlighted over the past 6 years, since the NAO report.

That said....doubt it will make much difference. A lesbian single mother with one arm has a higher priority (A Vote) to Gordon Brown.

Ralph

The process is already well underway. Timescales are tight, aren't they always, but much of the preliminary work has already been done so they are not starting from scratch right now. Whether all the Mk2s are in service by 2012 remains to be seen, but we should be good way along at least.

Bit out of the loop at the mo but wasnt their a SABR project that was to replace Puma and possibly Sea King?

M4

Once upon a time (~1997) there was FASH (Future Amphibious Support Helicopter), which in about (2001?) transmogrified into SABR (Support & Amphibious Battlefield Rotorcraft). There were also BLUH (AH7/9 & Gazelle replacement) and SCMR (Lynx HMA replacement)

SABR died in 2004 (ish?) and became FRC (Future Rotorcraft Coherence/Capability depending on who you believe) when "senior people" realised there wasn't enough money in the EP to replace SK4, Puma, Lynx AH & Lynx HMA.

Since then, we've had the Superlynx buy (after they'd decided that they really did have to buy another maritime helo and couldn't just assume that the 42 remaining Merlins could do the job). Sticking plaster fixes (Merlin 3A and Wokka fix to field) will deliver 14 new airframes in two/three years.

Meanwhile, SH hours are going through the roof, SH people are going through the door and Nero in Whitehall is still fiddling.......

"Other nations just bought the Cougar. But we can't afford too. We spend £1.2bn on trucks we don't really need instead."

If its the Support Vehicle contract you are on about, then the £1.2bn we are spending on the vehicles is money well spent. We are in desperate need of these replacement vehicles. Its all very well buying new aircraft but the money needs also to be spent on the support of them. Although it may not seem it, the vehicles that get the spare engines, spares, food and even lads to service the new aircraft need to be up to standard as well. 20-30yr old vehicles we are using now just are not up to it anymore.

The danger inherent in this thread is the apparent acceptance is that the rotary wing fleet is adequate now, with the numbers outlined in the first post.

It ain't.

With smaller commitments and the same number of airframes (no South African Pumas, but without subsequent attrition) the 2007 total is broadly the same as it was when the NAO reported on battlefield helicopters - identifying a 38% shortfall in lift, and a 67% shortfall in amphibious lift.

Piddling about with an extra Puma here, Six merlins there or eight Chinooks is a drop in the ocean.

What is needed is to boost numbers and address the shortfall with a really big buy of about 24 new helicopters (a fully folding Merlin would fit the bill) and then replace the aircraft being retired with new aircraft on a one-for-one basis. 44 NH90s or Cougars to replace the Pumas, a similar number of amphib Merlins to replace the Junglie Sea Kings and CH-47Fs to replace the Chinooks.

I wonder how many helos one could afford with the £3.9 Bn earmarked for the construction of CVF, even if that number does not escalate?

Or how many more helicopters would be purchased if you got rid of JCA as well?

I wonder what % of airframes are necessary for front line ops, and whether the 'plan' is to bring in more civilian support for other taskings?

I actually seem to recall reading a Flight International article about the SAS replacing their A109s.

Might've been tail end of last year/begining of this one

As noted, the trucks are a good investment. How about taking some of the cash from the £127 Billion spent on quangos per year (a quadrupling of the cost as part of the previous Chancellor's 'war on wasteful quangos' that began 10 years ago. Apparently.)

chops
 

"I wonder how many helos one could afford with the £3.9 Bn earmarked for the construction of CVF, even if that number does not escalate?

Or how many more helicopters would be purchased if you got rid of JCA as well?"

Yeah or the £6-7bn which will be flushed on tranche 3?
It's just cheap and stupid to use that inane argument in this discussion. We need all three, we need more money - anything else is not sufficient.
:ugh:

dum_my
 

10 Jul 07: Contract looks into longer life for Puma

Eurocopter has been awarded an Assessment Phase contract for the life extension programme, which will include up to 35 of the helicopters getting new Turbomeca Makila engines, ‘glass’ cockpits, and new communications, navigation and defensive systems.

Not again DHSA went through all this nearly 10 years ago the decision then was that it was unaffordable. Why will it be any different this time round and the airframes are almost ten years older?

In 1997 all we had were a couple of aircraft in Kosovo, and NI was still going strong.

Now we are fighting 2 foreign wars and need all the helicopters we can get. There appears to be, finally, the realisation higher up the chain that the Pumas really are now obsolete, that they cannot continue (for a variety of reasons) in their current form past 2012, that the lack of SH lift is such a political hot potato at the moment, and that we cannot afford to lose the capability they bring (small though it is when compared to the chinook fleet) but they need replacing. A new platform is, however, utterly unaffordable right now.

Also, when the question was asked 10 years ago, was the upgraded gearbox and transmission included in the spec, because that added massively to the cost? That is not in the picture this time.

PlasticCabDriver
 

Also, when the question was asked 10 years ago, was the upgraded gearbox and transmission included in the spec, because that added massively to the cost? That is not in the picture this time.
Why is that not the case now i.e. why is it not necessary to upgrade the gearbox and transmission now? Surely the increased available torque from the Makila engine will require these changes more so today with a much older airframe. Why do we have to go for these "making a purse out of a sow's ear" programmes which as we all know will result with a far greater bill than going for a modern replacement aircraft.

You don't need a new transmission to cope with all the extra torque of you don't have a torquemeter in the first place to know how much you're pulling. Ignorance is bliss...

Doing some fag packet maths and assuming an ideal world, (ha!) you'd be looking at about 60 units to replace the 40 odd Pumas and make up the 38% cab shortfall (jungly lack not included).

Then assuming Merlins and not Cougars or god forbid, Superhawks, at a unit price around £23 mil a pop... we're talking about a £1.4 billion contract without all the needed extras and no accounting for snags....

Heh, not holding my breath.

Just on minor point - the same idiots are still in power and we won't have people to fly any of these pie-in-the-sky theories anyway?

Why not 'westernise' helicopters such as the Mi-17 and Mi-26, which have proven hot'n'high capabilities and are dirt cheap and get them in as a stop gap until we can afford some wonderous 'wasteland' plastic cabs? Instant capabilities hole(s) fixed. Righteo, wheres my Gems award....:}

Stitch ducks for cover...:ok:

Very simple. It makes it unaffordable. Upgrading the gearbox would be a capability enhancement. The Puma is not being 'upgraded', it is being extended. Any hint of capability enhancement will be rejected at the first hurdle. A better transmission would be fantastic, with higher MAUM etc etc, but it is not necessary to upgrade the transmission, the aircraft will work just fine with the old one. The IPTs and requirements managers have to justify every aspect of every single requirement in an entire program to pass scrutiny, necessary will (usually) make it through, fantastic to have will not. It is a vast amount of work. And no, I have never been a requirements manager!

To answer your next question, the Makilas are not going in because they are more powerful, they are going in because they are the most economical option to provide Puma with engines with anticipators. The extra power is a bonus. The extra power will really make itself felt H&H where the 3C4s currently run out of puff. If it was just about power, we could go for 4C4s, but they don't have anticipators either. Elsewhere, where the performance is not limited by the engines, but by the transmission, there will be a torque limit, and a torquemeter to measure it on, just like any other helicopter. It will remain the pilot's responsibility not to exceed it.

Because we do not have the extra upfront money now that a new airframe would cost. It will be cheaper (allegedly, I share your pessimism on this point!) over the planned 10 year life of the Mk2 than buying something new. By the time we need to start funding a Mk2 replacement by 2022, the money will be available (again, allegedly...). So we have to somehow keep going with what we have got. Yes, we should have a modern replacement. We should also have enough money to buy and own outright sufficient modern AT to sustain current ops, and we should have enough money to stop our quarters falling down, but we don't. Until we are funded better, we can complain all we like about what we should have, we still can't afford it.

Sorry, rambled on a bit, I'll stop there.

PlasticCabDriver
 

Thank you for your response. Back in the late 1990s Turbomeca were very keen to come up with a "package" that would enable the MoD to buy and install Makila into the Puma but the the airframe desk at the time would not support an uprated engine installation without the corresponding transmission and gearbox upgrading. I find it a pleasant surprise that they are now happy to go down this route. There has always been a certain amount of disagreement between the engine manufacturer and the airframe manufacturer regarding the engine to airframe integration hence the problems that occured when the last flector pack mods were introduced. It is great news to hear that this has all been resolved and both manufacturers and the Puma IPT are supporting an upgrade that does not involve any requirement to upgrade the transmission. I am sure the Helicopter Engine IPT will fully support such a proposal as the operating costs of the Makila are far more economical than that of the Turmo IIIC4 and I am sure that Turbomeca would only be too pleased to come up with a total support package. Mind you I am sure there are still restrictions and a certain amount of confusion regarding what the limits are when about operating at the higher MAUW ( the figure of 1% of the life comes to mind), I hope that the introduction of the HC Mk2 will overcome this problem also.

I heard that four N3 Dauphins were on order to replace the 109s, but in true Hereford style, it's being denied all round.

The Australian Army are replacing 34 (if they don't crash any more)S-70 Blackhawks with NH-90's(big mistake!) in the next couple of years i'm sure the RAF could buy them cheap and the guys at 33 sqn would be happy with second hand Aussie Blackhawks over refurbed Pumas.

and the gazelles?

MReyn24050, your memory is better than mine!

The MAUM of the Mk2 will be 7400kg, without restriction, in line with models like the 330J and 330L. The airframe is quite capable of taking 7.4, it is the lack of SE performance of the 3C4s that limits the mk1 to 7t. There will also be no need for the 1% restriction either. The proposed scheme also involves a rewire of the entire airframe, this will reduce the basic weight, so there will be an effective payload increase of, I think, around 500 kgs (if that figure is wrong I'm sure someone will correct me!).

If the final product actually enters service with the current design intact, it will be a huge step up from the Mk1. We must wait and see whether it survives contact with the enemy first!

Blackhawk9

I'm sure the RAF could, and you would have to ask 33 whether they would be happy or not, but by the time you have established a Blackhawk IPT, set up supply contracts, paid QinetiQ vast sums of money to certify them iaw Def Stan blah blah blah, modified them to meet UK requirements for avionics, comms etc, had QinetiQ recertify it after the mods have been modded, written the RTS, set up an OCU, found a simulator somwehere, trained the QHIs in the US, trained the engineers in the US etc etc, they won't actually be that cheap, or that quick.

Question from Stitchbitch:
Answered by PlasticCabDriver:
:}

A number of Super Pumas have been sold off by Bristows and have gone to the German Border Police.

Wonder why the MOD had no interest in acquiring them or if they even new they existed.
The North Sea operators are renewing their fleets and I suspect a number of airframes will be for sale.

so the Purchase of MAN trucks is unnecessary?
I would sugest the Humble Lorry is more flexible and moves more stores and pax than your precious support helecopter fleet. BTW what carries your fuel and spares and ground support elements the majority of the time?

Maybe if you want to save more money for flying trucks then why not downgrade the Drivers salaries to the equivilent of an RLC Private instead of the over paid egos normally found in the pilot seats.

Not one to defend the 2 winged master race normally but I must take issue with: I can't remember seeing to many of these in during my 12 years in the SH world.

NURSE you make a serious point about trucks, but gratuitous abuse always undermines an argument:=

The lesson 'identified' from operational theatres is we need more SH, now can we get back to the debate of how we get them.

Needs a road really. Not massively flexible in the mountains of Afghanistan or the Western desert of Iraq, is it?

Fishing? :ok:

Found this on the MoD Website relating to the subject:-

The Puma/Gazelle Integrated Project Team (PG IPT) is part of DG Helicopters within DE&S. The IPT provides through life equipment management, and engineering and logistic support for the Puma and Gazelle helicopter fleets operated by Joint Helicopter Command (JHC). This includes technical support including airworthiness management, configuration control and publications provision, logistic support including spares provision and management of rotable component repairs, and management of Depth maintenance.

Puma Helicopter
The PG IPT has 5 locations, the Headquarters and Service Support Organisation is based at Yeovilton in Somerset and is divided into 4 principal areas: Engineering/Logistics, Business Management, Commercial and Depth Management. With the Puma Depth Support Hub at RAF Benson in Oxfordshire, the Gazelle Depth Support Hub at Middle Wallop in Hampshire, a Resident Project Officer at Eurocopter in Marignane in Southern France and the Puma HC2 Team at Abbeywood, the IPT comprises of approximately 110 military and civil service staff.

The IPT supports the Puma and Gazelle helicopter platforms on operations with:

The Puma HCMk1 operated by the Royal Air Force and used for transporting personnel and equipment around the battlefield. It can carry up to 16 equipped soldiers or lift a load of 2 tonnes, and has particularly good performance in hot temperatures and at high altitudes. The fleet is expected to continue in Service until 2010 when it will start to be replaced by the updated Puma HC2. The Puma HC2 will continue in Service until 2022.The smaller Gazelle AHMk1 is operated by the Army in the reconnaissance and liaison roles. While the formal Out of Service Date for Gazelle remains 2018, the MOD is examining options to replace Gazelle, and it is unlikely to remain in service much beyond 2012.

The IPT is effectively operating across the CADMID cycle with Gazelle AH1 and Puma HC1 operating in the In-Service Disposal phases, and Puma HC2 in the Assessment and Development and Manufacturing phases.

---- end snip---

So, what aircraft are the MoD looking at to replace the Gazelle? I take it they are looking towards Eurocopter with the EC-135/145 or not?

Puma HC Mk2
 

Further to the posts of PlasticCabDriver and Razor61 here is a photograph of the present Puma/Gazelle Integrated Project Team's Leader : Gp Capt Tim Brandt ( standing second from the left) at the signing of the Assessment Phase (AP) contract for the Life Extension Programme for the RAF’s fleet of Puma Mk1 helicopters which took place at the Paris Air Show 2007 on the 21 June 2007.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c6...l/41678759.jpg
As previously stated the Assessment Phase, scheduled for the next 12 months, will consider the detailed technical, operational and cost implications of the upgrade. Successful completion of the AP will lead to a full Development and Manufacture contract for delivery of the main programme.
It is also reported that in a development reflecting the Defence Industrial Strategy’s emphasis on an improved business environment, Eurocopter and the MOD will manage the AP in a Joint Project Office, soon to open in Bristol.
Commenting on the announcement, DG Helicopters Jonathan Lyle said: “The contract represents an important new phase in our relationship with Eurocopter. It offers the RAF the prospect of significantly enhanced Puma capability. We look forward to working with Eurocopter in the integrated Joint Project Office and to building a better understanding of how to enhance and sustain the UK Puma fleet into the future.”
So a year to do the study and then the design stage. As it is to be a "glass cockpit" and complete rewiring of the airframe QinetiQ will still have to be involved to approve these changes as well as the accompanying software, so there would be no saving there. It has been reported that this Mk will replace the Mk1 in 2012.
Forgive me for being pessimistic more likely 2015, if that. I just hope that, based on the experiences gained during the introduction of the Chinook HC Mk2 and Mk3, DPA get their act together this time.

An awful lot of the design work is already done, as this is not a completely new project for EC. The Mk2 is largely based on a very similar conversion that EC have done for a number of different customers. The engines (and associated mods such as installing torquemeter pick-off from the MGB), and the glass cockpit already exist and are already flying on these other models. The main difference between these other versions and ours is the comms & avionics fit, however the design for that it at an advanced stage already, being based on an already extant system.

QinetiQ have been involved almost from the start of this project, to head off at an early stage any of the sort of problems that beset the Chinook Mk 3.

As for 2015, I have been told that a prototype will be ready for flight trials next year, and that EC have the capacity to actually deliver the mk 2 as planned. However, experience has taught us to be pessimistic, it avoids disappointment later on!

PCD, I believe the Mk III Chinooks were also sold to us on the basis that 'its all been done before for a different customer' (USAF in that case). I also believe it was the comms and avionics fit, along with the flight instruments that caused the problems on the Wokka.

Standing by to be corrected/reassured that we do learn our lessons identified.

True, and if we had left well alone then they would be flying now. It is because they were f*cked about with to save a bit of money that the problem arose.

I think.

I might sound dumb here but why do we mess around with the Avionics fit when it works for all the other nations with the same helicopter type.
If it works why tinker with it. What do we (the British) do to the avionics of each helicopter bought from another country to make it different to the one already fitted.
Are they not compatible with certain equipment we use or what?