RAF announces Puma Replacement plan
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: Southern United States
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 60 Likes
on
30 Posts
Blackhawk cabin configuration
Someone commented (forgot who) on the thread a while back about the transverse seating arrangement in the Blackhawk and having to have someone assist securing the cargo doors closed, in the A/L model I see the point of what he was saying.
If you were strapped in to the gunner seats already you did need some assistance to reach the door.
In the Mike model the Martin Baker gunners seats are transversely mounted on tracks in the forward cabin and able to rotate 360 degrees, and the seat harness allows you to stand up and pretty much reach the center of the cargo door opening while still secured by the seat restraint inertia reels.
Of course, that’s in the standard seating configuration, there are many other configurations available, with the HH-60M(and HH-60G) using the rotating gunners seat tracks longitudinally mounted in the aft cabin. With the seat all the way to the rear of the track it is just in front of the aft end of the cargo door opening, and the hoist control pendant and intercom controls mounted to the right side of the cabin at the aft end of the door opening. The aft windows on the cargo doors slide on tracks allowing you to get your head outside for clearing the aircraft.
The US Air Force use another arrangement still in their new HH-60W. And each one of these configurations have already been engineered from a crashworthiness perspective by someone so no need to reinvent the wheel, there’s probably something that will fit the bill.
On a side note, the 60W also has an MFD behind each pilots seat for the back
seaters to see maps and pretty much any information that can be displayed up front(PFD, EICAS, IVHUMS etc), as well as a third MFD mounted in the left cabin side for the Pararescue Jumpers to see sensor data/maps etc. jealous! The Army are working on a similar system for the back seat crew as well.
Maybe I’ll get to see it before I retire. 🤣
FltMech
If you were strapped in to the gunner seats already you did need some assistance to reach the door.
In the Mike model the Martin Baker gunners seats are transversely mounted on tracks in the forward cabin and able to rotate 360 degrees, and the seat harness allows you to stand up and pretty much reach the center of the cargo door opening while still secured by the seat restraint inertia reels.
Of course, that’s in the standard seating configuration, there are many other configurations available, with the HH-60M(and HH-60G) using the rotating gunners seat tracks longitudinally mounted in the aft cabin. With the seat all the way to the rear of the track it is just in front of the aft end of the cargo door opening, and the hoist control pendant and intercom controls mounted to the right side of the cabin at the aft end of the door opening. The aft windows on the cargo doors slide on tracks allowing you to get your head outside for clearing the aircraft.
The US Air Force use another arrangement still in their new HH-60W. And each one of these configurations have already been engineered from a crashworthiness perspective by someone so no need to reinvent the wheel, there’s probably something that will fit the bill.
On a side note, the 60W also has an MFD behind each pilots seat for the back
seaters to see maps and pretty much any information that can be displayed up front(PFD, EICAS, IVHUMS etc), as well as a third MFD mounted in the left cabin side for the Pararescue Jumpers to see sensor data/maps etc. jealous! The Army are working on a similar system for the back seat crew as well.
Maybe I’ll get to see it before I retire. 🤣
FltMech
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,822 Likes
on
1,202 Posts
More information on where they will be built etc.
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/11/...pter-contract/
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/11/...pter-contract/
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: Southern United States
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 60 Likes
on
30 Posts
I’m a big believer in the H-60M(or 60i in this case) especially since it dispenses with one of the maintenance hogs as far as the airframe is concerned and that item is the UES or Upturned Exhaust System.
If this aircraft won’t be deployed into combat theaters this is a big weight savings to have “straight pipes” as we call the non-infrared suppressed aircraft, and the removal of the maintenance due to cracking in the heat insulation blankets and cracks in the engine cowling latch boxes which require removal of the assembly to make repairs.
If they could get rid of the 3 piece folding stabilator they could get rid a really big maintenance hog. I see the utility of it for air/ground transport for a combat aircraft but a lot of down time is eaten up inspecting and repairing this when an old school one piece Stab would do the job way better.(or the “new school” fully composite stab that’s supposedly coming, one day)
In the end all “modern” utility helicopters in the size class and capability being looked at will have their own issues, no one platform is perfect but 2000+ hours riding in the back and maintaining them, plus seeing the amount of abuse they can take has given me a ton of confidence in the H-60 platform.
FltMech
If this aircraft won’t be deployed into combat theaters this is a big weight savings to have “straight pipes” as we call the non-infrared suppressed aircraft, and the removal of the maintenance due to cracking in the heat insulation blankets and cracks in the engine cowling latch boxes which require removal of the assembly to make repairs.
If they could get rid of the 3 piece folding stabilator they could get rid a really big maintenance hog. I see the utility of it for air/ground transport for a combat aircraft but a lot of down time is eaten up inspecting and repairing this when an old school one piece Stab would do the job way better.(or the “new school” fully composite stab that’s supposedly coming, one day)
In the end all “modern” utility helicopters in the size class and capability being looked at will have their own issues, no one platform is perfect but 2000+ hours riding in the back and maintaining them, plus seeing the amount of abuse they can take has given me a ton of confidence in the H-60 platform.
FltMech
With over 4,000 Blackhawks being operated by 28 Nations.....that seems a pretty good endorsement along with many NATO nations being in that number....commonality of parts and the ability to piggyback a new customer onto the existing logistics system should also be a plus.
Building the aircraft in the numbers the MOD is seeking seems a bit expensive if a totally new design is selected....and the value of all of the spares over a long period of time would offset the short term benefit of buying British for the airframes.
Building the aircraft in the numbers the MOD is seeking seems a bit expensive if a totally new design is selected....and the value of all of the spares over a long period of time would offset the short term benefit of buying British for the airframes.
I doubt that any of the Leonardo products would survive for long in field conditions.
The avionics are too fragile and too integrated. This is basic aircraft not mission related.
A couple of rounds in the wrong place would leave the aircraft virtually irrecoverable.
Even without wiring damage a couple of black box changes needs to be followed up with potentially hours of software loading.
Some of the software is aircraft serial number specific, have you got it?
Meanwhile it sits on the ground until someone sends over a drone and thats that.
These aircraft need good hangar facilities to keep them serviceable.
The major causes of AW139 and 169 unserviceability are avionic related. I see no reason to believe the 149 will be any different.
The avionics are too fragile and too integrated. This is basic aircraft not mission related.
A couple of rounds in the wrong place would leave the aircraft virtually irrecoverable.
Even without wiring damage a couple of black box changes needs to be followed up with potentially hours of software loading.
Some of the software is aircraft serial number specific, have you got it?
Meanwhile it sits on the ground until someone sends over a drone and thats that.
These aircraft need good hangar facilities to keep them serviceable.
The major causes of AW139 and 169 unserviceability are avionic related. I see no reason to believe the 149 will be any different.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 421 Likes
on
222 Posts
RobL,
Agree, as per post #37, 31 March last year.
Agree, as per post #37, 31 March last year.
little birds fly the front line without a problem and then there are people claiming these modern civil standard redundancy is not up to the mil spec drawn back in 1960s. Any scientific fact behind the claim?
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: Southern United States
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 60 Likes
on
30 Posts
I would suggest that the MH-6 has incrementally adapted to modern military standards during its service life in such a way that would make them essentially wholly different aircraft than the original OH-6. But I’ve never worked on either so I don’t know for sure.
I also think there’s a valid point to be made(that is being made?) that a product that was designed for civil use vs a military application will be quite different. Even though these aircraft won’t be in combat per se, they would ultimately benefit from whichever manufacturing standard produces the most rugged and reliable aircraft for the best price.
The other aspect SASless pointed out regarding the 4000ish H-60s in use worldwide is spares availability. Granted, not all of those are in the latest configuration but the supply chain isn’t going anywhere, these aircraft are going to be in service for many years to come, with new users adopting the platform nearly every year.
I’d like to add at the end here my firm belief that an H-60 variant used in an application like this for a few hundred hours a year and possibly hangared substantially more that an H-60 in military use, would therefore be substantially more reliable as it was originally designed to live its entire life outside, exposed to the elements.
FltMech
I also think there’s a valid point to be made(that is being made?) that a product that was designed for civil use vs a military application will be quite different. Even though these aircraft won’t be in combat per se, they would ultimately benefit from whichever manufacturing standard produces the most rugged and reliable aircraft for the best price.
The other aspect SASless pointed out regarding the 4000ish H-60s in use worldwide is spares availability. Granted, not all of those are in the latest configuration but the supply chain isn’t going anywhere, these aircraft are going to be in service for many years to come, with new users adopting the platform nearly every year.
I’d like to add at the end here my firm belief that an H-60 variant used in an application like this for a few hundred hours a year and possibly hangared substantially more that an H-60 in military use, would therefore be substantially more reliable as it was originally designed to live its entire life outside, exposed to the elements.
FltMech
I also think there’s a valid point to be made(that is being made?) that a product that was designed for civil use vs a military application will be quite different. Even though these aircraft won’t be in combat per se, they would ultimately benefit from whichever manufacturing standard produces the most rugged and reliable aircraft for the best price
FltMech
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: Southern United States
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 60 Likes
on
30 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.flightglobal.com/helicop...152104.article
https://www.flightglobal.com/helicop...152104.article
https://www.flightglobal.com/helicop...
Airbus Helicopters sees strong interest in the H175M – the military version of the super-medium-twin – and is already completing the integration of its HForce modular weapons system onto the platform.
Meanwhile, its services and support arm is seeking inventory for part-out, and is already eyeing the UK’s Puma fleet.
Speaking to journalists at the airframer’s Marigane site on 15 February 2023,
programme manager Jerome Fagot said
the M-model variant had been launched last June with the intention of diversifying the H175’s customer base.
Meanwhile, its services and support arm is seeking inventory for part-out, and is already eyeing the UK’s Puma fleet.
Speaking to journalists at the airframer’s Marigane site on 15 February 2023,
programme manager Jerome Fagot said
the M-model variant had been launched last June with the intention of diversifying the H175’s customer base.
Separately, Airbus Helicopters appears to be keen on the acquisition of the UK’s Puma fleet
for part-out when the helicopters leave service in the coming years,
potentially adding a further dimension to its interest in NMH.
Christoph Zammert, executive vice-president customer support and services,
says those assets would allow the manufacturer to keep other operators of the legacy type flying.
“Providing the price is right and the documentation there, we would be interested in buying them back.”
Airbus Helicopters has already acquired several civil rotorcraft – 13 H120s and three H135s – for dismantling,
with its “harvest list” including dynamic components, landing gears and avionics equipment.
for part-out when the helicopters leave service in the coming years,
potentially adding a further dimension to its interest in NMH.
Christoph Zammert, executive vice-president customer support and services,
says those assets would allow the manufacturer to keep other operators of the legacy type flying.
“Providing the price is right and the documentation there, we would be interested in buying them back.”
Airbus Helicopters has already acquired several civil rotorcraft – 13 H120s and three H135s – for dismantling,
with its “harvest list” including dynamic components, landing gears and avionics equipment.
I understand that the Pumas have been earmarked for disposal elsewhere....already asked at the last DSEI.
Latest H175 event has illustrated how it continues to struggle with the demands of 'civilian' flying, not to mention 'military' flying - in a part of the world Airbus have lauded as its 'proving ground'!!
Latest H175 event has illustrated how it continues to struggle with the demands of 'civilian' flying, not to mention 'military' flying - in a part of the world Airbus have lauded as its 'proving ground'!!
I understand that the Pumas have been earmarked for disposal elsewhere....already asked at the last DSEI.
Latest H175 event has illustrated how it continues to struggle with the demands of 'civilian' flying, not to mention 'military' flying - in a part of the world Airbus have lauded as its 'proving ground'!!
Latest H175 event has illustrated how it continues to struggle with the demands of 'civilian' flying, not to mention 'military' flying - in a part of the world Airbus have lauded as its 'proving ground'!!
Airbus just can’t seem to stop items above the swash plate from falling off……
No doubt the blame will be thrown at the operator and EASA will look the other way.
No doubt the blame will be thrown at the operator and EASA will look the other way.
True - if there had not been a TGB chip then it would not have been stuck there...