RAF announces Puma Replacement plan
A simulator at a joint venture between Airbus, Thales and DCI that is available for dry lease isn’t equivalent to what Boeing provide for Apache and Chinook training or what they provide for the Australian Military Training. That's fully understood, but please don't forget why/how BDUK was 'awarded' the latest Apache training contract. The company doing the previous training had been well received.
What is so woeful about the EASA approved Level D FFS? - lag, inertia, visuals, reliability - approached head of Airbus ops/trg at the time - she told me that as it had already paid for itself, to spend money on any upgrades would be a difficult proposition to put to shareholders. I note that Thales didn't make the same mistake again and sub-contract INDRA to provide the H160 sim...
Who was going to provide AceHawk’s training solution?
What is so woeful about the EASA approved Level D FFS? - lag, inertia, visuals, reliability - approached head of Airbus ops/trg at the time - she told me that as it had already paid for itself, to spend money on any upgrades would be a difficult proposition to put to shareholders. I note that Thales didn't make the same mistake again and sub-contract INDRA to provide the H160 sim...
Who was going to provide AceHawk’s training solution?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/l...ence-relations
Polish built S70i Blackhawk it is then!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.flightglobal.com/helicop...152345.article
https://www.flightglobal.com/helicop...152345.article
Leonardo Helicopters confirms UK NMH schedule slip
UK defence officials appear to have delayed the next phase of the ongoing New Medium Helicopter (NMH) contest,
otentially pushing back the service-entry target for the Puma replacement platform.
Having down-selected bidders in September last year,
the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) was supposed to issue the invitation to negotiate (ITN) to the three remaining contenders by the end of the first quarter 2023,
according to the most recent schedule.
However, the ITN – essentially the detailed specification, quantity and budget for the procurement – is now unlikely to arrive before mid-year 2023,
according to Leonardo Helicopters.
tefano Villanti, senior vice-president of sales and marketing at Leonardo Helicopters,
says the ITN is now expected to be released in May or June 2023,
although the MoD “has not specified an exact date”;
contract award is now anticipated in 2024, he adds.
Under the MoD’s initial schedule,
eliveries were meant to begin in 2025
allowing the progressive retirement of the Royal Air Force’s fleet of Puma HC2 transports.
But Villanti says the date for the first delivery was not specified at the industry day.
“The process has dragged on for longer [than expected] so 2025 is going be a challenge,” he adds.
UK defence officials appear to have delayed the next phase of the ongoing New Medium Helicopter (NMH) contest,
otentially pushing back the service-entry target for the Puma replacement platform.
Having down-selected bidders in September last year,
the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) was supposed to issue the invitation to negotiate (ITN) to the three remaining contenders by the end of the first quarter 2023,
according to the most recent schedule.
However, the ITN – essentially the detailed specification, quantity and budget for the procurement – is now unlikely to arrive before mid-year 2023,
according to Leonardo Helicopters.
tefano Villanti, senior vice-president of sales and marketing at Leonardo Helicopters,
says the ITN is now expected to be released in May or June 2023,
although the MoD “has not specified an exact date”;
contract award is now anticipated in 2024, he adds.
Under the MoD’s initial schedule,
eliveries were meant to begin in 2025
allowing the progressive retirement of the Royal Air Force’s fleet of Puma HC2 transports.
But Villanti says the date for the first delivery was not specified at the industry day.
“The process has dragged on for longer [than expected] so 2025 is going be a challenge,” he adds.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,940 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
I remember about the time the Puma MRGB's were cracking up and spares were generally not forthcoming from France, a visit revealed empty racks for spares due to be sent out to French military and rack after rack stuffed to the gills with spares supposedly to be sent out to the UK military and a very anti Anglophile French storeman running the goods out department.
I remember about the time the Puma MRGB's were cracking up and spares were generally not forthcoming from France, a visit revealed empty racks for spares due to be sent out to French military and rack after rack stuffed to the gills with spares supposedly to be sent out to the UK military and a very anti Anglophile French storeman running the goods out department.
……and to say otherwise is crazy when there are so many occasions UK Airbus drivers have been waiting at the shorty end of the stick for spares. Sticking a Union Jack on it does not make it British, just like adding ‘UK’ at the end of company name doesn’t make it a British company.
Then AHUK are only following the form book as they think sticking an ‘M’ after 175 makes it a military helicopter !
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being registered in UK?
Having its Headquarters in UK?
Employing hundreds of UK employees?
Paying UK corporation tax?
….or is there something I’m missing?
This is a genuine question - Does having a non-uk parent company disqualify an organization from being British?
What is the preferred answer?
To only buy helicopters from a ‘truly British company’ that was started and owned by ‘real’ Brits with no foreign involvement…. Like Leonardo?
How many "British" helicopter manufacturers are there today that build uniquely British designed, built, and sold helicopters?
I rule out Aircraft that are built "under license" from non-British companies.
I rule out Aircraft that are built "under license" from non-British companies.
Skeeter, Sycamore, Belvedere, Lynx
Last edited by ericferret; 10th Mar 2023 at 18:53.
eric,some Skeeters and Sycamores were sold ,along with Scouts and Wasps to other countries as well..
so what would make it a British company in your eyes?
Being registered in UK?
Having its Headquarters in UK?
Employing hundreds of UK employees?
Paying UK corporation tax?
….or is there something I’m missing?
This is a genuine question - Does having a non-uk parent company disqualify an organization from being British?
What is the preferred answer?
To only buy helicopters from a ‘truly British company’ that was started and owned by ‘real’ Brits with no foreign involvement…. Like Leonardo?
Being registered in UK?
Having its Headquarters in UK?
Employing hundreds of UK employees?
Paying UK corporation tax?
….or is there something I’m missing?
This is a genuine question - Does having a non-uk parent company disqualify an organization from being British?
What is the preferred answer?
To only buy helicopters from a ‘truly British company’ that was started and owned by ‘real’ Brits with no foreign involvement…. Like Leonardo?
Leonardo is majority owned by Italian government and has a history of doing things the ‘Italian’ way - rather than the ‘British’ way - whatever that is.
I guess the ‘Italian’ way is to say that the helicopters for British SAR were being built in Britain - repeatedly - when they were built in Italy. We know this because Bristow had to send manpower to Italy to oversee the work.
It’s great that Yeovil employs UK workforce but the taxpayer has paid a heavy price to subsidise it. I suggest that Yeovil still
only exists as long as the Group makes money from UK - remember the threats at the start of NMH campaign about putting its future in jeopardy if they didn’t win the contract - cheeky, arrogant fuc7ers!
However you look at it the most successful production runs have been from licence built aircraft.
I have to say I am In the Blackhawk corner.
Having spent the last 12 years working on Leonardo aircraft 169/139 I just think the technology is not suitable for a military aircraft that will be operating mainly in the field.
The following users liked this post:
I'm with you ericferret having worked on Black Hawk, 139 and 175 , as a combat assault machine 139 (149 similar construction) and 175 are not even close no ballistic tolerance (like to see either take hits from .50 let alone 23mm like BH, no multi backup flight control & hyd systems , no tail wheel U/C to assist in safe brownout/whiteout landings etc , but we all know it won't be what the RAF want (and have wanted the last 20 years) it will be a politically selected UK assembled machine , I just feel sorry for the RAF guys if they ever have to go into combat in a 149 or 175.
There needs to be some accountability and the MoD should insist on it (but they won’f) When a crew is lost due to small arms fire etc in these plastic, non-combat ready aircraft, the company executives should be liable and should be required to provide testimony and empiric proof to support their statements as to the ballistic protection of their aircraft.
If (when) it transpires that their claims of battlefield survival abilities were exaggerated or untrue, they they should be charged with corporate manslaughter. This should also apply to those in the UK who make the decision. If they truly believe the 175 or 149 are combat capable and survivable, then let them put their money where their mouth is.
Make this a requirement of the contract award and get the bidders to agree to it. If LH and Airbus are really telling the truth, then why would they hesitate?
Oh, this would apply to Sikorsky as well, but we all know it is the only properly designed and constructed combat helicopter in the NMH contest.
If (when) it transpires that their claims of battlefield survival abilities were exaggerated or untrue, they they should be charged with corporate manslaughter. This should also apply to those in the UK who make the decision. If they truly believe the 175 or 149 are combat capable and survivable, then let them put their money where their mouth is.
Make this a requirement of the contract award and get the bidders to agree to it. If LH and Airbus are really telling the truth, then why would they hesitate?
Oh, this would apply to Sikorsky as well, but we all know it is the only properly designed and constructed combat helicopter in the NMH contest.
A brief history of how the US Army came to buy the Sikorsky Black Hawk.
A comparison to that and the way the British MoD is going about its replacement of the Puma (a tactical combat helicopter) would suggest once again the UK MoD is screwing the pooch!
https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...raft/uttas.htm
A comparison to that and the way the British MoD is going about its replacement of the Puma (a tactical combat helicopter) would suggest once again the UK MoD is screwing the pooch!
https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...raft/uttas.htm