Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

RAF announces Puma Replacement plan

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

RAF announces Puma Replacement plan

Old 14th Mar 2023, 02:24
  #341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 59
Posts: 311
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Thinking about this acquisition , the 47 ex ADF MRH-90's (NH-90) will be up for sale soon , they have been a failure here with tech and parts support from Europe being one of the problems, but buying these 47 would give the RAF spare airframes and with the parts supply and support being just across the channel , I think the RAF could keep 36 going no problem and with spare frames to cycle thru the fleet at O/H keep the hrs down , they already have the RR engine in them and are Eurocentric in fit out and systems, and alot more compatible with other European users (France, Spain, Italy, eyc) be cheaper than 149 or 175 and be a better airframe (though still not a BH)
Blackhawk9 is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 14th Mar 2023, 08:51
  #342 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: GMT
Age: 52
Posts: 1,973
Received 96 Likes on 28 Posts
Originally Posted by Blackhawk9
Thinking about this acquisition , the 47 ex ADF MRH-90's (NH-90) will be up for sale soon , they have been a failure here with tech and parts support from Europe being one of the problems, but buying these 47 would give the RAF spare airframes and with the parts supply and support being just across the channel , I think the RAF could keep 36 going no problem and with spare frames to cycle thru the fleet at O/H keep the hrs down , they already have the RR engine in them and are Eurocentric in fit out and systems, and alot more compatible with other European users (France, Spain, Italy, eyc) be cheaper than 149 or 175 and be a better airframe (though still not a BH)
Yeahnah mate. You can keep them......
minigundiplomat is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2023, 08:55
  #343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 59
Posts: 311
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by minigundiplomat
Yeahnah mate. You can keep them......
I agree, but still better than either 149 or 175.
Blackhawk9 is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2023, 09:42
  #344 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South
Age: 61
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Blackhawk9
Thinking about this acquisition , the 47 ex ADF MRH-90's (NH-90) will be up for sale soon , they have been a failure here with tech and parts support from Europe being one of the problems, but buying these 47 would give the RAF spare airframes and with the parts supply and support being just across the channel , I think the RAF could keep 36 going no problem and with spare frames to cycle thru the fleet at O/H keep the hrs down , they already have the RR engine in them and are Eurocentric in fit out and systems, and alot more compatible with other European users (France, Spain, Italy, eyc) be cheaper than 149 or 175 and be a better airframe (though still not a BH)
Not likely, given the 'risk'

, but probably a bargain offer. NZ got a good deal with the similarly discarded Seasprites.
Some nations do seem to be able to get them to work, with Spain getting 11 aloft for a recent mass troop insertion excercise.
BTC8183 is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2023, 11:25
  #345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Land of the Angles
Posts: 348
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
......certified against DEFStan 00-970

Does
DEFStan 00-970 (MAA), not simply mirror EASA CS?
Hilife is online now  
Old 14th Mar 2023, 11:58
  #346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag/Constanta
Age: 56
Posts: 5,748
Received 129 Likes on 76 Posts
Originally Posted by Hilife
......certified against DEFStan 00-970

Does
DEFStan 00-970 (MAA), not simply mirror EASA CS?
I think they take CS25/29 as baselines to ensure compatibility with operating in the civilian environment, but have a number of additional clauses to address battle damage, NBC etc
Edit - some more detailed background here. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/m...tandard-00-970

Last edited by 212man; 14th Mar 2023 at 14:44.
212man is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2023, 12:30
  #347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Used to be God's own County
Posts: 1,711
Received 12 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by 212man
I think they take CS25/29 as baselines to ensure compatibility with operating in the civilian environment, but have a number of additional clauses to address battle damage, NBC etc
I vaguely recall reading in the press of the Italians approving the mil spec......
i dismissed it then for the same reasons I dismiss it now.
EESDL is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2023, 14:46
  #348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 74
Posts: 17,994
Received 265 Likes on 105 Posts
Can anyone compare and contrast the two Standards.....DEFStan 00-970 and the UTTAS Standard?
SASless is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2023, 15:12
  #349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag/Constanta
Age: 56
Posts: 5,748
Received 129 Likes on 76 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless
Can anyone compare and contrast the two Standards.....DEFStan 00-970 and the UTTAS Standard?
A bit Apples and Oranges. 970 is a generic certification standard that is divided into multiple chapters to cover Fast Jet, Large FW Transport, Rotary, small FW etc, within which there are military specific requirements that cover ballistic tolerance, crashworthiness, Emergency Egress systems, NBC protection etc. UTTAS was a specification for a particular future platform, for the prospective bidders to base their design on, that included both the mission requirements, the maintenance requirements and the certification and safety requirements. John - please correct me if that was badly worded.
212man is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2023, 16:21
  #350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 1,161
Received 31 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by 212man
Other way round actually, the 189 is the civilian derivative of the 149. I know LH will use hype, as much as any contender, but they do seem adamant that they certified against DEFStan 00-970

ttps://www.gradcracker.com/hub/679/leonardo/blogs/4123/aw149-designed-to-survive-on-the-modern-battlefield-part-1
Based on my experiences in procurement, I don't trust anything that Leonardo say about any product until I've seen the results of truly independent testing in a representative environment.... Some elements of the company have given sterling service prior to being "absorbed" into the corporate culture, but the number of fast ones they've tried to pull (either through intent or through incompetence) significantly outweighs that. I'll also grant they're not alone in the defence industry in this.

Having said all of that, we all know what the NMH result will be, so here's hoping they have done an ok job this time around.
pba_target is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2023, 17:00
  #351 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hobe Sound, Florida
Posts: 913
Received 22 Likes on 18 Posts
212.SAS/pba: I looked up the DEFStan document with the same intent as you all, but for instance in the structural/crashworthiness area, I did not find any specific target, must have, numbers. On the other hand, if one looks up Mil-Std-1290, itís a short document, but the values in Table 1 and para. 4.2 are clear.
The ballistic tolerance requirements are harder to find. They were in the Material Need Document, which was repeated in the Request for Proposal, and again in the Spec for the aircraft, but I do not have copies of any of those any more.
JohnDixson is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2023, 17:01
  #352 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag/Constanta
Age: 56
Posts: 5,748
Received 129 Likes on 76 Posts
Originally Posted by pba_target
Based on my experiences in procurement, I don't trust anything that Leonardo say about any product until I've seen the results of truly independent testing in a representative environment.... Some elements of the company have given sterling service prior to being "absorbed" into the corporate culture, but the number of fast ones they've tried to pull (either through intent or through incompetence) significantly outweighs that. I'll also grant they're not alone in the defence industry in this.

Having said all of that, we all know what the NMH result will be, so here's hoping they have done an ok job this time around.
I don't doubt you and I have no particular loyalty or otherwise with LH. Just that the 149 was launched about 5 years before the 189, so they do seem to have done more than just change model numbers, and it's factually incorrect to say that the 149 is the military version of the 189 (as often quoted).
212man is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2023, 17:36
  #353 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Used to be God's own County
Posts: 1,711
Received 12 Likes on 8 Posts
One train of thought is that the 149 was the failed entry to the Turkish competition (they opted for Black Hawk) - they then left it for a considerable while before trying to make an O&G machine out of it.
EESDL is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 15th Mar 2023, 13:08
  #354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 1,161
Received 31 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by JohnDixson
212.SAS/pba: I looked up the DEFStan document with the same intent as you all, but for instance in the structural/crashworthiness area, I did not find any specific target, must have, numbers. On the other hand, if one looks up Mil-Std-1290, itís a short document, but the values in Table 1 and para. 4.2 are clear.
The ballistic tolerance requirements are harder to find. They were in the Material Need Document, which was repeated in the Request for Proposal, and again in the Spec for the aircraft, but I do not have copies of any of those any more.
​​​​​​No hard numbers definitely worries me!
pba_target is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 15th Mar 2023, 21:21
  #355 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Land of the Angles
Posts: 348
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The following links might shine a little light on some of the questions and from the horses mouth.

AW149: Designed to Survive on the Modern Battlefield

Part 1
https://uk.leonardo.com/en/news-and-...lefield-part-1

Part 2
https://uk.leonardo.com/en/news-and-...lefield-part-2

References DEFStan 00-970, MIL standard 1290A and ballistic vulnerability analysis for parts of the design thinking.

Good for a salesman's PowerPoint presentation, although it leaves plenty of unanswered questions.
Hilife is online now  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 22:48
  #356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east ESSEX
Posts: 4,349
Received 15 Likes on 10 Posts
No mention of `ship compatabilty`,blade/tail fold etc...
..and I don`t like those little nosewheels to ,stand up to running landings/t/off in sandy,boggy rough terrain either...
sycamore is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2023, 10:49
  #357 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Used to be God's own County
Posts: 1,711
Received 12 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Hilife
The following links might shine a little light on some of the questions and from the horses mouth.

AW149: Designed to Survive on the Modern Battlefield

Part 1
https://uk.leonardo.com/en/news-and-...lefield-part-1

Part 2
https://uk.leonardo.com/en/news-and-...lefield-part-2

References DEFStan 00-970, MIL standard 1290A and ballistic vulnerability analysis for parts of the design thinking.

Good for a salesman's PowerPoint presentation, although it leaves plenty of unanswered questions.
still laughing from how many hours Leonardo think is acceptable trial and testing - quite concerning really. Team Palloniaís DAS is Sovereign so all NMH airframes can use it.

latest rumour is that NMH pushed back another 2 years.
EESDL is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2023, 11:00
  #358 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Europe
Age: 58
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by EESDL
latest rumour is that NMH pushed back another 2 years.
In fact, theyíre waiting for the V-280
.
HeliHenri is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2023, 14:53
  #359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hobe Sound, Florida
Posts: 913
Received 22 Likes on 18 Posts
Hilife: good points. Reminded that the requirements don’t end with a compliant design and analysis, there has to be a test program to prove the design and analysis using the actual aircraft and/or components as required.
JohnDixson is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2023, 18:11
  #360 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: N/A
Age: 46
Posts: 128
Received 9 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by sycamore
No mention of `ship compatabilty`,blade/tail fold etc...
..and I don`t like those little nosewheels to ,stand up to running landings/t/off in sandy,boggy rough terrain either...
why would you make a running landing in the dirt in a modern helicopter? You designate a landing area with your HMSD and before you enter the dust cloud you couple your 4-axis AFCS for landing and touchdown in the dustcloud. (Thatís how I would like itÖ) For emergency running landings you go to a strip.
casper64 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.