RAF announces Puma Replacement plan
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)
The following users liked this post:
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)
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South
Age: 62
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 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)
, 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.
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.
i dismissed it then for the same reasons I dismiss it now.
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.
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
ttps://www.gradcracker.com/hub/679/leonardo/blogs/4123/aw149-designed-to-survive-on-the-modern-battlefield-part-1
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.
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, it’s 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
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, it’s 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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
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.
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.
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...
..and I don`t like those little nosewheels to ,stand up to running landings/t/off in sandy,boggy rough terrain either...
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.
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.
latest rumour is that NMH pushed back another 2 years.
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.