RAF announces Puma Replacement plan
Done much military flying ,cas64...?
The following users liked this post:
no, letting your 4-axis ap keep you in the threatband for longer than necessary is. An alarming lack of appreciation of what is required - maybe cas64 works for an OEM whom builds tricycle aircraft as is literally trying to reinvent the wheel?
i’m no Battlefield guru but refuse to ignore lessons learnt.
i’m no Battlefield guru but refuse to ignore lessons learnt.
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. (That’s how I would like it…) For emergency running landings you go to a strip.
I always thought you were a bit clueless when it came to military flying, but its nice of you to confirm it, and remove that element of doubt.
In the latter years in Afghanistan zero/zero DVE landings were a technique for the analogue aircraft (CH47D); the preferred method for digital aircraft was for a coupled afcs auto hover approach (CH47F). A more protracted approach but far safer on a balance of risk basis, the coalition lost more aircraft to environmental hazards than it did to enemy action.
Ammo,#364,irrespective of what the `notional` requirements are for the aircraft,in this case the Army, there will be times/events that require sea/coastal operations(depending who the `enemy `is/exercises),and may require operating from ships/carriers.The aircraft should have that compatible capability ,built in,as fuelling is usually pressure,stowage requires blade folding/tail folding,secure deck lashing points,possibly emergency flotation gear,etc,and when built should be properly corrosion proofed against sea-water.
The following users liked this post:
In the latter years in Afghanistan zero/zero DVE landings were a technique for the analogue aircraft (CH47D); the preferred method for digital aircraft was for a coupled afcs auto hover approach (CH47F). A more protracted approach but far safer on a balance of risk basis, the coalition lost more aircraft to environmental hazards than it did to enemy action.
The following 2 users liked this post by 212man:
Cowboy wisdom says "It ain't bragging if you done it!".
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defence Synergia Paper criticises the replacement plan
A defence website has published a paper criticising the plan, on a site called Defence Synergia.
Current situ - Gov expected shortly to announce another step in the selection process, presumably reducing the comp to either AW or Blackhawk.
Current situ - Gov expected shortly to announce another step in the selection process, presumably reducing the comp to either AW or Blackhawk.
To use the hackneyed old phrase, you honour the highest threat. If you're in the middle of nowhere, in a low threat environment, Red Illume, then I'm all for letting the Auto Trans Down complete the final approach and establish the hover before landing. However, a few counterpoints. An AFCS driven auto trans down remains a slow and highly predictable approach. It exposes the cab to the enemy, for longer, with no alteration or variation to the deceleration scheduling - and the enemy would quickly learn how the aircraft completes its decal profile (it has to be fixed and predictable to be certified…). Most D/AFCS I've seen/flown are derived from civil standards, and expect a civil style approach to be initiated, then coupled, or completed at the end of a Flight Plan - they are not the run in at low level / 140+Kts and flare hard into the 'gate' in terms of both pace and unpredictability. Having an Auto Trans Down also places the aircraft in any DVE for longer, robbing the crew of SA on threats and obstructions, and exposing the mechanicals to potentially more sand/dust/ erosion and damage. A combination of a nose gear aircraft and coupled approach will not get you on the ground as quickly at a 'hot LZ' as a machine with a tail wheel being flared hard to the ground, nor will be reliable (indeed, sensible) for multi ship tactical approaches, which is mostly what we do. In Afghan, NH90 crews were particularly concerned with their dust landing technique when in an opposed area as they had to rely heavily on their DAFCS lest they hit the tail rotor - not a problem for a Black Hawk or Chinook (well, the latter until about 26 degrees nose up….). I'd like to have the auto trans down/up in my golf bag for bad weather days in peacetime and benign areas on operations, but I'd rather have a DAFCS that stops drift/yaw at low speed/altitude in DVE, an active sensor and a 3-D Conformal Symbology suite on a display helmet to enable me as -3 or -4 to 'play' the flare to hit the ground ahead of Lead to keep us close on the LZ and minimise time in DVE. We rarely fly single ship insertions on Ops. If I were procuring an aircraft for a similar role to what the US Army uses the Lakota for, then I'd have no issues with 149 or H175M as their commercial DNA would likely either be irrelevant or, potentially, a useful facet. Having seen what we've expected the Puma force to do over the last 20 years, I'd be far more comfortable with our crews flying a UH-60 as the 'interim' platform until we work out our requirements to understand if we're going V-280 or the latest Franco-German lash up, the E-NGR, as the enduring Medium Lift platform (and Merlin replacement).
The following 3 users liked this post by Evalu8ter:
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: Southern United States
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 60 Likes
on
30 Posts
“NH90 crews were particularly concerned with their dust landing technique when in an opposed area as they had to rely heavily on their DAFCS lest they hit the tail rotor - not a problem for a Black Hawk or Chinook (well, the latter until about 26 degrees nose up….).”
I would never have believed an aft blade strike on a chinook could happen, then I saw one one night back in the day when i worked on CH-47s with 3” of red dirt on each of the blade tips..
FltMech
I would never have believed an aft blade strike on a chinook could happen, then I saw one one night back in the day when i worked on CH-47s with 3” of red dirt on each of the blade tips..
FltMech
The following users liked this post: