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 28th Feb 2021, 18:56
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 173
no RAF helicopter has ever had a credible replacement date - such a waste of ink and hot air. Tail wheel and high TR is a must - have we not at least learnt that much!!!
Lost count of the number of dates we were given for Wessex/Puma replacement back in the day
JulieAndrews is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2021, 10:55
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,615
Originally Posted by 9BIT View Post
The Belgians have got some hardly used NH-90s in storage. I reckon we could get a good price.
Not as yet the NH90 TTH still operational as can see by this CSAR /PRV exercise in the week



chopper2004 is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2021, 11:14
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,615
AW149 Farnborough 2014 and 2016

First time I came across the AW149 was Farnborough Air Show 2014 (my pics below ) and as it happened on the Monday, the Italian MoD / Armaments Directorate had approved the AW149.










Two years alter Farnborough Airshow 2016, I attended the Leoanrdo brief on the AW149 (my photos). They had announced AUW increase for the a/c and as such also cleared it to integrate Russian gun/rocket system to attract say Eastern European countries. Anyhow they brought 2 x a/c with them.













Say for example we pick it in 2025-2030 timeline so it be decade plus in existence. I believe the Egyptian military are a recent customer of the type (probably supplied via US Army like their SAR AW139).

Cheers
chopper2004 is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2021, 19:53
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,850
Originally Posted by JulieAndrews View Post
Tail wheel and high TR is a must - have we not at least learnt that much!!!
Shouldnít they just buy Blackhawks? Or is that too obvious and/or political?
Bravo73 is online now  
Old 1st Mar 2021, 21:14
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 171
☝🏽 The obvious choice would be Blackhawk. Watch Leonardo dangle a carrot and say theyíll build any 149 order at Yeovil.

LZ

Last edited by Hot_LZ; 2nd Mar 2021 at 13:18.
Hot_LZ is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2021, 22:38
  #26 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 13,442
Maybe Blackhawk powered by something like RTM322?

Oh hang on....I’ve just had a flashback.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2021, 08:57
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,782
Shy - better get Michael Heseltine on the phone
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2021, 11:48
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Corinium
Age: 68
Posts: 116
From a crewman's perspective, none of the types that have transverse seating are suitable for the crewman to move around the cabin. On the Blackhawk for instance from their seat they cannot reach the doors and have to rely on the troops to close it. RAF Crewman have always had room to move from Whirlwind to Wessex to Puma to Chinook and then Merlin. We have always been able to use the cabin with minimum of fuss from troops to freight to casevac, or mixture of all. Small low cabins are pointless no matter how many fancy digital screens at the pointy end for the pilots, if you cannot achieve the task for the Army, which is why we have them in the first place.
huge72 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2021, 12:01
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,615
Danger

Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Shy - better get Michael Heseltine on the phone
And polish the mace while 😬🤠 you at it
chopper2004 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2021, 15:41
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: NW
Posts: 98
If they intend to keep the capability 225/725 is the only choice. If they downsize then surely 149 is the choice.
Mee3 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2021, 16:22
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,615
Originally Posted by huge72 View Post
From a crewman's perspective, none of the types that have transverse seating are suitable for the crewman to move around the cabin. On the Blackhawk for instance from their seat they cannot reach the doors and have to rely on the troops to close it. RAF Crewman have always had room to move from Whirlwind to Wessex to Puma to Chinook and then Merlin. We have always been able to use the cabin with minimum of fuss from troops to freight to casevac, or mixture of all. Small low cabins are pointless no matter how many fancy digital screens at the pointy end for the pilots, if you cannot achieve the task for the Army, which is why we have them in the first place.
Some have said similar to you regarding rear crew training with the Airbus H145 Valley re DHFS/Ascent etc
cheers
chopper2004 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2021, 18:07
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,352
Originally Posted by Mee3 View Post
If they intend to keep the capability 225/725 is the only choice. If they downsize then surely 149 is the choice.
Something like that. Is there a hot n high H225/725 because an off the shelf H225 is optimised for those long crew change flights over the ocean and we'd be back where we were several decades ago?
jimf671 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2021, 20:30
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,615
H175M

With the musings on H225M/H215M any thoughts on Airbus offering H175M?? AFAIK only two government operators, albeit prapublic Royal Thai Police Aviation Division (VIP??) and Hong Kong Government Service - (Special Duties Unit and SAR/EMS support). I am not awaree of any mil developments planned...

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...acement-for-uk

Cabin space probably a tad more with headroom, then AW149 ....I suppose thats about it.

cheers





chopper2004 is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2021, 11:17
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Good time to resurrect the Westland Westminster. A couple of PT6`s and job done.
Snarlie is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2021, 10:07
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,615
Sikorsky and Boeing

Supposedly L-M Sikorsky may be offering UH-60M / S-70i



Hmmm letís throw Boeing into the mixed bag with Mh-139 according to their musings

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...-later-in-2021

cheers

chopper2004 is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2021, 10:46
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Inside the Industry
Posts: 860
UH-60M on an FMS basis would be a great MOTS purchase. FMS keeps the price very competitive. I have no idea if the RAF would go Euro after Brexit.
industry insider is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2021, 12:27
  #37 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 13,442
Looking at the photos of the AW149, as posted above. Very nice.

However, having flown both analogue and more modern glass screen cockpits, I can’t help thinking how much could be put out of action in that cockpit by just one bullet, especially bearing in mind that a Data Aquisition Unit has to process all the information displayed.

As much as I like modern displays, I’ve suffered an inflight loss of a DAU, which resulted in the loss of ALL aircraft systems information, including engine temperatures, pressures, rpm, torque, electrics, hydraulics, rotor rpm, fuel contents, the lot.

Sometimes I’d prefer analogue, rather than having all the eggs in one basket.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2021, 14:01
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hobe Sound, Florida
Posts: 812
Crab and Shy: your posts brings back memories of flying the Rolls UH-60 with their RTM-322 installed and after the engine/airframe integration testing had been accomplished. Flew with Rolls test pilot Ken Robertson, and was impressed with both the performance of that engine, and the rigor with which they had tested same. Wouldnít it be ironic to see something resurrect that idea this far down the road. BTW, there is some decent coverage of the Heseltine Affair in the Alan Bristow biography, but not the whole story, aircraft configuration-wise, as to why that ship wasnít bought by the Saudi government. A missed opportunity for both companies.
JohnDixson is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2021, 00:08
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: N/A
Age: 44
Posts: 84
[


Thats a pretty strange architecture if failure of one DAU causes all systems to fail.... what about redundancy??? In the aircraft I fly at least two, in some cases even three ďDAUísĒ would have to fail before I loose all information.... the screens auto-reconfigure if a screen fails... etc etc..

Originally Posted by ShyTorque View Post
Looking at the photos of the AW149, as posted above. Very nice.

However, having flown both analogue and more modern glass screen cockpits, I canít help thinking how much could be put out of action in that cockpit by just one bullet, especially bearing in mind that a Data Aquisition Unit has to process all the information displayed.

As much as I like modern displays, Iíve suffered an inflight loss of a DAU, which resulted in the loss of ALL aircraft systems information, including engine temperatures, pressures, rpm, torque, electrics, hydraulics, rotor rpm, fuel contents, the lot.

Sometimes Iíd prefer analogue, rather than having all the eggs in one basket.
casper64 is online now  
Old 1st Apr 2021, 14:40
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 1,055
Originally Posted by ShyTorque View Post
Looking at the photos of the AW149, as posted above. Very nice.

However, having flown both analogue and more modern glass screen cockpits, I canít help thinking how much could be put out of action in that cockpit by just one bullet, especially bearing in mind that a Data Aquisition Unit has to process all the information displayed.

As much as I like modern displays, Iíve suffered an inflight loss of a DAU, which resulted in the loss of ALL aircraft systems information, including engine temperatures, pressures, rpm, torque, electrics, hydraulics, rotor rpm, fuel contents, the lot.

Sometimes Iíd prefer analogue, rather than having all the eggs in one basket.
As someone said below, pretty rubbish architecture if there's a single point of failure across the entire cockpit . However, I'd be more disappointed about the loss of ballistic protection given by all those steam gauges in front of you - I've yet to see an MFD marketed as bullet proof!
pba_target is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.