RAF announces Puma Replacement plan
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 3
From: Escrick York england
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 444
Likes: 83
From: Alles Über
I believe pba was getting at have any specific tail numbers operated under all 3 services (Booties have RN ID cards). Some Gz gen here
It's probably a stretch to claim a training aircraft like the Juno has operated under 3 services, depending on which Sqn was flying it at the time?
It's probably a stretch to claim a training aircraft like the Juno has operated under 3 services, depending on which Sqn was flying it at the time?
Joined: May 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 18,633
Likes: 1,072
From: Downeast
Legacy airframes have a lot of merit that new unproven, unbuilt, and un-tested designs have to offer.
The new Night Stalker Thread here at Military Aviation has a very nice photograph of a Blue Camo paint scheme on a 160th Blackhawk seen in northern Alabama.
The new Night Stalker Thread here at Military Aviation has a very nice photograph of a Blue Camo paint scheme on a 160th Blackhawk seen in northern Alabama.
Joined: May 2023
Posts: 48
Likes: 47
From: California
The current Puma fleet will be wheeled into a secret hangar under cover of darkness. There will be sounds of drilling and hammering for many weeks, and then the new Puma HC3s will emerge, and bear an uncanny resemblance to the Australian Taipan, albeit with RAF roundels. 😜
Joined: Feb 2006
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 36,137
Likes: 5,738
From: Falling off the end of the thread
Or they could be wheeled out of the hangar and a mass scrapping carried out behind screens to be followed by a capability gap of many years…. Ohh wait, that was Nimrod.
Joined: May 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 18,633
Likes: 1,072
From: Downeast
NO.....as they are. not fit for purpose.....unless you dumb down the specification so they are.
How would YOU sped a new Puma variant that would match or exceed the capability of a UH-60M?
How would YOU sped a new Puma variant that would match or exceed the capability of a UH-60M?
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,581
Likes: 73
From: England
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,192
Likes: 240
From: The back of beyond
All legacy airframes were once unproven, unbuilt and untested designs, so not sure your logic really holds up.
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
As idyllic as the buy the US OTS option sounds, the practicalities of politics get in the way. Remember our AH 1Ds had different engines (to keep UK suppliers and voters happy) but with the RTMs came a change in fuselage dynamics when the cannon was fired and Boeing wanted even more money to re-jig the fire computer algorithm so the cannon got more accurate instead of less as rounds were fired.
Then you had the fiasco of the AAC being forced to sign off delivery at Middle Wallop for a number of Apaches that were flown there, had the MFDs removed (because there was a shortage) and then driven back to Yeovil to be installed in the next one. Now, such shenanigans could also be experienced dealing with a UK or EU supplier but you can be pretty certain that the required UK spec for UH60 would be different from US spec and extra costs would be involved in modifying it.
Not sure what the perceived problem with Puma 2 is, most of the Puma 1 s foibles have been removed and although not a specialist in any particular area, manages a reasonable fist of most jobs it is asked to do.
Then you had the fiasco of the AAC being forced to sign off delivery at Middle Wallop for a number of Apaches that were flown there, had the MFDs removed (because there was a shortage) and then driven back to Yeovil to be installed in the next one. Now, such shenanigans could also be experienced dealing with a UK or EU supplier but you can be pretty certain that the required UK spec for UH60 would be different from US spec and extra costs would be involved in modifying it.
Not sure what the perceived problem with Puma 2 is, most of the Puma 1 s foibles have been removed and although not a specialist in any particular area, manages a reasonable fist of most jobs it is asked to do.
Joined: May 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 18,633
Likes: 1,072
From: Downeast
All legacy airframes were once unproven, unbuilt and untested designs, so not sure your logic really holds up.
Ask John Dixson who frequently posts here about his personal experience as a Test Pilot for Sikorsky during that procurement program that resulted in the the UH-60 Black Hawk winning the competition.
The key is how it is "spec'd", "tested", and "certified".
The US Army did it right on the UTTAS Program and learned from that.
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,581
Likes: 73
From: England
Originally Posted by [email protected]
As idyllic as the buy the US OTS option sounds, the practicalities of politics get in the way. Remember our AH 1Ds had different engines (to keep UK suppliers and voters happy) but with the RTMs came a change in fuselage dynamics when the cannon was fired and Boeing wanted even more money to re-jig the fire computer algorithm so the cannon got more accurate instead of less as rounds were fired.
Then you had the fiasco of the AAC being forced to sign off delivery at Middle Wallop for a number of Apaches that were flown there, had the MFDs removed (because there was a shortage) and then driven back to Yeovil to be installed in the next one. Now, such shenanigans could also be experienced dealing with a UK or EU supplier but you can be pretty certain that the required UK spec for UH60 would be different from US spec and extra costs would be involved in modifying it.
Not sure what the perceived problem with Puma 2 is, most of the Puma 1 s foibles have been removed and although not a specialist in any particular area, manages a reasonable fist of most jobs it is asked to do.
Then you had the fiasco of the AAC being forced to sign off delivery at Middle Wallop for a number of Apaches that were flown there, had the MFDs removed (because there was a shortage) and then driven back to Yeovil to be installed in the next one. Now, such shenanigans could also be experienced dealing with a UK or EU supplier but you can be pretty certain that the required UK spec for UH60 would be different from US spec and extra costs would be involved in modifying it.
Not sure what the perceived problem with Puma 2 is, most of the Puma 1 s foibles have been removed and although not a specialist in any particular area, manages a reasonable fist of most jobs it is asked to do.
Really the Puma and the Black Hawk will have similar issue if the clowns at the M.O.D are allowed to interfere.
You would have thought we had learned a few very expensive lessons by now.
Political interference is the biggest problem.