RAF announces Puma Replacement plan
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,061
Received 2,934 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Time to dust off the old WG30 design 
The following users liked this post:
When it's full, you can't move it!
The following 2 users liked this post by charliegolf:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,061
Received 2,934 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
But it does look the part 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,061
Received 2,934 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Chipmunk served all three.
The following 3 users liked this post by OvertHawk:
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.
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
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 HC3’s will emerge, and bear an uncanny resemblance to the Australian Taipan, albeit with RAF roundels. 😜
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,061
Received 2,934 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
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.
The following 3 users liked this post by NutLoose:
The following 3 users liked this post by Ammo Boiler:
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?
The following 2 users liked this post by ericferret:
All legacy airframes were once unproven, unbuilt and untested designs, so not sure your logic really holds up.
True, but for anyone looking at a new and untried (In-Role) platform, 'Risk' and unknown 'NRE/RoM costs' alone, should be front-and-centre considerations on your KUR radar.