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 18th Jun 2021, 12:03
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Uk
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by medod View Post
That's exactly what NH90 is. Yeah some breakdown but there are also 400+ in service with >250,000 hours between them now.

No doubt that, like Boxer, we'll go back to a programme we never should have left.
.. do some basic maths here then. 250,000 hours spread over 400 ac = 625hrs per ac. Spread over say 10 years ( to be generous) 62 Hrs a year per ac. That’s incredible, where do I sign? ! 😂😂
dingo9 is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2021, 15:21
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by dingo9 View Post
.. do some basic maths here then. 250,000 hours spread over 400 ac = 625hrs per ac. Spread over say 10 years ( to be generous) 62 Hrs a year per ac. That’s incredible, where do I sign? ! 😂😂
And to top it off Australia has just grounded their MRH-90 fleet again because of maintenance and safety concerns.........
Blackhawk9 is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2021, 09:34
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Used to be God's own County
Posts: 1,614
Correct - this is not a NATO-led requirement but a 'stop-gap' measure until the expensive and futuristic-vertical-lifty stuff arrives - whenever that will be; lets be conservative and say 2035-2040.
UK demands value for money without sacrificing capability. UK demands a low-risk option that requires minimal development. UK is aiming for net-zero carbon emissions in procurement.
As a UK tax payer, it concerns me that some PPrRuNers, mostly residing in Somerset, think you need a new design rather than a combat-proven and purposefully-designed aircraft updated with future-proofed avionics/engines etc and that Yeovil should be the 'default' option. The Chinook is more than 10-years older than the Black Hawk but still proving invaluable and in a field of its own for many years to come. The US Armed Forces are still developing the Black Hawk and are committed to 2070 (eg, Jolly Green II). - proving that it matters not how old the original design is if it's 'right'.
Using LEDs to light a parts shed does not mean 'net-zero' ;-) The Somerset lot will say and do anything to try and sell their unpopular machine and work on the premise that if you shout it from the rooftops (or fly the Daily Mail down the Thames in a painted O&G machine) then it must be true. It was 'launched' in 2006 and has been sold to 2 Countries (both with shocking Human Rights records) in small numbers. We've heard the "we'll build it in UK if you buy us" chant before but Bristows had to send engineers to Italy to ensure they built them correctly for SAR role.
There is a non-OEM solution that would get the Army their Black Hawks at a fraction of a price of the competition (5:2 ratio if FlightGlobal's Egypt/AW149 article correct) and they'd be made in UK to help level-up the country and disperse MOD procurement. The aircraft already slings twice that of the 149/189, is quicker over distance and around the battlefield, relishes DVE and can survive an RPG round - not mentioning that you don't have to ask the troops to move each time you need to swing the weapon through the cabin !
EESDL is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2021, 09:17
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Used to be God's own County
Posts: 1,614
The AW189 offering, and indeed the other ‘new’ contenders do not offer any new technology that aids capability, performance or reliability. It could be argued that ‘Current’ advanced rotor technology was designed for the UTTAS competition in the 70s with airframes keeping abreast of battlefield comms/ew requirements through avionics upgrades.
It could also be argued that, if anything, the design of these ‘contenders’ is in fact a backward step in design - or will Leonardo and Airbus re-design their MRGB to have complete internal oil lines, shielded components etc?
EESDL is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2021, 13:17
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,583
AW149 NMH

Week ago I went up in said AW149 demonstrator from Yeovil, so here are my photos below.

cheers














Last edited by chopper2004; 9th Jul 2021 at 16:11.
chopper2004 is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2021, 20:20
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5,225
That tailplane should really dig up the dirt if you overcook the flare.
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2021, 23:10
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east ESSEX
Posts: 3,974
It also looks like you can only `hot `refuel/`splash and dash` with the doors only open half-way,after climbing up on the sponsons....shades of the `Bevelgear`....even filler caps on both sides.....may be there are some old WW tail-bumpers left in the stores they could fit.....?UJ on stbd side shows `in distress....!

Wonder if its got plenty of `bathroom sealant` around the w/screen/,roofpanels to stop the rain from dripping in over the electronics panels ,a la WW,WX/S-K.....?
sycamore is online now  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 00:16
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Underneath the Radar
Posts: 149
That is the gravity refuel only, there is a pressure refuel coupling on RHS below it.
rrekn is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 18:11
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,709
Wonder if it is the same as the pressure refuel setup on 139 which couldn't cope with standard mil-spec pressure so you end up gravity refuelling it.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2021, 20:26
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The 4th dimension.....
Posts: 75
How much will Yeovil charge for it given it's about $20m for bare bones oil and gas one like this demo version.
Northernstar is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2021, 16:32
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: N/A
Age: 44
Posts: 75
The H175m joins the “marketing fight”…. Cool video.

casper64 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2021, 16:35
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,583
DSEi

Originally Posted by casper64 View Post
The H175m joins the “marketing fight”…. Cool video.

https://youtu.be/pt-FGBW3sT8
I am here at Excel so here my photos of Leonardo AW149 NMh and Airbus booth model …









cheers
chopper2004 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2021, 19:00
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Escaped from ABZ...
Posts: 299
Hadn't realised how much smaller the H175 is compared to the AW189.
detgnome is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2021, 20:56
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 20,651
Did you point out to the Leonardo’s people that if you are intending to try and flog your product to the U.K. it would be prudent to at least put the bloody flag of the country on the right way round.

I still agree the Blackhawk would be a better combat proven design that works.

NutLoose is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2021, 22:42
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 181
Looks like that the 189 window gunner has to a contortionist!
all of the videos showing AW189 were of civilian O&G variant-
there is no such thing as ‘149 demonstrator’ ~ it is a painted 189 FAS machine which wasn’t allowed to do the Iran contract.
Yeovil now saying it will close if doesn’t get NMh, strange as a previous PR said it would create new jobs.
the blackmailing arrogance is astounding-
forget Hairbrush 175 - they can’t even get their performance figures correct never mind film a credible video shoot.
here’s hoping those guys looking to find a way to build a uK ‘Paveway’ find a way through the BS.
JulieAndrews is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2021, 06:56
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,709
Hadn't realised how much smaller the H175 is compared to the AW189.
I suspect that was lost on a few
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2021, 08:00
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 34
Isn't a flag on the starboard side supposed to be backwards?
MeddlMoe is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2021, 13:04
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,346
Originally Posted by MeddlMoe View Post
Isn't a flag on the starboard side supposed to be backwards?
Yes. Flagpole-foward on the side of a vehicle.
jimf671 is online now  
Old 28th Sep 2021, 13:04
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,855
Originally Posted by casper64 View Post
The H175m joins the “marketing fight”….

Seen in the skies over Oxfordshire recently.
Bravo73 is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2021, 19:29
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Used to be God's own County
Posts: 1,614
Airbus /Flightglobal reporting 14 fully laden troops and 500nm range.
That would put it about 1000kg overweight - based on standard O&G APS weights and 100kg each soldier - without beefing-up everything and adding ballistic protection, couple of machine guns etc etc
What complete tosh!
OEMs at it again - peddling utter BS - worse than Arthur Daly.
‘Assembled in UK’………
EESDL 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.