RAF announces Puma Replacement plan
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South
Age: 62
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without casting doubt on your claim, what has the 800hr TBO 'gained' so far?
Each airframe 800hr inspection requires the MGB to be removed anyway,for the airframe structure inspection,with many MGB being returned to airbus for precautionary inspections, in certain areas, on a fast turn-around basis.
Certainly too, MGB's are being regularly rejected well short of the 800hr TBO.
Each airframe 800hr inspection requires the MGB to be removed anyway,for the airframe structure inspection,with many MGB being returned to airbus for precautionary inspections, in certain areas, on a fast turn-around basis.
Certainly too, MGB's are being regularly rejected well short of the 800hr TBO.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
That has never happened in the history of RAF procurement - why should they start now?
We would have been flying Blackhawks since the 80's if we had been given what we needed.
We would have been flying Blackhawks since the 80's if we had been given what we needed.
One of my thermodynamics lecturers worked at RR before his PhD worked at Rolls-Royce Leavesden and did a few test flights with G-RRTM (only S-70 on CAA register)
Cheers
Without casting doubt you are in the know, it has gained multiple of 800 so far. Although well short of the 5000 TBO designed for.
800h inspection does not require dynamic removal if it is not due.Precautionary is rather often due to obvious reasons and also because the hums are now real time monitored as long as GS plugs into internet.
It is true some older production still have shorter than expected life but cases has been reducing as they move on to component made by new supplier.
800h inspection does not require dynamic removal if it is not due.Precautionary is rather often due to obvious reasons and also because the hums are now real time monitored as long as GS plugs into internet.
It is true some older production still have shorter than expected life but cases has been reducing as they move on to component made by new supplier.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South
Age: 62
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no doubt that airbus, consider themselves to be in a theoretical 'good place', regarding the 175. MGB TBO 'gaining by multiples' is just fantastic!
However, enter a offshore operators hangar and the 175 on a 800hr insp will almost certainly have its MGB out of the airframe. In fairness, it is very easy to remove.
To return to thread, Blackhawk gets my vote. Leonardo make a solid and robust MGB,it is just a shame about the flimsy airframe and (allegedly) poor support.
However, enter a offshore operators hangar and the 175 on a 800hr insp will almost certainly have its MGB out of the airframe. In fairness, it is very easy to remove.
To return to thread, Blackhawk gets my vote. Leonardo make a solid and robust MGB,it is just a shame about the flimsy airframe and (allegedly) poor support.
I have no doubt that airbus, consider themselves to be in a theoretical 'good place', regarding the 175. MGB TBO 'gaining by multiples' is just fantastic!
However, enter a offshore operators hangar and the 175 on a 800hr insp will almost certainly have its MGB out of the airframe. In fairness, it is very easy to remove.
To return to thread, Blackhawk gets my vote. Leonardo make a solid and robust MGB,it is just a shame about the flimsy airframe and (allegedly) poor support.
However, enter a offshore operators hangar and the 175 on a 800hr insp will almost certainly have its MGB out of the airframe. In fairness, it is very easy to remove.
To return to thread, Blackhawk gets my vote. Leonardo make a solid and robust MGB,it is just a shame about the flimsy airframe and (allegedly) poor support.
But this is a 189's contact to lose.
Hmmmm….Leonardo or Airbus UK?
Well, let me see…
Leonardo UK (Yeovil?) can’t be any worse than the main factory in Italy for delivery erm…standards (yes, thats the word).
And AHUK seem to have aspirations for becoming second only to BAES for military maintenance and spares profits - probably basing a few very long term business plans on those two items alone...and then there are the Mods…(Whooppee!!)
Well, let me see…
Leonardo UK (Yeovil?) can’t be any worse than the main factory in Italy for delivery erm…standards (yes, thats the word).
And AHUK seem to have aspirations for becoming second only to BAES for military maintenance and spares profits - probably basing a few very long term business plans on those two items alone...and then there are the Mods…(Whooppee!!)
As has been pointed out in previous posts, both contender solutions are merely spinoffs of ‘Commercial Platforms’ and neither has any proven combat experience, let alone demonstrated that the multitude of bolt-on equipment options required in-role have yet to be designed, built, evaluated on-wing and certified to the satisfaction of the end-customer.
Add the multitude of customer SIRFC, comms, mission planning, datalink, hoist, fast-roping, rappelling, weapons mount, A2A refuelling and survivability options (electronic, structure, material safety, defence, etc.) Provisions, let alone Completions, I dread to think what the useful load and performance of either platform would be at final delivery.
A recipe for delay and cost overruns that is for sure and for what, to save a few hundred jobs that would be lost without this win?
Neither solution offers any real benefit to the UK taxpayer, as irrespective of what is ‘Promised’ for future export sales, if either helicopter were any good for the requirement, they would already have sold well to credible militaries in previous competitions, but alas not the case for either platform.
More importantly, neither is ‘fit-for-the-purpose’ in protecting those inside when things go horribly wrong.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Add the multitude of customer SIRFC, comms, mission planning, datalink, hoist, fast-roping, rappelling, weapons mount, A2A refuelling and survivability options (electronic, structure, material safety, defence, etc.) Provisions, let alone Completions, I dread to think what the useful load and performance of either platform would be at final delivery.
A recipe for delay and cost overruns that is for sure and for what, to save a few hundred jobs that would be lost without this win?
Neither solution offers any real benefit to the UK taxpayer, as irrespective of what is ‘Promised’ for future export sales, if either helicopter were any good for the requirement, they would already have sold well to credible militaries in previous competitions, but alas not the case for either platform.
More importantly, neither is ‘fit-for-the-purpose’ in protecting those inside when things go horribly wrong.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Not quite Hilife,
The AW149 was designed as a military platform and then adapted to become the civil AW189. I take your point it has no combat experience, but it would be available quickly (and cheaply) and suit most of the roles that it's likely to find itself in. It need only last 10 years until the FVL is available.
The AW149 was designed as a military platform and then adapted to become the civil AW189. I take your point it has no combat experience, but it would be available quickly (and cheaply) and suit most of the roles that it's likely to find itself in. It need only last 10 years until the FVL is available.
Not quite Hilife,
The AW149 was designed as a military platform and then adapted to become the civil AW189. I take your point it has no combat experience, but it would be available quickly (and cheaply) and suit most of the roles that it's likely to find itself in. It need only last 10 years until the FVL is available.
The AW149 was designed as a military platform and then adapted to become the civil AW189. I take your point it has no combat experience, but it would be available quickly (and cheaply) and suit most of the roles that it's likely to find itself in. It need only last 10 years until the FVL is available.
Lost
Not quite Hilife,
The AW149 was designed as a military platform and then adapted to become the civil AW189. I take your point it has no combat experience, but it would be available quickly (and cheaply) and suit most of the roles that it's likely to find itself in. It need only last 10 years until the FVL is available.
The AW149 was designed as a military platform and then adapted to become the civil AW189. I take your point it has no combat experience, but it would be available quickly (and cheaply) and suit most of the roles that it's likely to find itself in. It need only last 10 years until the FVL is available.
Is that your definition of Value 4 Money for UK- tax payer?
It will take more than 10-years for the WG30 to reach the frontline - it is simply a ‘cash cow’ for overseas shareholders - any re-config to cost a fortune in time and money.
All because Italy has given it a ‘mil approval’ does not mean it is a military aircraft.
Since we need a replacement and we need it now - Leonardo 149/189 would seem the obvious choice as it is already in production.
No, it's not a Blackhawk but we'll never get those and the choice is limited - mostly due to politics.
No, it's not a Blackhawk but we'll never get those and the choice is limited - mostly due to politics.
Something OTS would solve the 212/412 easily, just needs a winch. N3 replacement would just need a few add ons too. It's all the gubbins to make it a battlefield helicopter that is the difficult bit. Probably end up with a Mk2/3/4/5/6 etc when more and more things get added to the spec, finally followed by more powerful engines to carry all the extras.
We can have a ‘Black Hawk’
Got talking to some guys at GDH, Warsaw. They have worked out how to bring G5000H ‘Black Hawks’ over from Alabama. Latest engines, gearboxes etc and still half the price of 149/175 whilst outperforming competition - and all on FMS so minimal running costs. Teesside FreePort and the mayor all behind it.
‘Levelling up’ in truest form and helps to strengthen defence network by spreading it out.
Greenest of options as re-lifing existing airframes - just as new as the ‘new’ wildcat. To be produced in the Hydrogen Hub that is the North East - sounds to good to be true. They can even deliver earlier than required.
We might just get the beast after all !!
‘Levelling up’ in truest form and helps to strengthen defence network by spreading it out.
Greenest of options as re-lifing existing airframes - just as new as the ‘new’ wildcat. To be produced in the Hydrogen Hub that is the North East - sounds to good to be true. They can even deliver earlier than required.
We might just get the beast after all !!
Got talking to some guys at GDH, Warsaw. They have worked out how to bring G5000H ‘Black Hawks’ over from Alabama. Latest engines, gearboxes etc and still half the price of 149/175 whilst outperforming competition - and all on FMS so minimal running costs. Teesside FreePort and the mayor all behind it.
‘Levelling up’ in truest form and helps to strengthen defence network by spreading it out.
Greenest of options as re-lifing existing airframes - just as new as the ‘new’ wildcat. To be produced in the Hydrogen Hub that is the North East - sounds to good to be true. They can even deliver earlier than required.
We might just get the beast after all !!
‘Levelling up’ in truest form and helps to strengthen defence network by spreading it out.
Greenest of options as re-lifing existing airframes - just as new as the ‘new’ wildcat. To be produced in the Hydrogen Hub that is the North East - sounds to good to be true. They can even deliver earlier than required.
We might just get the beast after all !!
Not enough fingers in pies....
EESDL. I’ve been to Guntersville and flown the Ace Hawk. Great aircraft, and superbly updated by Darryl and the team. But. It’s not an FMS aircraft as the US DoD don’t use it. Any UK buy would be DCS to Ace or a possible UK agent - ergo it would be without some of the cost benefits of FMS but, equally, also not tied to several of the constraints. As JD notes, of all the proposed NMH candidate platforms, only the -60 was designed with strict survivability requirements stipulated - including separation of systems (including the pilots…..), duplex/triplex redundancy in key areas, ballistic tolerance and ruggedness to accept high RoD landings. However, unless the Social Value content of a UK -60 is high, Politics dictates that Yeovil wins….again….
I understand that the PUMA remains the current most efficient and reliable resource in the UK helicopter inventory. So why not extend its out of service relief until a decent replacement can be identified? CMon'y guys ditch the Politics give the armed services the bang bung for the politics
TF
TF
TF, this was the first question I asked. After all, the upgrade to Puma 2 included modern engines and cockpit. I think the date is key here. By 2025 there’s precious little work at Yeovil forecast; Wildcat/Merlin support will endure, but Apache will end - transferred to E model and Boeing. My guess is that Puma has to go to justify chucking Ł1Bn at the factory. Personally, I agree with a sentiment I heard last week - scrap NMH and use the money to buy more Wildcat and Chinook, keeping Yeovil and the military happy, and COMO the ‘odds and sods’. The urban argument, whilst valid, is not as is often made out. If you have to keep NMH, lease 15-20 for 15 years and see how FVL goes and if NGRC amounts to anything tangible.
Evalu8ter - why on earth would you want to buy more Wildcat? More Chinook I get but the Wildcat? How many troops does it lift again??