Puma confirmed for Cyprus and Brunei
 

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicop...147239.article

Leases on the 212 and 412 coming to an end?

Wonder if they will have marinised the Pumas for Cyprus and added a wet-fit floor?

Will they convert 84 Sqn crews to Puma or take Puma crews and teach them SAR?

Wonder who will provide the engineering in both places since Draken have effectively wound up their rotary business with the closure of the Academy at Newquay.

Hueymeister - the 212's in Brunei are well past their sell-by date and have lots of serviceability issues. The 412s in Cyprus get the job done but were never an upgrade for the Wessex they replaced.

I know more details but am reluctant to type away on an open forum just yet. But staff have all been informed of this years changes at MW and Brunei and the short extension for AKT.

Having operated into a very large proportion (as in: very nearly all) of the landing areas available in Brunei - not just the UK training-area ones, but across Tutong, Temburong and everywhere else too - I'm aware that a significant proportion are not suitable for aircraft the size or landing-gear-configuration of aircraft like the Puma or even ATUDB/RBrAF's Blackhawk. Sounds like a retrograde step as far as capability for the troops on the ground.. but when was that ever a consideration?

This.10 characters

More winching and roping and less landing will probably be the answer.

Of course, lets turn a 5 hour infil into a 2 day epic. Progress.

We used to land the Puma in Belize on raised pads designed for the Scout. You certainly needed to know where the wheels were though, especially when overhanging a steep drop, such as Cadenas. If the pilot was sitting over the front of the pad where he could see it, the aircraft was way too far back because the nose wheel lies just about behind a line between the two front seats so the mainwheels were still over fresh air. As far as jungle landing sites were concerned, if one was needed we could just drop in troops to make one. I recall one occasion when we were tasked to fly in Gurkhas to cut a new LS up in the Cockscomb mountains. We hover jumped them over what appeared to be grass about two feet high. When we came back later the same day it was obvious they had actually dropped about twelve feet down into some sort of VERY long grass! But the LS was finished. On other occasions some HE / Det cord was used to cut down large trees.

Wet fit floors for the Puma were available even back in the late 1970/80s; they were routinely fitted to Belize Det aircraft (we had the SAR standby requirement). I think I'm correct in saying we even had a wet fit floor at Odiham for when we did wet winching practice. It was said that in trials held for the purpose the Puma was found to be totally unsuitable for wet winching due to the alleged very heavy downdraught. But we found that it was possible to pin a dinghy down in the centre of it and winch from surprisingly low heights.

The Puma recently celebrated its 50th Year in RAF service. Yes it is getting old but it is still one of the most reliable Rotary wing assets in our armoury, - and the most flexible aircraft for a number of tasks. No replacement has yet been ordered so it would appear that an extension of its service will be required. Once again someone has been asleep at the wheel!

TF

Compared to the downwash under an S92 or a AW 189 I should think it was relatively mild - they just hover higher to mitigate the problem.

The use of the Puma in Brunei and Cyprus at least gives the MoD time to save up some money to get helicopters properly suited to the roles - so they'll still be there in 10 years time:)

I was first posted to Pumas in 1979 and there was an Air Staff Target regarding the Puma/Wessex replacement even then. Many Wessex aficionados were of the opinion that the Puma was unsuitable for RAF service and would never last long. 43 years on…..

I have a certain amount of experience operating the Puma in the SAR role. I found it to be a good winching platform but required a higher hover height in order to remain out of the spray. Much nonsense is spoken about SAR aircraft suitability and this is usually by those with vested interests.

Exactly! Heard this downwash argument 100 times before, land and sea, and it's the same wrong every time. If you don't believe me or Crab, ask 751 in Portugal.

I think one important point is that the MOD haven't chosen the Puma, they've been forced to find a replacement with Draken choosing to end all of it's rotary wing business, I think they're making a reasonable best of a less than ideal scenario.
A question I haven't seen answered yet is hangarage in Brunei. The shed out there is only really suitable for 212's, I'd be surprised if a/three Puma(s) would fit. A year isn't very long to negotiate with local government and build a new facility, especially as I doubt they'd want to waste funds and resources on a new facility for the current operation with a different aircraft, only to change to a new aircraft and probably a new operation structure within approx 10 years.

Looks like 667 Sqn will be short lived!

How about Drakens engineering support contract in Herefordshire? Who will provide for that one?

I suspect that will depend on how long the AAC want to keep operating the N3 - maybe Pumas for 658 as well then?:E

They’re safe for a few years.

They're MOD assets anyway, unlike the 412 and 212 which are contractor owned. I'd imagine they could find a way to get another maintenance organisation in and TUPE the staff over if they had to, keep the N3s ticking over until the new meadium-lift Puma replacement airframe is in service.