But it does look the part ;)


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4be8df8a72.jpg

gazelles were used by all 3 services 4 if you count the marines

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?

Chipmunk served all three.

Looked the part then fell apart!

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.

Anyone care to bet on when the Puma HC3 programme will be announced?

sad but true

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. 😜

…and it’ll cost a fortune! Far more than just buying new helicopters in hindsight.

LZ

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.

Just keep the Pumas then?

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?

I was winding you up SAS.
Blackhawk is the only logical choice... logic however being something we have lacked for considerable time.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/techa...ddb500e8&ei=14

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.

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.

Study up on the original UTTAS program and you might think a bit differently.

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.

I doubt Leonardo will want to build a Puma under licence from a competitor.
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.