Fleet Helicopter Support Unit (FHSU)
 

Appears those in SPMAP have decreed AW139 is the only viable option. Some interesting wording in the latest release.

"Interesting wording" would necessarily include an explanation of FHSU and SPMAP.
Or is this intended to be an insiders-only thread?

Thread title edited
​​​​​​​Senior Pilot

Fleet Helicopter Support Unit (FHSU)

Special Projects Multi-air Platform Project Team (SPMAP PT)

https://d3tenders.com/contract/?ocid...c-e285d5d8fa3a

UK MOD contract to support Flag Officer Sea Training (FOST) currently covered by AS365

But nothing about 139. Where is that gen coming from?

Without checking the numbers clearly, I think the specification can only be met by a 139? Like a job advert that says applicants must be called John Smith and were born on 1/1/1980…….

Hang on. Having flown 139 I can tell you it won't cope with navy deck landings. Yes we have landed offshore on moving decks but not on frigates. Totally different scenario. Navy decks require SHOL which the 139 doesn't have. The 365 does. H160 might soon courtesy of French. H225 even.

Not even sure a 139 with it's nose up attitude could even cope. None certified with 16 pax either. Where did these guys get that from? Sounds like an inside job to me. Is that legal?

To try to work out if this request might be written around the AW139, I looked at the link provided by FloatersNorthWest in #3 and it provided what seemed like reasonable high level requirements for the helicopter and other contract terms. Is this the "latest release" DuckDodger was referring to? The specifications included:
* Day and night... in adverse weather conditions = IFR
* Endurance: minimum 2.5 hours, preferable: 3.5 hours
* Range: 200 nautical miles (full load & fuel)
* Internal load: minimum 500kg, preferable 1000kg
* Internal volume: minimum 1m³, preferable 1.5 m³
* Passengers: minimum 6, preferable 16 (with baggage and/or equipment of 100kg each)
* External Underslung Load: minimum 1000kg, preferable 1500kg

Now extracting data from (say) the Eurocopter AS365N3 Technical Data brochure (365 N3 06.101.02E) available on-line:

* IFR capable
* Endurance: 4.1 hours (at MAUW on standard tanks)
* Range: 427 nautical miles (at MAUW on standard tanks)
* Internal load: 1014kg (excluding standard fuel load)
* Internal volume: 5.1m³ for cabin excluding cockpit plus 1.1 m³ luggage compartment
* Passengers: 8-13 depending on configuration and whether 1 or 2 pilots.
* External Underslung Load: 1600kg

So with the exception of the preferable passenger load not quite being achieved (the minimum required passenger load certainly is), all the other desirable requirements would (still) be met by (say) an AS365 (N3).

I realise reference is made to further details in the full Contract Notice document at Defence Sourcing Portal, but that apparently needs a user account to access and I am not that keen. Has anyone looked and does this somehow unreasonably narrow candidate helicopters down to just the AW139?

Update: I am not sure how you could squeeze 16 passengers into an "objective" internal volume of only 1.5 m³ so perhaps this was intended as an independent requirement for when the helicopter is carrying cargo rather than passengers?

“The Authority has conducted a Request for Information which closed in June 2022. Analysis of the responses and all other AS that hold, or have previously held, military registration) showed only the AW139:

1. Meets all threshold and objective requirements, and;
2. Is a modern AS likely to be supportable and meet crashworthiness requirements, and;
3. has an available Ship Air Integration (SAl) data set that will support generation of the necessary UK SA-R clearances.

The Authority has ap SAI Strategy based on utilising the available AW139 SAI dataset to minimise the risk and complexity of achieving the SA-R clearances required to meet the In Service Date (ISD). The SAI Strategy exploits existing AW139, Merlin and Wildcat SAl data, on the same class of ship, to minimise the cost of SAl and the operational burden of First of Type Flight Trials (FoTFT) to Navy Command and will enable ISD to be achieved prior to FoTFT.

The Authority may consider an alternative AS if it meets the user requirements. the priority considerations detailed above and is able to satisfy the intent of the Authority's SAI Strategy. Any bidder offering an AS other than an AW139 must be able to demonstrate that there is existing SAl data available and that the MOD would be able to secure access to this data set.

If you are considering bidding an equivalent AS to the AW139 please detail this AS and the supporting SAl evidence separately but alongside your DPQQ response for consideration by the Authority.”

Dry weight of an F-35 engine 1700KG - you would have expected this to dictate USL requirement............

That's what Chinooks are for:)

Add in the considerable weight of the transportation stand.

It’s a staff transport for what used to be Flag Officer Sea Training, diddly squat to do with COD.

A 2 aircraft requirement. Next .......

Ahhh now pr00ne

Don't be letting actual facts get in the way of the Pprunerati and their random pontificating.

Thar's right - how silly of me to think it prooodent to use such an asset for anything else is these 'cash-strapped' times when the RN has so many serviceable and capable aircraft sat about!!!
The US Marines are still talking about the embarrassing lack of helo support on that inaugural 'cruise'.........

Surely there must be a few `WX5` still in Fleetlands...?

They didn't use the AS365N2s for anything else operating out of Newquay for the same job - it's a contract for a specific role which will be a resettlement Squadron for ex-RN pilots.

Given the requirement for the Dauphins to have deck tie-downs, how many civil market AW139s in the world have deck tie-down capability? Are tie-downs a potential aftermarket addition to an airframe, or does it have to have this from the production line?

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c8b08f78a5.jpg

I humbly suggest that was only because they couldn’t lift the skin of a rice pudding ;-)