sideshowbob9

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
26
Reaction score
41
Just one more little helicopter noise anecdote (sorry). A Merlin HM.1 managed to sneak up behind me when I was on the deck of Lusty during a Navy Day (sigh, I miss those). I really to this day don't know how it managed to do that. It was ascending through deck level (bad pun) as I was turning round so maybe the hull masked it but you'd think you would hear it long before it got close. Sound waves, you just can't keep them straight.

Ah, I remember seeing those Dragon Rapide tours over north London! Always brought a smile to my face, seeing the old girl.

Anyway, while I could tolerate the loss of either Puma or (Army) Wildcat, the loss of both would be an intolerable capability gap, especially coupled with the loss of the Hercs as well. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,797
Reaction score
2,181
Wrong the RAAF refused to keep the chinooks once the blackhawks were give to the army

Yes. It appears that the only RAAF rotary wing aircraft are some contracted AW139s for SAR. The Army got all the battlefield helicopters when the Chinooks came back from their brief holiday in the early 1990s. The Black Hawks came in (to the Army), the Chinooks were retired (by the RAAF), and then it became obvious the Black Hawks couldn't do all the missions, so the Chinooks came back (this time to the Army). Probably for the best -- the Chinooks were almost exclusively for Army support anyway, so why not put them under Army control?
 
Last edited:

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
251
Diesel vans with blown exhausts overhead must be the Met Police EC145s. Very annoying when they hover right above you. :(
I'd agree with that except in my case it's Greater Manchester Police's MD902, which always seems to 'visit' our area at around 2 in the morning and do circuits. I always thought NOTAR was supposed to be quiet - NOT - I'm looking forward to the day they switch to using drones!!
 

Wyvern

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
782
Reaction score
951
It's probably mad to even think of resurrecting the Rotordyne concept.

But it does seem to still possess merit....
How about a Rotodyne 2? Not necessarily a resurrection of the Original Rotodyne, just a new one with completely new parts, design, etc. with a bit of modern technology. I highly doubt a clean-sheet design is needed for such a small order though.
 

Wyvern

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
782
Reaction score
951
From working in central London I can make the following observations:

I can tell a Chinook is coming from 3 miles away by the low whop-whop-whop beat that precedes it, it's usually a dot in the sky beyond the Houses of Parliament at the time.
If I hear a diesel tractor flying above then it's an Apache within a mile.
Diesel vans with blown exhausts overhead must be the Met Police EC145s. Very annoying when they hover right above you. :(
Low pitched squeal is the Air Ambulance MD902, very cute and agile to watch.
A deep scream nearby is a red and white Coastguard AW189 or an executive charter AW109 from Battersea.
The noisy clatter of an eggwhisk is the Robinson R44 on sightseeing from Biggin Hill.
A mild drone is possibly the beautiful Dragon Rapide sightseeing from Duxford.
Merlin whispers? BBMF! :D
If I may chime in on a similar note, an Alouette III gives a high-pitched whine, one which could be heard long before the rotor, which once within distance of hearing the rotor noise, it sounds a lot like a loud, squealing moped. The AW139s give off a low-rumble, like an idling bus when stationary, before giving off a loud roar once it flies overhead. The AB 212s, which are no longer based here, well, they had the classic Huey Chop-Chop-Chop which was audible for miles.

I do think we are going a bit off tangent, but it is interesting note the varying sounds of helicopters :) .
 

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,081
Reaction score
182
Hood's Hidden Theme - Perhaps sense will prevail and (I can't believe I'm writing this) UK75's mad plan comes to fruition with the RAF running the Chinooks and the AAC all other rotorcraft.
That is how it is done by the Australian Army and the RAAF. The RAAF still owns and operates the Angry Chooks and the Army the Blackhawks. Just as long as the British Army doesn't do what the Australian Army did which was to try and hang big drop tanks on the fuel points on the stub wings for excessive distances - they wore out their rotor hubs far too fast and that practice has since basically stopped.
Wrong the RAAF refused to keep the chinooks once the blackhawks were give to the army
I stand corrected.
 

shyab

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 1, 2020
Messages
17
Reaction score
4
Hood's Hidden Theme - Perhaps sense will prevail and (I can't believe I'm writing this) UK75's mad plan comes to fruition with the RAF running the Chinooks and the AAC all other rotorcraft.
That is how it is done by the Australian Army and the RAAF. The RAAF still owns and operates the Angry Chooks and the Army the Blackhawks. Just as long as the British Army doesn't do what the Australian Army did which was to try and hang big drop tanks on the fuel points on the stub wings for excessive distances - they wore out their rotor hubs far too fast and that practice has since basically stopped.
Wrong the RAAF refused to keep the chinooks once the blackhawks were give to the army
I stand corrected.
Hood's Hidden Theme - Perhaps sense will prevail and (I can't believe I'm writing this) UK75's mad plan comes to fruition with the RAF running the Chinooks and the AAC all other rotorcraft.
That is how it is done by the Australian Army and the RAAF. The RAAF still owns and operates the Angry Chooks and the Army the Blackhawks. Just as long as the British Army doesn't do what the Australian Army did which was to try and hang big drop tanks on the fuel points on the stub wings for excessive distances - they wore out their rotor hubs far too fast and that p ractice has since basically stopped.
Wrong the RAAF refused to keep the chinooks once the blackhawks were give to the army
I stand corrected.
The Australian army originally wanted the airforce to keep the chinooks the airforce refused
 

Wyvern

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
782
Reaction score
951
There are many current options on the market right now. After doing some research, I have put together a list of possible replacements for the ageing Puma in RAF service.

To compare the Puma to other rotorcraft, one must have its performance data as a benchmark.

The SA.330E was known in the RAF as the Puma Mk.1.

Performance for SA.330H (this is meant to provide a benchmark. I am unsure whether there are any performance differences between the two variants)
General characteristics
  • Crew: 3
  • Capacity: 16 passengers
  • Length: 18.15 m (59 ft 6½ in)
  • Rotor diameter: 15.00 m (49 ft 2½ in)
  • Height: 5.14 m (16 ft 10½ in)
  • Disc area: 177.0 m² (1,905 ft²)
  • Empty weight: 3,536 kg (7,795 lb)
  • Max takeoff weight: 7,000 kg (15,430 lb)
  • Powerplant: 2× Turbomeca Turmo IVC turboshafts, 1,175 kW (1,575 hp) each
Performance
Rotorcraft in this bracket are numerous. The list I've compiled includes:
  • Aerospatiale/Eurocopter AS332 Super Puma (now known as H125)
  • Eurocopter AS532 Cougar (militarised variant of the Super Puma)
  • Eurocopter EC725 Caracal
  • Airbus Helicopters H175
  • Agusta Westland AW149/189
  • Bell 525 Relentless
  • NH Industries NH 90
  • Sikorsky S-92
Performance for the Super Puma:

General characteristics
  • Crew: 2
  • Capacity: 24 passengers plus attendant / 4,490 kg (9,899 lb)
  • Length: 16.79 m (55 ft 1 in) fuselage
18.7 m (61 ft) rotor turning
  • Height: 4.97 m (16 ft 4 in)
  • Empty weight: 4,660 kg (10,274 lb)
  • Max takeoff weight: 9,150 kg (20,172 lb)
  • Powerplant: 2 × Turbomeca Makila 1A1 turboshaft, 1,376 kW (1,845 hp) each
  • Main rotor diameter: 16.2 m (53 ft 2 in)
  • Main rotor area: 206.12 m2 (2,218.7 sq ft)
  • Blade section: root: NACA 13112; tip: NACA 13106[94]
Performance
  • Cruise speed: 277 km/h (172 mph, 150 kn) max, 247 km/h (153 mph; 133 kn) econ.
  • Never exceed speed: 327 km/h (203 mph, 177 kn)
  • Range: 851 km (529 mi, 460 nmi)
  • Service ceiling: 5,180 m (16,990 ft)
  • Rate of climb: 7.4 m/s (1,460 ft/min)
Performance for the AS532:

General characteristics
  • Crew: 2
  • Capacity: 20 troops / 4,650 kg (10,251 lb) payload
  • Length: 15.53 m (50 ft 11 in)
  • Height: 4.92 m (16 ft 2 in)
  • Empty weight: 4,350 kg (9,590 lb)
  • Max takeoff weight: 9,000 kg (19,842 lb)
  • Powerplant: 2 × Turbomeca Makila 1A1 turboshaft engines, 1,185 kW (1,589 hp) each
  • Main rotor diameter: 15.6 m (51 ft 2 in)
  • Main rotor area: 206 m2 (2,220 sq ft)
Performance
  • Maximum speed: 249 km/h (155 mph, 134 kn)
  • Cruise speed: 239 km/h (149 mph, 129 kn)
  • Never exceed speed: 278 km/h (173 mph, 150 kn)
  • Range: 573 km (356 mi, 309 nmi)
  • Service ceiling: 3,450 m (11,320 ft)
  • Rate of climb: 7.2 m/s (1,420 ft/min)
Performance for the EC725:

General characteristics
  • Crew: 1 or 2 (pilot + co-pilot)
  • Capacity: 1 chief of stick + 28 troops or 5,670 kg (12,500 lb) payload
  • Length: 19.5 m (64 ft 0 in)
  • Height: 4.6 m (15 ft 1 in)
  • Empty weight: 5,330 kg (11,751 lb)
  • Gross weight: 11,000 kg (24,251 lb)
  • Max takeoff weight: 11,200 kg (24,692 lb)
  • Powerplant: 2 × Turboméca Makila 2A1 turboshaft engines, 1,776 kW (2,382 hp) each
  • Main rotor diameter: 16.20 m (53 ft 2 in)
  • Main rotor area: 206.1 m2 (2,218 sq ft)
Performance
  • Maximum speed: 324 km/h (201 mph, 175 kn) in level flight
  • Cruise speed: 262 km/h (163 mph, 141 kn)
  • Never exceed speed: 324 km/h (201 mph, 175 kn)
  • Range: 920 km (570 mi, 500 nmi)
  • Ferry range: 1,253 km (779 mi, 677 nmi)
  • Service ceiling: 6,095 m (19,997 ft)
  • Rate of climb: 7.4 m/s (1,460 ft/min)
Performance for the H175:
General characteristics
  • Crew: 2
  • Capacity: 12-18 pax
  • Length: 18.06 m (59 ft 3 in) rotors running
15.68 m (51 ft) nose to tail rotor disc
  • Height: 5.34 m (17 ft 6 in) to tail rotor tip
  • Empty weight: 4,603 kg (10,148 lb)
  • Gross weight: 7,500 kg (16,535 lb)
  • Max takeoff weight: 7,500 kg (16,535 lb) [50]
  • Fuel capacity: 2,710 l (720 US gal; 600 imp gal) / 2,136 kg (4,709 lb)
  • Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6C-67E turboshaft engines with dual channel FADEC, 1,324 kW (1,776 hp) each for take-off
1,227 kW (1,645 hp) maximum continuous power
  • Main rotor diameter: 14.8 m (48 ft 7 in)
  • Main rotor area: 172 m2 (1,850 sq ft)
Performance
  • Maximum speed: 315 km/h (196 mph, 170 kn)
  • Cruise speed: 300 km/h (190 mph, 160 kn)
  • Range: 1,259 km (782 mi, 680 nmi)
  • Service ceiling: 6,000 m (20,000 ft)
  • Rate of climb: 18.288 m/s (3,600.0 ft/min)
Performance for the AW149:

General characteristics
  • Crew: 2
  • Capacity: 18 max or; 12 combat laden troops or 2,720 kg external sling load
  • Length: 17.57 m (57 ft 8 in)
  • Width: 3.06 m (0 in)
  • Height: 5.14 m (16 ft 10 in)
  • Gross weight: 8,600 kg (18,959 lb)
  • Powerplant: 2 × General Electric CT7-2E1 turboshaft engine , 1,477 kW (1,980 hp) each
  • Main rotor diameter: 14.6 m (47 ft 11 in)
Performance
  • Maximum speed: 310 km/h (190 mph, 170 kn)
  • Cruise speed: 278 km/h (173 mph, 150 kn)
  • Range: 800 km (497 mi, 432 nmi)
  • Endurance: 4 hours
Performance for the AW189:
General characteristics
  • Crew: 1 or 2
  • Capacity: Up to 19 passengers
  • Length: 17.60 m (57 ft 9 in) [49]
  • Height: 5.06 m (16 ft 7 in)
  • Wing area: 53.3 m2 (574 sq ft)
  • Gross weight: 8,300 kg (18,300 lb)
  • Fuel capacity: 2,063 litres (2,569 l with belly tank)
  • Powerplant: 2 × General Electric CT7-2E1 turboshaft engine , 1,492 kW (2,000 hp) each
  • Main rotor diameter: 14.60 m (47 ft 11 in)
Performance
  • Maximum speed: 313 km/h (194 mph, 169 kn)
  • Cruise speed: 267–278 km/h (166–173 mph, 144–150 kn)
  • Range: 370–907 km (230–490 mi, 200–430 nmi) [50][22]
  • Service ceiling: 3,000 m (10,000 ft)
Performance for the Bell 525 Relentless:
General characteristics
  • Crew: one or two
  • Capacity: 16 or 20 passengers
    8,200 pounds (3,700 kg) useful load
  • Gross weight: 20,500 lb (9,299 kg)
  • Max takeoff weight: 20,500 lb (9,300 kg)
  • Fuel capacity: 2,461 liters (541 imp gal; 650 U.S. gal)
  • Powerplant: 2 × General Electric CT7-2F1 turboshaft, 1,800 shp (1,300 kW) each
  • Main rotor diameter: 54 ft 6 in (16.61 m)
Performance
  • Maximum speed: 190 mph (306 km/h, 165 kn)
  • Cruise speed: 178 mph (287 km/h, 155 kn)
  • Range: 644 mi (1,037 km, 560 nmi) Max GW, Sea Level, ISA, standard fuel, no reserve, VLRC
  • Service ceiling: 20,000 ft (6,100 m) with 12,000 ft (3,700 m) hover in ground effect, 6,000 ft (1,800 m) HOGE
Avionics

Performance for the NH Industries NH 90:
General characteristics
  • Crew: 2 flight crew + loadmaster / sensor operator
  • Capacity: 20 seated troops; or 12 medevac stretchers; or 2 NATO pallets; or 4,200 kg (9,259 lb) external slung load
  • Length: 16.13 m (52 ft 11 in)
  • Empty weight: 6,400 kg (14,110 lb)
  • Max takeoff weight: 10,600 kg (23,369 lb)
  • Powerplant: 2 × General Electric T700-T6E turboshaft engines, 1,662 kW (2,229 hp) each (option)
  • Powerplant: 2 × Rolls-Royce Turbomeca RTM322-1/9 turboshaft engines, 1,802 kW (2,417 hp) each (option)
  • Main rotor diameter: 16.3 m (53 ft 6 in)
  • Main rotor area: 208.699 m2 (2,246.42 sq ft) root: ONERA OA312 ; tip: ONERA OA409/OA407[183]
Performance
  • Maximum speed: 300 km/h (190 mph, 160 kn)
  • Range: 800 km (500 mi, 430 nmi) TTH
1,000 km (620 mi; 540 nmi) NFH
  • Endurance: 5 hours
  • Service ceiling: 6,000 m (20,000 ft)
  • Rate of climb: 8 m/s (1,600 ft/min)
Armament
  • Guns: 2x door gun
Performance for the Sikorsky S-92:

General characteristics
  • Crew: 2 (pilot, co-pilot)
  • Capacity: 19 passengers
  • Length: 68 ft 6 in (20.88 m) [87]
  • Width: 17 ft 3 in (5.26 m) fuselage
  • Cabin dimensions: 20 ft (6 m) long by 6.6 ft (2 m) tall[87]
  • Height: 15 ft 5 in (4.70 m)
  • Empty weight: 15,500 lb (7,031 kg)
  • Gross weight: 26,500 lb (12,020 kg)
  • Max takeoff weight: 27,700 lb (12,565 kg)
  • Powerplant: 2 × General Electric CT7-8A turboshaft engines, 2,520 shp (1,880 kW) each
  • Main rotor diameter: 56 ft 4 in (17.17 m)
  • Main rotor area: 2,492.3 sq ft (231.54 m2)
  • Blade section: - root: Sikorsky SC2110 ; tip: Sikorsky SSC-A09[88]
Performance
  • Maximum speed: 165 kn (190 mph, 306 km/h)
  • Cruise speed: 151 kn (174 mph, 280 km/h)
  • Range: 539 nmi (620 mi, 998 km)
  • Service ceiling: 14,000 ft (4,300 m)
  • Disk loading: 9.8 lb/sq ft (48 kg/m2)
  • Power/mass: 0.23 hp/lb (0.38 kW/kg)

All performance data has been brought from Wikipedia. If any of you have more reliable sources for performance data, I would be more than happy to change them. This post was made to provide some numbers and comparisons.

I do apologise for the long post, and I thank anyone who has read this far. I hope to make a follow up post soon.
 

Attachments

  • Aerospatiale AS332 Super Puma.jpg
    Aerospatiale AS332 Super Puma.jpg
    146.6 KB · Views: 9
  • Eurocopter AS532.jpg
    Eurocopter AS532.jpg
    181 KB · Views: 9
  • Eurocopter EC725.jpg
    Eurocopter EC725.jpg
    106.5 KB · Views: 13
  • Airbus Helicopters H175.jpg
    Airbus Helicopters H175.jpg
    134.9 KB · Views: 15
  • Agusta Westland AW149.jpg
    Agusta Westland AW149.jpg
    148.3 KB · Views: 14
  • Agusta Westland AW189.jpg
    Agusta Westland AW189.jpg
    2.4 MB · Views: 9
  • Bell 525 Relentless.jpg
    Bell 525 Relentless.jpg
    329.8 KB · Views: 11
  • Bell 525 Military.jpg
    Bell 525 Military.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 13
  • NH Industries NH 90.jpg
    NH Industries NH 90.jpg
    105.7 KB · Views: 12
  • Sikorsky S-92.jpg
    Sikorsky S-92.jpg
    90.9 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:

H_K

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
224
Reaction score
439
Thanks. It’s striking how the H175 is almost a direct replacement for the Puma in terms of weights and dimensions.

So that’s basically the starting point. From there you can go a little heavier (AW149, Bell 525, Super Puma aka H215M) or jump one category (S-70, EC725 aka H225M, or NH90) or go with something that’s almost Merlin sized (S-92).
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
251
From the details of EC725 what Chief of Stick mean?
 

Wyvern

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
782
Reaction score
951
To sum up my post made last Friday, what would be the best replacement for the Puma? Well, it all depends on what the RAF wants.

If a direct, 1-1 replacement is needed, the H175 is the way to go.

If the RAF wants a cheap, reliable and proven platform, the Super Puma (H215M) is what's needed.

If the RAF wants a more modern solution, with a production line already running in the UK, the AW149/189 is the way forward.

If the RAF wants a larger helicopter, and the Government wishes to strengthen US-UK ties, the Bell 525 is the best (besides, Relentless would make for a great service name)

I highly doubt the RAF will order anything like the S-92, due to its size, or the NH-90, due to delays in production. Although the Caracal is a great aircraft, until its gearbox problem is solved, I doubt it will gain an order from the RAF.

What are your thoughts and opinions on this assessment?
 
Last edited:

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,797
Reaction score
2,181
H175, AW189 and Bell 525 are all directly comparable types in the same weight class and cost. There are some size differences, but not really dramatic ones. The critical number for troop lift is cabin floor space, and they're all within a few percent there. Smart money has to be on the AW offering, with the existing Yeovil assembly line and commercial relationships.

I don't think that a small sale of Bell 525 helicopters would register on the US-UK relationship, honestly. If you really want to strengthen those ties, buy UH-60 Black Hawks, which are also in the same size class and would create real interoperability with US forces. But that option has been rejected before.
 
Last edited:

RavenOne

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
442
Reaction score
701
To sum up my post made last Friday, what would be the best replacement for the Puma? Well, it all depends on what the RAF wants.

If a direct, 1-1 replacement is needed, the H175 is the way to go.

If the RAF wants a cheap, reliable and proven platform, the Super Puma (H125M) is what's needed.

If the RAF wants a more modern solution, with a production line already running in the UK, the AW149/189 is the way forward.

If the RAF wants a larger helicopter, and the Government wishes to strengthen US-UK ties, the Bell 525 is the best (besides, Relentless would make for a great service name)

I highly doubt the RAF will order anything like the S-92, due to its size, or the NH-90, due to delays in production. Although the Caracal is a great aircraft, until its gearbox problem is solved, I doubt it will gain an order from the RAF.

What are your thoughts and opinions on this assessment?

Well Bell 525 needs to go fully into production, once fully certified Then talk about militarize it. Yes 4 years ago Bell showcased a mil version (I’ve posted it up on the 525 thread).

85E8DA59-86AC-490F-A2F1-71F8EACD1499.jpeg B78F2E09-7B11-4965-A082-9BDF76E4A548.jpeg 17DAFD63-487F-41BF-A0AC-A237BC53B448.jpeg

But the mil version has gone quiet however they are pushing it towards the parapublic role with the German Budnespolizei as H155B replacement. Example was 1st December the mock Up was in Berlin for politicians and cops to see.

A68FD7EB-4F03-4F95-A994-1A67C68C62FF.jpeg 9CC3C775-FC2B-4C99-B016-CC45A562E33B.jpeg 40FA8D1E-4884-4CFA-9171-2271135AAABF.jpeg

However much I’d like to see the 525 in RAF colors and roundels I am afraid it s a No-Go especially with the time frame.

H175M well then Airbus Helicopters better start work ASAP ...I am confident they can rustle something up. Anyhow closest to it is the HKGfS uses it, kitted out in parapublic role With searchlight, E/O systems and rappelling / winch gear.

Magic question is how much extra weight gonna allow for all the e/o sensors, defense aid suite, armor, etc etc....



AW149 looks promising as Leonardo pushing for it so possibe as Seven years Ago was certified by ItAlian MoD on first day of Farnborough 2014.

Possible H215M..natural progression From 330 and also room for rear aircrew to move around.

Speaking and listening to rear crew, what we call Weapons Systems Operator (Used to be known as Air Loadmasters and winchmen) they concerned that any platforms will be not as much headroom as whats around now, regardless of how high tech the cockpit are.

cheers
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,290
Reaction score
2,105
I am getting slow in my old age. Given the fondness of the present government for overpriced deals, Bristow Helicopters, as I think has been mentioned, operates Agusta W189 on SAR. Quite likely that they will get some role on peacetime Puma replacement activity. Expect usual poor outcome.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,041
Reaction score
534
Pumas go where Chinooks can't and the HC2s are very capable.

Here's how the W30, AW189 and Super Puma compare.

Chris
I would think in this day and age the RAF/Army would seriously want a helicopter that could easily and quickly be deployable by its small but heavily worked C-17's fleet. Saying this the only real air transportable helicopter, as designed, is the Sikorsky UH-60....
I also think the other reality which is often overlooked is the actual sling-load aspect of a battlefield assault helicopter, as opposed to its troop carrying capacity. What's the external sling load capacity of the AW189?


Regards
Pioneer
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,797
Reaction score
2,181
What's the external sling load capacity of the AW189?

For the AW149 (the mil version)? 6,000 pounds. So, 2/3 of the Black Hawk. Not great, but not terrible.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,290
Reaction score
2,105
I have to say if I were sitting in HM Treasury or the Air Staff I would be asking serious questions about what these helicopters are going to do that cant be done by a combination of Chinooks and Wildcats?
If the Army come up with a good enough case the AW189 would have to replace its Wildcats as a UK built helo for jobs etc. But I would n't hold my breath as I suspect the RAF dont want them.
 

RavenOne

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
442
Reaction score
701
I have to say if I were sitting in HM Treasury or the Air Staff I would be asking serious questions about what these helicopters are going to do that cant be done by a combination of Chinooks and Wildcats?
If the Army come up with a good enough case the AW189 would have to replace its Wildcats as a UK built helo for jobs etc. But I would n't hold my breath as I suspect the RAF dont want them.
But that’s the point, Wildcat is not the focus of the replacement.

Come 2025 it be in service just a decade and a bit ...

Not even too sure why it’s penned in to be retired, needing replacement already...

It does bit of mini ISTAR apart from carrying small infantry Section, for the navy ..its small anti surface, sub and Commando Helicopter force asset. Unless you want to turn the Merlin to carry anti shipping missiles like the Italian Marina one I saw at Paris Air Show 2003 ...this was also the short lived Helicopter Early Warning variant

59957638-93B3-47F3-893F-85A10811CA8E.jpeg

As you can see think that’s an advanced version of Marte ASM on show with the helo.

cheers
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,290
Reaction score
2,105
There is no UK joint helicopter force, the RN Wildcats are a different matter. Its the Army ones that would have to take the hit. I cant see the Army giving them up to let the RAF have shiny new AW189s.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,041
Reaction score
534
What's the external sling load capacity of the AW189?

For the AW149 (the mil version)? 6,000 pounds. So, 2/3 of the Black Hawk. Not great, but not terrible.
Thanks TomS.

I guess my notion is, whilst it's been ok for the last couple of decades for the British military to fly their contracted Volga-Dnepr Airlines An-124's into unopposed airfield and spend two-three day reassembling their Chinook's to take up operations against non-peer opposition, I think things are going to change over the next ten years. So as much as you rightly state that the AW149 6,000 pounds external lift might be "not great, but not terrible", when you potentially don't have the luxury of the lifting power/performance of a Chinook at hand, a UH-60M's 9,000 pounds (4,100 kg) lift capacity moving the likes of 105mm howitzer with ammo or 155mm howitzers....would be worth it's weight in gold.
Also I think the significance of the UH-60's as designed tolerance to small arms fire, flight controls ballistically hardened and being equipped with redundant electric and hydraulic systems, from the outset are often overlooked from a design like the AW149, which had been adopted from a civilian design.

I can't help reflect on the valuable lessons of the Falklands War, in which the majority of Chinook's were lost with the sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor and as a consequence the one and only remaining and amazing Chinook was literally worked to the bone, (along with the Westland Wessex's and Sea King HC.4's).
In my opinion the overall capability of the UH-60M wouldn't just be versatile, but money well spent for the flexibility and capability extracted over it's operational lifetime.


P.S. out of curiosity, does anyone know how long it takes for a UH-60 to be unloaded from a transport aircraft and in flight readiness?

Regards
Pioneer
 

RavenOne

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
442
Reaction score
701
There is no UK joint helicopter force, the RN Wildcats are a different matter. Its the Army ones that would have to take the hit. I cant see the Army giving them up to let the RAF have shiny new AW189s.
??



I know what you saying from Navy Wildcats but also 847 Naval Air Squadron has battlefield Wildcat for supporting Royal Marines.


847 NAS is part of Commando Helicopter Force (CHF) which include 845 and 846 NAS equipped with Merlin Mk3 and newer Mk 4 Assets come under JHC

 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,797
Reaction score
2,181
P.S. out of curiosity, does anyone know how long it takes for a UH-60 to be unloaded from a transport aircraft and in flight readiness?

The book answer is 2.5 hours from unloading to test flight. The reality seems to be longer. Under normal conditions, a day seems likely.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,041
Reaction score
534
P.S. out of curiosity, does anyone know how long it takes for a UH-60 to be unloaded from a transport aircraft and in flight readiness?

The book answer is 2.5 hours from unloading to test flight. The reality seems to be longer. Under normal conditions, a day seems likely.
Thanks TomS

Regards
Rob
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,352
Reaction score
2,414
The RAF could have had RTM.322-engined UH-60s three decades ago but the Westland Affair blew that up and anyway Westland wanted to flog Lynx-30s instead. The RN didn't want the RAF meddling in Merlin and delaying it but that's what was chosen.
I've never really understood why the RAF got rid of its Merlins but it certainly did the FAA a favour in replacing the Sea King HC.5 but it came after the death of SABR in 2009 that should have seen 1 or 2 new types replace the HC.5 and Puma.

We all know that AST.404 was a fiasco but in truth, much like today, there are lots of options but few of them are 100% optimal and so its difficult to choose well or compromise. I still bet on one of the AW series simply to keep Yeovil open and because Leonardo is part of the UK industry. There certainly seems to be a governmental shift to support what little remains of the industry.

What's the external sling load capacity of the AW189?

For the AW149 (the mil version)? 6,000 pounds. So, 2/3 of the Black Hawk. Not great, but not terrible.
Sling load capacity has always been the bugbear of the MoD's helicopter specs.
 

Wyvern

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
782
Reaction score
951
Has there been any mention of the future of the Puma fleet in the recently released SDSR? Any changes to previous plans? Have any options been outlined, or will they be retired without a replacement? Anything goes in these times.
 

EwenS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
227
Reaction score
371
The MoD side of the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy will be set out next week. Maybe something in that.
 

bob225

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
132
Reaction score
116
7.39. The Army is retiring its oldest CH-47 Chinook helicopters and investing, alongside the US, in newer variants of this operationally proven aircraft, enhancing capability, efficiency and interoperability. Our AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopters will be upgraded to a state-of-the-art capability by 2025. Investment in a new medium lift helicopter in the mid-2020s will enable a consolidation of the Army’s disparate fleet of medium lift helicopters from four platform types to one; including the replacement of Puma.


So the government has no idea who owns Helicopters, or the army is about to take over rotary.

4 Medium platforms? Lynx, Wildcat, Puma and Dauphines?
 

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
552
Reaction score
321
7.39. The Army is retiring its oldest CH-47 Chinook helicopters and investing, alongside the US, in newer variants of this operationally proven aircraft, enhancing capability, efficiency and interoperability. Our AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopters will be upgraded to a state-of-the-art capability by 2025. Investment in a new medium lift helicopter in the mid-2020s will enable a consolidation of the Army’s disparate fleet of medium lift helicopters from four platform types to one; including the replacement of Puma.


So the government has no idea who owns Helicopters, or the army is about to take over rotary.

4 Medium platforms? Lynx, Wildcat, Puma and Dauphines?
But then the Puma replacement shows on the RAF section - tis a bit confusing......
 

Ron5

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
85
Reaction score
74
7.39. The Army is retiring its oldest CH-47 Chinook helicopters and investing, alongside the US, in newer variants of this operationally proven aircraft, enhancing capability, efficiency and interoperability. Our AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopters will be upgraded to a state-of-the-art capability by 2025. Investment in a new medium lift helicopter in the mid-2020s will enable a consolidation of the Army’s disparate fleet of medium lift helicopters from four platform types to one; including the replacement of Puma.


So the government has no idea who owns Helicopters, or the army is about to take over rotary.

4 Medium platforms? Lynx, Wildcat, Puma and Dauphines?
The British army pays for the helicopters even though the RAF fly them. So yes, the army owns the helos.

Now don't you feel a dumbass? Lol
 

RavenOne

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
442
Reaction score
701
7.39. The Army is retiring its oldest CH-47 Chinook helicopters and investing, alongside the US, in newer variants of this operationally proven aircraft, enhancing capability, efficiency and interoperability. Our AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopters will be upgraded to a state-of-the-art capability by 2025. Investment in a new medium lift helicopter in the mid-2020s will enable a consolidation of the Army’s disparate fleet of medium lift helicopters from four platform types to one; including the replacement of Puma.


So the government has no idea who owns Helicopters, or the army is about to take over rotary.

4 Medium platforms? Lynx, Wildcat, Puma and Dauphines?

The AS365N3 are assigned to 654 or whatever it’s called Sqn AAC for SAS support part of Joint Special Forces Air Wing ...in the tabloids thru are nicknamed ‘ Blue Thunder’. They are not battlefield helos per say...

Royal Navy wise There are also trio of AS365N3 used as COMR (Commercial Owned Military Registered) for Flag Officer Sea Training (around 2 decades ago owned operated by British International) .

cheers
 

bob225

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
132
Reaction score
116
7.39. The Army is retiring its oldest CH-47 Chinook helicopters and investing, alongside the US, in newer variants of this operationally proven aircraft, enhancing capability, efficiency and interoperability. Our AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopters will be upgraded to a state-of-the-art capability by 2025. Investment in a new medium lift helicopter in the mid-2020s will enable a consolidation of the Army’s disparate fleet of medium lift helicopters from four platform types to one; including the replacement of Puma.


So the government has no idea who owns Helicopters, or the army is about to take over rotary.

4 Medium platforms? Lynx, Wildcat, Puma and Dauphines?
The British army pays for the helicopters even though the RAF fly them. So yes, the army owns the helos.

Now don't you feel a dumbass? Lol
Ouch!

Nope don't feel like a dumbass thanks.

So where are you basing that the army pay for the RAF aircraft? interested to see that reference to be fair.

The RAF helicopter fleet certainly is there to support the army, who will pay towards the hours etc, but i'm not sure that they fund the whole thing, but i could be wrong, anyone else know more about the funding?

 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,352
Reaction score
2,414
The Army never funded Puma or Chinook, they were purely RAF purchases.
Gazelle and Lynx were purchased jointly (Gazelle between all three Services, Lynx between two when the RAF canned its trainer/SAR versions).

The RAF very much saw all tactical transport as within their remit. They certainly never allowed the Army Air Corps their own medium-lift facilities (Whirlwind/Wessex/Puma) and would never have accepted even Lynx 30 (Lynx 3 or Super Lynx or whatever other names Westland threw around for that type). The 1957 4,000lb weight limit was a direct attempt to stifle their ambitions but some exceptions made it through (Beaver). Even the concept of putting anti-tank missiles on helicopters made the Air Marshals huff and puff.

I have no doubt that right now some Air Marshal is huffing and puffing at the mere suggestion the AAC might operate the new MLH and doubtless some General is chomping his gnashers at the very thought of giving up the last few Gazelles and having to be ferried around by the RAF.

I may be wrong, but I thought the AAC's Bell 212s were privately contracted anyway?
 

Similar threads

Top