I was quite upset for the Puma replacement plans years ago, which first started with a re-engined Puma instead of purchasing new UM-60M with similar budget and possibly quicker delivery. The re-engine programme was eventually delayed and cut back with a few airframes less (sounds familiar?)

And now the same fiasco again......what can 23 airframes do?
 


Sexy, sexiness from Leonardo. Seriously, some interesting information.

Having flown a 139 I will say that it is a fine flying helicopter. In fairness Airbus has some great platforms as well. Having done Blackhawks for some time, in a former life, I am partial to it as an assault platform, The UK has three great options to choose from.
Quotes from above articles.
From the start of its development, the AW149 was designed to meet the most exacting military crashworthiness standards set by the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) and our international military customers.…
This simulation was subsequently compared with actual observed behaviour of a crash test that witnessed a fuel cell dropped from 50 feet. In this case, it hit the ground at 56 feet per second on impact, which is 34% higher than the maximum speed required in DEFStan 00-970. The structural failure modes and deformations in the test correlated extremely well with the simulation results. Once again, the cabin remained intact. In addition, AW149 fuel tanks and fuel cut-off features are designed to prevent fire in the event of a crash, and are compliant to international MIL standard 1290A.
 
Quotes from above articles.
So PR puff pieces.

Still, what was its type certification base and who certificated it…

In contrast to the Blackhawk.

I get 149 looks lovely and shiney but having been a passenger many times on and off the battlefield in helos, I want it to be something that will look after me. Not just look after the money pit that is Yeovil.
 
Dear Hood,
Don't feel bad.
In terms of Canadian Defense purchases, nothing goes as promised by politicians.
Hah!
Hah!
And it is often delivered decades later than promised.
Hah!
Hah!
The poor bloody infantry end up priority last in the purchasing process.
Hah!
Hah!
I have been involved in three Canadian procurements and they were all disastrous. Government would launch a programme, withdraw and then re-issue the requirement. Spend lots of money and then cancel. Or pick S92 for ASW work (with no track record of that capability), when they already had a Merlin variant in the fleet. Or make a down-select, only to have a change of Government, followed by an immediate change in direction.
 
NATO spec, and a US MILSPEC.
What NATO spec? (DEFSTANs are a UK MoD thing).

And the MILSPEC is irrelevent.

Does anyone here actually understand what type certification means? It is rather more than just throwing letters of the alphabet in!


CS-29, large rotorcraft for 189 (and aiui 139). But what for 149…


We get it.

NOTHING BUT A BLACKHAWK IS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU.
Actually, I said just get more Wildcat, Merlin and Chinook and so benefit from economies of scale on existing training and support pyramids and be able to scale deployments much easier. That probably isnt “visionary” enough….
 
Actually, I said just get more Wildcat, Merlin and Chinook and so benefit from economies of scale on existing training and support pyramids and be able to scale deployments much easier. That probably isnt “visionary” enough….

Well, if you've read The Air Staff and the Helicopter, which I'm sure you all have, you will know that the reason for having a medium helicopter ie Puma (and any putative replacement) is to get into places (with a useful payload) that Chinooks and Merlins can't.

Me? I'd hang on to the Pumas and go for what the US Army goes for.

Chris
 
Well, if you've read The Air Staff and the Helicopter, which I'm sure you all have, you will know that the reason for having a medium helicopter ie Puma (and any putative replacement) is to get into places (with a useful payload) that Chinooks and Merlins can't.
That’s a tad self publicising :) but I think the answer isnt another type pyramid, its dont buy Merlin in the first place (footprint of a chinny, maintenance pain and a horrible downwash) and/or buy something more useful than a Wildcat.

The old “i wouldnt start from here”.

If one has been so foolish as to do that, just live with it and make the best of a bad job by aiming for some economies of scale.

Then try and learn from it. That is probably me being very optimistic!
Me? I'd hang on to the Pumas and go for what the US Army goes for.
I think they are well and truly shagged out. Mk2 hasn’t been a great experience in many respects.

Ordinarily I’d be tempted by the US Army but they seem to be going all extravagent and exotic again at insane cost. I can’t help but feel they’ll end up with another Blackhawk. Which brings me back to recommending that :)
 
Well, if you've read The Air Staff and the Helicopter, which I'm sure you all have, you will know that the reason for having a medium helicopter ie Puma (and any putative replacement) is to get into places (with a useful payload) that Chinooks and Merlins can't.

Me? I'd hang on to the Pumas and go for what the US Army goes for.

Chris
I'm not sure there's enough life left in the Pumas to delay until the US is buying V280s... And V280s are about half the capacity the UK wants. Pumas carry ~24 (almost a full platoon), so do Ospreys. That's what the US makes in that passenger load class.


eh?

Ah, a UK term.

Compare the H-60 and the S-70. The S-70 is NOT the same thing, it's the civilian production Type Certificate. There are times where a manufacturer did take a military type and run civilian production directly off the military line. Things like the Huey (Bell 204/205) and Jetranger (206). But an H60 is not just an S70 with military radios. Rarely can a company buy the military production paperwork and get it directly civilian certified. The only time I'm aware of that happening is the Skycrane (I think Chinook existed as civilian helos). And that's something of a dodge because it's used for commercial load hauling and firefighting, not passenger ops.
 
I'm not sure there's enough life left in the Pumas to delay until the US is buying V280s... And V280s are about half the capacity the UK wants. Pumas carry ~24 (almost a full platoon), so do Ospreys. That's what the US makes in that passenger load class.
Not sure where you’ve got 24 from but that is at least 50% greater than its pax capacity, let alone fully kitted pax.

It’s pretty equivalent to Blackhawk/V22 classes.

Ah, a UK term.

Compare the H-60 and the S-70. The S-70 is NOT the same thing, it's the civilian production Type Certificate. There are times where a manufacturer did take a military type and run civilian production directly off the military line. Things like the Huey (Bell 204/205) and Jetranger (206). But an H60 is not just an S70 with military radios. Rarely can a company buy the military production paperwork and get it directly civilian certified. The only time I'm aware of that happening is the Skycrane (I think Chinook existed as civilian helos). And that's something of a dodge because it's used for commercial load hauling and firefighting, not passenger ops.
This program is for a UK helicopter.

Regardless of 149 or Blackhawk, any aquired military register (as these will be) platform will have to go through that type certification process - even if its a desktop mapping exercise.

The point is Blackhawk was designed against the US military specification for a battlefield helicopter.

AW139/189 were against civillian specifications, JAR now CS. (Which actually basically cribbed everything from US FAA FARs).

It is an interesting debate (if you work in this world, probably not if you dont) as there has been some harmonisation of these and use of “CS specs with military delta”.

But the 149 unarguably is a civillian design specified helicopter - even if is painted green and has been tweaked to meet some defence type standards in some areas.

I would suggest that makes it quite a different beast from the Blackhawk in terms of suitability for war. I would have hoped the enthusiast world would want the best kit for our troops and be keen not to fall for shiney stuff.
 
Not sure where you’ve got 24 from but that is at least 50% greater than its pax capacity, let alone fully kitted pax.

It’s pretty equivalent to Blackhawk/V22 classes.


This program is for a UK helicopter.

Regardless of 149 or Blackhawk, any aquired military register (as these will be) platform will have to go through that type certification process - even if its a desktop mapping exercise.

The point is Blackhawk was designed against the US military specification for a battlefield helicopter.

AW139/189 were against civillian specifications, JAR now CS. (Which actually basically cribbed everything from US FAA FARs).

It is an interesting debate (if you work in this world, probably not if you dont) as there has been some harmonisation of these and use of “CS specs with military delta”.

But the 149 unarguably is a civillian design specified helicopter - even if is painted green and has been tweaked to meet some defence type standards in some areas.

I would suggest that makes it quite a different beast from the Blackhawk in terms of suitability for war. I would have hoped the enthusiast world would want the best kit for our troops and be keen not to fall for shiney stuff.

Not too sure why you put V-22 and Blackhawk into same class per pax capacity, the Blackhawk normal load is 11/12 seated troops only, and when they want to fit more passengers S-92 was developed (19 pax). The V-22 in comparison can seat 24 troopers.

Seems you have a lot more experience than the enthusiasts, would you mind to share your view?
 
Not too sure why you put V-22 and Blackhawk into same class per pax capacity, the Blackhawk normal load is 11/12 seated troops only, and when they want to fit more passengers S-92 was developed (19 pax). The V-22 in comparison can seat 24 troopers.

Seems you have a lot more experience than the enthusiasts, would you mind to share your view?
Because broadly they are the same in terms of category. I cannot imagine how horrible it’d be to be one of 24 people in an Osprey. It was bad enough an experience being one of half that.

I also doubt Blackhawk really carries 12. Again half that was my experience albeit hot and high. S-92 is a civilianised airframe, flew in those in Afghan (contracted to save on Blackhawk hours aiui), 19 seems a stretch, maybe sea level on oilrigs or something.

But broadly these are medium helos vs say Wildcat/MH6 at the lighter end and Chinnok/CH53 at the heavy end. NH90 sits in this middle bit as does Merlin (albeit at the cost of a heavy…).

I dont think its controversial to group them tbh, although clearly not a direct match or anything.
 
19 seems a stretch, maybe sea level on oilrigs or something.
<19 (usually 18) porkers broad-shouldered pax in immersion suits plus <20kg baggage each in a S-92 to the Forties Field, typically 16 to the Beryl Field which is more than twice the distance. The much hated EC225s could possibly carry 18 pax to the Beryls, but I have expunged EC225s from my memory.

Chris
 
Because broadly they are the same in terms of category. I cannot imagine how horrible it’d be to be one of 24 people in an Osprey. It was bad enough an experience being one of half that.

I also doubt Blackhawk really carries 12. Again half that was my experience albeit hot and high. S-92 is a civilianised airframe, flew in those in Afghan (contracted to save on Blackhawk hours aiui), 19 seems a stretch, maybe sea level on oilrigs or something.

But broadly these are medium helos vs say Wildcat/MH6 at the lighter end and Chinnok/CH53 at the heavy end. NH90 sits in this middle bit as does Merlin (albeit at the cost of a heavy…).

I dont think its controversial to group them tbh, although clearly not a direct match or anything.
Blackhawk - yes for places within sea-level, with reasonable load, and I "heard" some people love to overload them......
S-92 - originally it was conceived as enlarged version of Blackhawk, with both military (shorter cab) and civilian versions (longer cab). As the programme progress it became a pure civvie chopper
NH-90 is...sad...
Merlin should be classed as super mid size as it's still not the same class as Chinook or Sea Dragon
 
S-92 - originally it was conceived as enlarged version of Blackhawk, with both military (shorter cab) and civilian versions (longer cab). As the programme progress it became a pure civvie chopper
The Canadian military might differ with you... sort of. ;)

The H-92 Superhawk is a military version of the S-92 in the utility transport role, capable of carrying 22 troops. The H-92 can also be configured for specific missions, including search and rescue and executive transportation. The CH-148 Cyclone is a shipboard maritime helicopter variant developed for the Royal Canadian Air Force to support naval operations of the Royal Canadian Navy.
 
Nope. Its basically a 139/189 painted green with some tweaks to requirements. But not even that much in terms of tweaking - current customers have accepted this but we’ll see a growingly expensive program of mods and delays/cost if this civvy helicopter is picked for the UK.

It is a world away from the battlefield level of requirements and associated design that the Blackhawk has.

Its quick and easy evolution from the 189 should be more than evidence for that. Vs the Blackhawk’s gestation and T&E process.

For a start, who certificated it and what is it certificated against…
You state your opinion with great confidence, but what you say is factually incorrect. I don't know how to wrap it up more politely.
1) The 189 was derived from the 149, not vice versa.
2) The 149 was designed from the start for military use, with a new cabin (designed at Yeovil). It's in military sevice in Egypt, Thailand and Poland. It's NOT a 'civvy helicopter'.
3) It has better crashworthiness than a BH, longer 'run dry' capability and greater ballistic tolerance.
4) It has a bigger cabin and better performance than a BH.
 
The Canadian military might differ with you... sort of. ;)

The H-92 Superhawk is a military version of the S-92 in the utility transport role, capable of carrying 22 troops. The H-92 can also be configured for specific missions, including search and rescue and executive transportation. The CH-148 Cyclone is a shipboard maritime helicopter variant developed for the Royal Canadian Air Force to support naval operations of the Royal Canadian Navy.
That's unkind of you - everybody is trying to forget the disaster that is the Cyclone!
 
I just hope they go for Blackhawk. Feels like you’re getting into something that belongs on the battlefield and will get you where you want to go. 149/175 are civvy helos painted green and with some gibberish about ruggedising which is little more than some tweaked requirements and about as far from a Blackhawk as you can get.

I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. The 149 is 'all military', with greater crashworthiness and ballistic tolerance than a BH, better IR suppression, and a phenomenal run dry capability. Lose all the engine oil in a BH and you're going down within walking distance of where you were hit. In the 149 you'll make it back to base. And the 149 feels like something that belongs on the battlefield - and I say that as someone who has flown many hours in Pumas, and has flown in Merlins, Wessexes, Chinooks, and Lynxes, Black Hawk and AW 149...
 
AW139/189 were against civillian specifications, JAR now CS. (Which actually basically cribbed everything from US FAA FARs).

But the 149 unarguably is a civillian design specified helicopter - even if is painted green and has been tweaked to meet some defence type standards in some areas.

I would suggest that makes it quite a different beast from the Blackhawk in terms of suitability for war. I would have hoped the enthusiast world would want the best kit for our troops and be keen not to fall for shiney stuff.

You start from a misconception. The 149 is not a civilian design 'painted green'.
 
I get 149 looks lovely and shiney but having been a passenger many times on and off the battlefield in helos, I want it to be something that will look after me. Not just look after the money pit that is Yeovil.
So you'd want a helicopter with better crashworthiness? With better run dry capability? Easier and quicker to get in and out of? You, my friend, want a 149!
 
Nope. Its basically a 139/189 painted green with some tweaks to requirements. But not even that much in terms of tweaking - current customers have accepted this but we’ll see a growingly expensive program of mods and delays/cost if this civvy helicopter is picked for the UK.

It is a world away from the battlefield level of requirements and associated design that the Blackhawk has.

Its quick and easy evolution from the 189 should be more than evidence for that. Vs the Blackhawk’s gestation and T&E process.

For a start, who certificated it and what is it certificated against…
Nope, you have it the wrong way round. The 149 is a from the wheels up a military bird and tbh in a different league from the very old though still viable BH family.
 
LM is starting to get cold feet apparently... given that there will likely be a Strategic Defence review in the UK, I suspect we are looking at more
It doesn't doesn't seem that surprising given the inclusion of domestic social value etc. would seem to mean that they'd have to bid at likely* 10-20% lower cost** than AW149; and if you don't make any profit from that then whats the point in bidding? Its hardly a "must win" competition for them. Including this sort of criteria is a difficult line between international competition and protectionism.

* As reported then 25% max assignment to this factor, but they'll score something from the local assembly plans.

** Or 10-20% more aircraft depending on how the assessment is done
 
It doesn't doesn't seem that surprising given the inclusion of domestic social value etc. would seem to mean that they'd have to bid at likely* 10-20% lower cost** than AW149; and if you don't make any profit from that then whats the point in bidding? Its hardly a "must win" competition for them. Including this sort of criteria is a difficult line between international competition and protectionism.
Any military contract can choose the locally-made product even if it's up to 50% more expensive and not be a WTO violation.

LockMart would have to greatly underbid to beat local production!
 
WTO compliance isn't the issue; it's whether you want international competition or not. Which usually translates into competition at all given the monopoly suppliers across the vast majority of the UK defence sector.

Better to just single source up front rather than have a pretend competition
 
WTO compliance isn't the issue; it's whether you want international competition or not. Which usually translates into competition at all given the monopoly suppliers across the vast majority of the UK defence sector.

Better to just single source up front rather than have a pretend competition
Even the WTO thinks that maintaining defense industries in your country is acceptable, and you can pay almost 50% more for your-country products without it being ... grrr, my brain is coming up with the word "discriminatory" but that's not right.

If you have a competition at all, you have that much leeway in price.
 
Even the WTO thinks that maintaining defense industries in your country is acceptable, and you can pay almost 50% more for your-country products without it being ... grrr, my brain is coming up with the word "discriminatory" but that's not right.

If you have a competition at all, you have that much leeway in price.
The WTO may allow it, but the UK government isn't scoring the bids that way.

There'll be some kind of scoring matrix in place, with different factors assigned different weights. Technical performance will be one factor. Confidence that the company can actually deliver will be another. UK content is will be a third, seemingly weighted at 25% of the total score. There may be more. And the bidders will have been made aware of the scoring process as part of the tender pack.

I'd guess that a bid must have a weighted score of X or greater to qualify, and that the recommendation to the Minister will be to award the contract to the qualifying bid with the lowest price.
 
I think Airbus offered segregated manufacturing & Sustainment (there should be a related link at in the early pages of this thread, somewhere). Engines are different too.
 
Lockheed Martin, having invested more.than a billion in FVL, has become disinclined to invest more. The point about shaky political climates makes their withdrawal unsurprising.
 
So to bring us up to date, with a month until the scheduled end of the NMH competition.

Airbus have pulled out because of the cost of setting up a production line in the UK where they don't currently have one.
Sikorsky/Lockheed Martin who have a UK production line said they couldn't meet the contractual minimum airframe numbers (unit cost too high)
Leonardo (who have an existing production line in Yeovil) say they have submitted a compliant bid on August 30th.
 
So to bring us up to date, with a month until the scheduled end of the NMH competition.

Airbus have pulled out because of the cost of setting up a production line in the UK where they don't currently have one.
Sikorsky/Lockheed Martin who have a UK production line said they couldn't meet the contractual minimum airframe numbers (unit cost too high)
Leonardo (who have an existing production line in Yeovil) say they have submitted a compliant bid on August 30th.
I still expect this to get kicked down the road till the V280 production version is flying.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom