RAF Puma - What's the point?

[wildcat45]

I'm struggling to see where the Puma fits in to today's British military.

It's old, not particularly up there with the best, it's not used routinely on RN/RFA vessels.

With Chinook and Merlin , why keep Puma?

I know the Sea King 4 was old and knackered but Puma is nearly as old and money's recently been spent on improving the fleet. Would the cash not have been better spent on keeping some SK4s in service? They seem a far more useful machine.

During the Cold War, I get why Puma was in service, geared up to support troops in the European theatre.

How does the UK employ Puma these days considering most operations are far from home.

Also, wouldn't it have been better to replace it in the 1990s with something like Blackhawk? Or order more Merlins? Surely running fewer types of helo would be cheaper?

Money must be a factor.

Or am I totally missing the point? Does the Puma offer something unique that no other helo does?

[wildcat45]

Crossflow Kid said:

Bit bigger than a Lynx, bit smaller than a Chinny, a lot less naval than a Sea King.

That's more or less what I'm thinking.

20 plus have been given "Trigger's broom" upgrades with new engines and avionics. It's no doubt made them more capable.

I get that they performed sterling service in Ulster and The Balkans.

Folding rotors and tail rather than just detachable would make them much more useful and the size you mention may even be an advantage on a warship. I know Chinook doesn't fold but that won't be a problem soon with the new carriers.

What's Puma's USP that's keeping them in service until the late '20s?

[wildcat45]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

A lot less Spam than a Black Hawk...

Bit more garlic too! Chinook is hardly brimming with Britishness.

[wildcat45]

Ah so they make a useful SF delivery aircraft.

The big doors would be an advantage as would the smaller size.

I just find it odd that although I have an interest in a lot of military stuff, I know very little about the Puma.

[wildcat45]

DMN said:

They should have bite the bullet years ago and swapped out Wessex, Sea King and Puma for Westland built Blackhawks.

One Helicopter with a global supply chain covering most roles the Army, Air Force and Navy need.

My logic agrees. Economies of scale, ease of replacement, training - the list goes on.

Though I recall the Westland Blackhawk had a few modifications. Who knows it could hav been a British export success like the Sea King was.

[wildcat45]

Do they still train for SAR bearing in mind it's now gone civvy? We don't do CSAR do we?

[wildcat45]

I'm quite interested in CSAR.

There's a NATO Euripen nation that does it. I forget who.

So what sort of structure is increase led in terms of hardware and organisation?

[wildcat45]

Thanks for your replies, especially for the insight into CSAR,

It's a subject that fascinates me. The blend of highly trained and specialized soldiering, medical capability, SAR, skilled and specialized airmanship, specifically fitted aircraft and the logistics behind it

My only experience as a civilian is a few trips with 202, 771, (Where I was used as the dope on the rope) and an Air Ambulance. That all seemed impressive and very skilled but CSAR is clearly a different world.

Cheers.