UK signs £300m deal for Puma helicopter life extension
Discussion
Flight International reports today that the MoD has finally got round to signing its planned £300m ($479m) deal which will see "at least 28" of the RAF's 33 operational Pumas fitted with new, more powerful engines and upgraded cockpit avionics. The aged whirlybirds, which came into service in 1971, were to have been finally retired next year. The new upgrade package is expected to postpone their demise by ten years, and to give the rickety old birds enough power to operate in the tough "hot and high" conditions found in Afghanistan, where helicopters struggle to lift useful loads.
This is an unbelievably bad bargain for the UK's troops and taxpayers. Each refurbished Puma will cost $17m or thereabouts, and will last approximately ten years. Pumas can carry up to 16 troops or "two tonnes" of stuff according to the RAF.
Consider by contrast the Blackhawk from US maker Sikorsky. You can buy these with spares, support and training for $15m at the moment. They can carry 14 troops, about the same as a Puma, and have much superior lifting performance - 2.6 tonnes of stuff as opposed to 2 for the Puma. Various models of Blackhawk, unsurprisingly, can and do already operate in Afghanistan - providing vital medevac services to British troops, among other things.
The Blackhawk isn't just cheaper to buy and significantly more powerful. It's also part of a huge worldwide fleet, meaning it would offer lower running costs too. And it isn't a flying antique that might last another ten years if you're lucky - Blackhawks bought now would keep flying at least another 30 years, probably much longer if the history of the Puma is anything to go by.
And the Pumas won't be flying in Afghanistan for at least another two years - whereas new Blackhawks could have been there for at least a year by now. Sikorsky have offered repeatedly to supply choppers to deal with the British armed forces' embarrassing lack of them. If we'd bought in 2007 when the pound was strong, Sikorsky were offering 60 brand-new birds plus training for £480m. As it is we'll get 30 antiques for £300m, paying at least four times as much for every flying hour we obtain. And waiting half a decade to get them, too.
Yet again, pumping cash into lame-duck British industry which can't survive without constant taxpayer support has been deemed more important than saving the lives of British troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan - and more important than any chance of a decent military outcome for the UK there. The fix has been in on the Puma upgrade deal for some time, but until today it was possible to hope it wouldn't happen.
Eurocopter UK, Thales UK, Qinetiq and all the rest - all the British (and some non-British) firms where the champagne corks will be popping tonight following the signing of this deal - you should be ashamed.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/puma_refur...
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/09/29/33...
Seems like a real bad deal to me..
This is an unbelievably bad bargain for the UK's troops and taxpayers. Each refurbished Puma will cost $17m or thereabouts, and will last approximately ten years. Pumas can carry up to 16 troops or "two tonnes" of stuff according to the RAF.
Consider by contrast the Blackhawk from US maker Sikorsky. You can buy these with spares, support and training for $15m at the moment. They can carry 14 troops, about the same as a Puma, and have much superior lifting performance - 2.6 tonnes of stuff as opposed to 2 for the Puma. Various models of Blackhawk, unsurprisingly, can and do already operate in Afghanistan - providing vital medevac services to British troops, among other things.
The Blackhawk isn't just cheaper to buy and significantly more powerful. It's also part of a huge worldwide fleet, meaning it would offer lower running costs too. And it isn't a flying antique that might last another ten years if you're lucky - Blackhawks bought now would keep flying at least another 30 years, probably much longer if the history of the Puma is anything to go by.
And the Pumas won't be flying in Afghanistan for at least another two years - whereas new Blackhawks could have been there for at least a year by now. Sikorsky have offered repeatedly to supply choppers to deal with the British armed forces' embarrassing lack of them. If we'd bought in 2007 when the pound was strong, Sikorsky were offering 60 brand-new birds plus training for £480m. As it is we'll get 30 antiques for £300m, paying at least four times as much for every flying hour we obtain. And waiting half a decade to get them, too.
Yet again, pumping cash into lame-duck British industry which can't survive without constant taxpayer support has been deemed more important than saving the lives of British troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan - and more important than any chance of a decent military outcome for the UK there. The fix has been in on the Puma upgrade deal for some time, but until today it was possible to hope it wouldn't happen.
Eurocopter UK, Thales UK, Qinetiq and all the rest - all the British (and some non-British) firms where the champagne corks will be popping tonight following the signing of this deal - you should be ashamed.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/puma_refur...
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/09/29/33...
Seems like a real bad deal to me..
shouldbworking said:
The register certainly has an axe to grind with all things defence procurement related doesnt it? that aside it doesnt sound too good to me.
Agreed.I read the register everyday but often it's information about military purchasing is just wrong and the writer clearly has it in for those working on these projects.
This, however on the face of it does look bad.
Lewis Page writes for the register on this, and he is the one with an axe to grind. He wrote a book about defence procurement called Lions, Donkeys, and Dinosaurs, in which he sets out how he thinks the armed forces should be organised.
He's a bit like Vince Cable. He appears to speak sense when you read it, but a lot of what he says doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny. There was a pretty uncomplimentary thread on PPRUNE about his book.
He's a bit like Vince Cable. He appears to speak sense when you read it, but a lot of what he says doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny. There was a pretty uncomplimentary thread on PPRUNE about his book.
That licence was back in the 1980s I think. It would probably need renegotiating.
Nearly every weapons system ever obtained for UK forces could have been obtained "off the shelf" from the US - probably at lower cost to the UK taxpayer - but probably at the cost of the extermination of the UK defence industry.
You take your choice as to which is the best option for the UK. Over reliance on foreign procurement would eventually lead to no indigenous defence manufacturing capability and total reliance on supply of kit from abroad - with all the problems that entails.
Nearly every weapons system ever obtained for UK forces could have been obtained "off the shelf" from the US - probably at lower cost to the UK taxpayer - but probably at the cost of the extermination of the UK defence industry.
You take your choice as to which is the best option for the UK. Over reliance on foreign procurement would eventually lead to no indigenous defence manufacturing capability and total reliance on supply of kit from abroad - with all the problems that entails.
Eurocopter are doing the conversion which will take 2 years plus the inevitable delays to get 14 of the 28 puma's into service with all the ramifications that brings, so we arent really helping indigenous defence manufacturing by souping up a 40 year old french design or getting a cost benefit.
Nuts really.
Nuts really.
Yep, the Roumanians have been developing the Puma since the 1990s at least. I remember seeing one in Roumanian military colours at a Farnborough air show.
The Puma is largely a French design. There is one on display at the FAST museum here in Farnborough and it is actually a Sud Aviation built SA330 rather than a Puma proper.
The Puma is largely a French design. There is one on display at the FAST museum here in Farnborough and it is actually a Sud Aviation built SA330 rather than a Puma proper.
Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 29th September 18:46
Such backward thinking. So what if we buy from the US, relations are not going to turn sour in the medium-long term so its not like we will be fighting them with equipment they supplied to us.
Blackhawks are far more plentiful therefore parts will be cheaper when you consider the economy of scale.
I wish there was less emphasis on preserving some industries, they will fail eventually and something else will pop up in it's place. We are only slowing our own progress.
Blackhawks are far more plentiful therefore parts will be cheaper when you consider the economy of scale.
I wish there was less emphasis on preserving some industries, they will fail eventually and something else will pop up in it's place. We are only slowing our own progress.
............Can't help .... have to comment
Right, a few things first
I have over 2500 hrs on Pumas so feel a little more in touch than most
The comparison with Blackhawk is pointless, it was looked at years ago and whilst Blackhawk is cheaper it lacks the self defence kit of a Puma and far more importantly you can't fit 14 troops in a Blackhawk with kit, more like 8 guys with standard kit. Oh and quite where are we going to find all the aircrew/groundcrew/support staff for Blackhawk??? As anyone knows buying US kit appears cheap until they sting you for support, upgrades, spares, ask anyone who operates F16.
The ideal solution would have been a much earlier buy of something like NH90
It is expensive but will get more helis to Afghan to support the troops sooner than some mystical Blackhawk deal
Right, a few things first
I have over 2500 hrs on Pumas so feel a little more in touch than most
The comparison with Blackhawk is pointless, it was looked at years ago and whilst Blackhawk is cheaper it lacks the self defence kit of a Puma and far more importantly you can't fit 14 troops in a Blackhawk with kit, more like 8 guys with standard kit. Oh and quite where are we going to find all the aircrew/groundcrew/support staff for Blackhawk??? As anyone knows buying US kit appears cheap until they sting you for support, upgrades, spares, ask anyone who operates F16.
The ideal solution would have been a much earlier buy of something like NH90
It is expensive but will get more helis to Afghan to support the troops sooner than some mystical Blackhawk deal
I agree. We would have had the Westland version of the Blackhawk at the time if we had needed it. I think the Puma is good at what it does and suits it's role well.....madness - I seem to recall they've lost a few puma's over the past couple of years. I know they bought in two AS330's (obvious as they have larger stub tanks), are they looking for more?
Madness60 said:
............Can't help .... have to comment
Right, a few things first
I have over 2500 hrs on Pumas so feel a little more in touch than most
Typical Puma Pilot, half a pint of Canadian beer and he's doubled his hours and found an extra two tonne of payload Right, a few things first
I have over 2500 hrs on Pumas so feel a little more in touch than most
Madness60, why don't you fly a proper helicopter instead ?!!
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff