Work on New Medium Helicopter is progressing and early market engagement has commenced, according to the Ministry of Defence.

Jeremy Quin, Minister for Defence Procurement, said in a statement:

“Work on New Medium Helicopter is progressing and early market engagement has commenced. Initial provisioning and cost estimate work is part of this activity but will not be released prior to the expected competition and eventual contract award as this could undermine our commercial position.”

Last year, we reported that the New Medium Helicopter Programme will see four of the medium-sized helicopters currently in service across the armed forces replaced by one new helicopter.

It is understood that the helicopters will be operated jointly by the Army and RAF under Joint Helicopter Command.

According to a news release:

“The announcement was made in the Defence Command Paper. It will form part of the Army’s programme of transformation, Future Soldier, which will deliver an Army that is leaner, lighter, faster to respond, and more effectively matched to current and future threats.

The New Medium Helicopter Programme will see four of the medium-sized helicopters currently in service across Defence replaced by one new helicopter. This will include the Bell 212 that is used by the Army Air Corps in the jungle areas of Brunei.”

Work on the programme is at an early stage with effort primarily focused on developing and refining key user requirements.

Details in relation to the procurement strategy, basing locations, fleet size, delivery schedule and organisational structure are all being assessed, say the Army.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

146 COMMENTS

    • Puma (RAF)
      Bell 212 (Army)
      Bell 412 (RAF)
      Dauphin (SF)

      I think Gazelle will be replaced by something smaller.

        • Good Afternoon Daniele-two hours ahead of Greenwich Mean Time here. I tried to return your greeting on the thread re the Stealth bomber accident per the CMS notification but it appears the thread has split in two neither of which showed your post !?1 Also when I call up the article from the CMS notification it won’t let me reply on that page for some reason. Technology is too much with us-me in particular! Have enjoyed your detailed posts on various subjects recently-you have an excellent and broad knowledge squire, along with others on this site, sometimes difficult for a broad generalist like myself to follow 😃 Kind Regards
          Late 20’s and humid!

        • Hi D

          I’m guessing Gazelle will end up not being replaced (pretty small numbers -20 or so)? To be fair, much of their original tasking is done by watchkeeper.

        • Hi Johan. I did think the same as you, however Daniele reckons there is a plan to replace them , so potentially good news.

    • There is discussion that the medium lift helicopter will also replace the army wildcat too and there wildcat will be used by the navy

    • The only AC that it could possibly replace would be the Merlin. However Merlin is a much larger bit of kit and much more capable than anything they are lying to buy. Plus it is well engineered for deck landings.

  2. silly Question this probably

    but why don’t we just buy more Merlin and standardise our fleet, if we are not going down a tilt rotor path

    Chinook – heavy
    Merlin – medium
    wildcat – Light
    Apache – Attack

    the Merlin has had a shed load of investment and I believe new purchases come in around £20m, plus we have all the spares and knowledge

    this would also buy us some time until the next family of helicopters come out.

    not sure why we need to spend loads of time and money on this if the capability isn’t substantially different to that of a product already in service.

    • I totally agree, Merlin would be a good fit until the next generation of rotary assets come out of the American competition. The UK could then have a common asset with our closest military partner.

      • from what I can see – the new US FVL helicopter are looking good and from a lament point of view I think it will be a tough call, as they are very different proposals, but I also think we will need to align with whatever the US choose and that is going to be in the next 5 years I would assume, so why don’t we wait and align.

        either way – I think this is a stupid waste of time and money when we have far better things to do.

        • We’ve increased head shed count from 700 to circa 750… while decreasing the actual teeth arms; the head shed need something to do, smell the coffee!

      • I think FVL will be part of the equation for the Merlin / Chinook replacement conundrum which will be early 2030s.

    • I read that Merlin’s performed badly in afgan/Iraq, although I don’t know how many of the issues have now been resolved.

      • Apparently this was because the composites in the fuselage took longer to fix than the simple patches etc. that could have been done on a metal-skinned aircraft like Chinook.
        The issue with this for me is that anything newer than Chinook is going to have composites in them, including those FVL fancy units the Americans are developing. We need to get the capabilities and skills into the AAC and RAF to be able to fix them in the field, or accept that future warfare is going to come with a lot more downtime.

        • Could the composites be repaired with Teroson(Plastic Padding) products that are used on battlefield repairs for the army. In the industrial side of Loctite, there are products for the repair of plastics such as epoxies, polyurethanes. Though I would appreciate that the repair products would need to be certified for aircraft.

    • Its not a silly question at all. The obvious solution is to just buy more Merlins and get some economies of scale etc. However, following the most recent, savage cuts the Army now has a surfeit of career senior officer types who need something to do to justify their existence before they reach retirement age. you can expect them to conclude that we do not need so many medium helicopters and so the fleet will be cut, perhaps by as much as 50%

      • Doubt it.

        24 Puma, 2 squadrons.
        Handful of Bell 212, 1 Squadron.
        Handful of Bell 412, 1 Squadron.
        6 Dauphin. 1 Squadron.

        A reduction of 50 % would leave the acquisition meaningless with that force structure, considering 84 Sqn and 667 AAC have but a handful of cabs anyway.

        Around 30 to 40 will be ordered in my opinion. We need more, but there you go.

        • 12 Bell 212 were bought secondhand from Bristows (ex- oilfield support helos) when Wessex was retired from Hong Kong and Cyprus to provide support to the training facilities in Canada and Brunei, they are operated by the AAC. They have since also been deployed to Kenya and Belize in same role. The RAF bought Bell Canada Griffins (412s) to replace Wessex for training in UK and SAR at Akrotiri at the same time – there are only 3 left in service. The Dauphins operated by the SAS from Hereford are secondhand commercial airframes. They all need replacing, and the Army and SF have also not replaced their AH7/9 Lynx in the utility role (the original plan was to repurpose some RAF Puma).

    • Because Merlin is incredibly expensive to operate and complicated and too big for medium lift. I think your £20m is well shy of the current cost (the Mk 3s cost £19 million each when new in the early 2000s).The Army/RAF never wanted them anyway – too big and complex for most utility tasks, and not big enough for heavy-lift for which they have Chinook. Better that Merlin is the Navy’s platform for which they are suited (and designed). A smaller cheaper to operate utility helicopter is needed that can be bought in numbers to do medium lift, SAR and SF ops. I think AW149 is around £12 million – so effectively half the price and cheaper to run.

      • Yes, a lot of people just don’t realise how big Merlin actually is compared to your average medium rotor, it’s sort of not quite heavy lift but a lot bigger that any battlefield taxi types like the AW149 or black hawk.

        Merlin is brilliant at what it is which is a very high end large maritime rotor, where that extra engine and range pays off. but cheap meduim size battle field taxi it will never be.

    • For RAF/Army its currently :

      • Apache-Attack,
      • Wildcat-Battlefield Utility/Recce,
      • Puma, Bell 212, Bell412, Dauphin-Medium lift and SAR (for the 212 and 412),
      • Chinook: Heavy.

      Pretty obvius that all of the Mediium heliopters should be rationalised into one fleet but why would anyone seriously consider replacing a Puma, Dauphin or Huey with a Merlin? It’s twice the size of these…
      This is standardising the fleet. Remember that Merlin is used now only by the RN (and RM for the Junglies that are former RAF HC3’s with tail fold added) so you’d just be introducing another variant into the mix thats actually far bigger than required and not as suitable for the job they need to do. Merlin can carry 22+ troops, all of the new medium contenders can carry 10-14. All of the contenders can also carry guns/missiles/weapons pods/fuel tanks so you gain additional utility that Merlin only partially offers.

      Merlin costs more (both to aquire and to run) so do you really want to replace all of the RAF/Army medium lift with fewer helicopters?

    • I understand Merlin is a good, even peerless, sub hunter. It is not so good in the SH role.

      We need something smaller, cheaper, and more numerous.

      • Is the Merlin as we know it still built? I thought it was an Italianised copter with an Italian name and US engines now. Either way even if it was built here it would be a short term option that would likely compromise the longer term future of Yeovil than would a new Leonardo derived design with a modern production line. And of course very expensive too so just not worth any consideration.

        • The Merlin was a joint Westland and Agusta design and yes it’s made at Yeovil. The UK primarily needed an advanced long range sub hunter and specified RR Turbomeca RTM322, the Italians wanted the GE option. I think we are nearing the end of production to provide the Norwegien’s with 16 S&R versions although I read somewhere they were thinking of taking up the 4 options.

        • Currently, as we have NO, new merlins assembled @ Yeovil using Italian and Polish parts. no longer fully manufactured in the UK. assembled yes, bit like a mini.

    • That would definitely be going down the wrong route for the following reasons:

      1. To big! It has nearly the same footprint as a Chinook. This means it has to land in similar sized space. The beauty with the Puma was that it could land in smaller spaces such as mud brick compound enclosures that are found all over the developing World.
      2. The upper fuselage is made from composites. Although these are great for weight saving. For a battlefield taxi, that is expected to attract small arms damage. It is a nightmare to repair when compared to a metal alloy. There is a reason why the Merlins has such a poor readiness rate in Afghan and Iraq. It would literally take days to do skin repairs that had be holed by small arms fire. Compare this with a Chinook, where it could be turned around in a day with either a strip of Ali tape or a quick patch plate riveted over the hole.
      3. The ramp. The ramp is too short and too steep. When it gets wet or icy, the thing becomes a liability when trying to get troops quickly on board, especially if they are carrying Bergens etc.

      The Merlin is an excellent aircraft at what it was primarily designed to do. Be a long endurance helicopter, that searches for and attacks submarines. The Jungli version of the Merlin was foisted onto the FAA by the MoD after the Treasury cancelled the funding for the then £14billion Support, Amphibious and Battlefield Rotorcraft (SABR) project of acquiring 100 aircraft. It still needed a shed load of money spending on it, to make it salt water ops compatible and reduce its stored footprint with the folding tail.

      The Sea Kings had had their day, as shown by experiences in Afghan (too slow, struggled to operate at high altitudes and at very hot temperatures). The SABR was supposed to be the replacement for it and the Puma HC1, with the NH90 as the likely replacement. They also looked at Chinooks with folding blades as an option, CH53E and the H92 Superhawk, but these three were all judged to be too big. The Treasury cut the funding when defence spending cuts were made. JHC realising the Sea King needed urgently replacing, gave all the RAF Merlins to the FAA, whilst the MoD was promising to purchase a few more Chinooks (x12 Chinook Mk6s) for the RAF.

      What is required, is a battlefield taxi that is a direct replacement for the Puma, that sort of matches its footprint. But has better reliability, better range and perhaps able to operate from ships in sea states more than 2. Hence why the Blackhawk, AW149 and Airbus H175 have all been short listed. These aircraft are all in the same weight category as the Puma. Funny how the NH90 is missing from the list?

      The other Army Air Corps (AAC) aircraft that are also in the bag for replacement, the Bell 212, 412 and the SF Airbus Dauphin are all smaller than a Puma overall. It also seems that the MoD rule for which aircraft go to the RAF and the AAC, is being relaxed if one aircraft will be replacing all 4? But with now only 23 or is it 22 Puma 2s, replacing the other AAC aircraft makes more financial sense.

      I know the RAF would prefer the Blackhawk. It is a tried and trusted airframe and has been constantly upgraded, plus it will be getting a new more powerful engine. It has a specialised SF version, which would be a direct replacement and upgrade for the Dauphin. Therefore, the RAF/AAC would be more inline with the USAF 160th SOAR. It is designed to be quickly up and flying, after being air transported to a hot zone in 30 minutes from off loading to first flight test. Plus it is easy to maintain and repair. It will likely be the cheapest option of the three. Secondly, I would favour the Leonardo AW149, which I always thought was just a brushed over version of the civilian AW189. But it is actually designed as a military helicopter, perhaps not to the same extent as the Blackhawk. Therefore, it comes with the ruggedized undercarriage, self sealing fuel tanks etc. Plus Leonardo have said it will be built in the UK, which always wins brownie points! I would put the Airbus H175 firmly last. It is a brushed over civilian helicopter, that was designed to support the oil industry. All three aircraft are cleared to operate from ships up to at least Sea State 5, with the Blackhawk having the wider stance, probably the higher.

        • Yes, all but the Blackhawk.
          The Blackhawk is predominantly an all metal construction, it does use composites for access panels, rotor blades etc. Going through as much Leonardo blurb as possible, the only thing they mention about the airframe is that it is ruggedized. Leonardo use one of their subsidiary companies PZL-Świdnik, to build a lot of their helicopter airframes. Looking at their website photos of an AW189 in construction. This is a predominantly composite structure. The AW149 is based on the AW189, so it probably uses the same construction. Looking at the photos and vshow and tell vidos of the AW149, their doesn’t seem to be any rivet lines, which is a sure giveaway for a metal structured aircraft (look at a Blackhawk or Chinook by comparison). Based on this premise and looking at the Airbus H175 photos being constructed, it also does not have any rivet lines, so as an educated guess it also uses a composite structure.
          The US Army’s future medium vertical lift program with the Sikorsky-Boeing SB1 Defiant and the Bell V280 Valor. Both use extensive amounts of composites in both the fuselage and wing (V280). Their priority is to reduce weight to boost performance.

          The US Army views battle damage differently to the UK. In the UK, we have a much smaller fleet of aircraft, maintaining the number of available aircraft is crucial to meeting tasking requirements. Whereas in the US Army, with their massive fleets of aircraft, it is not a major problem. Therefore, we have extensive programs and procedures on how to repair and recover aircraft. Whereas the US’s view is, we have plenty of spare capacity, we’ll get round to the repair, when we have less work on! In Afghan, they would actually fly in replacement Blackhawks from Germany or the States, rather than repairing one in theatre! Though they did set up a repair team at Bagram, using contractors, as so many were getting damaged.

          Because of the Merlin, we now have a better understanding of composite repairs, with procedures in place and the necessary field equipment to carry it out. However, the biggest problem is when you use composites in a monocoque structure, that then takes small arms damage. When a round hits, it creates a pocket around the entry and exit hole. But the impact’s shock wave travels out and delaminates the composite layers. These have to all be found through tap testing and NDT testing, then cut out. A repair is then carried out where the layers are then added and built up to overlap the hole by X amount. Where it is then cured under UV lights. This can take at a minimum 12 hours for small holes, anything larger is considerably longer. If the structure was load bearing, good luck! As that will require structural load analysis and will definitely need vacuum bagging etc.

          If we do go down the AW149 route and then eventually follow the US Army. We will have to factor in the time and complexity factor of small arms damage to composite structures. I only hope the team looking at the Puma replacement take this into consideration. Normally, this factor only hinders peacetime operations through accidents like bird strikes, heavy landing etc. But operating a composite battlefield support helicopter in a war zone, i.e. Iraq. The composite repair problem was significantly overlooked to begin with. Which led to no end of issues with the Merlin availability.

          • How about that, I stand corrected. The AW149 first flew in 2009 and the AW189 in 2011 go figure. You would have thought it would have been the other way round?

      • If we can get one of the above for £10m a copy then we should order 100 and be done with it, any less and the cost will probably go up and

        surely we can afford £1bn for such an important capability.

    • Are new examples really that cheap?! I’m really surprised, in a good way!
      I imagine that the running costs may be higher than a smaller airframe like an AW149 (my current favourite for the competition), and it may be that the Merlin is legitimately too big for some of the tasks. But introducing a new type into service normally comes with higher running costs while everyone gets used to it, so that may actually still be a plus point for Merlin!
      Personally, I’d strip all Wildcat out and give them to the RN only, then let the AAC and RAF run with Chinook, “insert-medium-lift-helicopter-here”, and Apache. All three services can then share a decent sized rotary wing UAV like Firescout for recon, offboard targetting, and suchlike. I just don’t see the benefit of AAC Wildcat for its cost. If Merlin was that medium lifter, then things would get even simpler!

      • my cost estimate is from memory of an article on STRN.

        even if it’s £25m per unit we have all the parts training simulators etc. and it gives us time to wait on the US FVL decision

        i really just don’t get why so much effort into what is essentially such a small order

      • Replacing 4 different types with 1 offers a huge reduction in the spares/service/operation costs. AW149 Millionaires show pony painted Green, lot of Plexi panels and composite. maybe a good vip transport but shite battlefield platform.

        • I think you may be getting mixed up: The AW149 ws developed from the ground up as a military transport- the civilian AW189 was derived from it, not the other way around.
          Pretty much all modern helicopters, military included, include a lot of composites in their design. As will the FVL models that the US are developing at the moment. This was apprently the primary cause of Merlin’s lower availability in Afghanistan; we didn’t have the skills and materials to be able to patch damaged composites like we could more traditional material types. We’re going to need those in future regardless, if we want to match the availability of older types like Chinook in real battlefield scenarios, so may as well get them now.

    • It isn’t a silly question and it has been asked before but the short answer is no the Merlin wouldn’t be a suitable type for the Medium Helicopter replacement…it actually would be a pretty terrible choice to shoehorn it into that role.

      Before I give the more complex answer I want emphasise that I am not a “Merlin hater” but I am realistic about the type and its capabilities.

      The simple reality is the Merlin is not a Medium helicopter, it is too large, too complex and too expensive to run for the role. Merlin has a landing footprint that is almost as large as Chinook, if the space is big enough for a Merlin to land a Chinook can get in there as well. Perversely Merlin has a smaller sling load than Puma HC2 and can only carry 6 more combat loaded soldiers over that type whilst as already mentioned needing the space that a Chinook would need to land.

      Due to mandated design requirements for operating for long periods over water and being able to fit into the hanger of a Type 23 whilst utilising the engine types available to it during development Merlin has one more engine than is needed for a battlefield taxi and medium utility helicopter and a highly stressed transmission system as well that leads to a high level of maintenance. This makes it a costly and time consuming type to sustain. It makes sense for the Royal Navy to operate an all Merlin fleet but in respect of a Medium helicopter for the RAF that supports the Army it is a poor choice for the role.

    • Merlin is a little delicate, and in an ideal world standardising fleets is the way forward, I don’t think the RAF would want any of them back.

    • Merlin is a 3 engine helicopter very expensive to buy and operate. Plus it is bbbb…BIG!

      The Leonardo AW 139, AW 149 , AW 169 are the best option.

        • Only if you want our nation to have a sovereign capability to build rotors. There is a lot more to defence than buying the kit, every bit of erosion of sovereignty capability erodes our nations future ability to defend itself and define its own future. Battles are won and lost by the army fighting it, wars and geopolitical independence are won by a nations total set of capabilities. The nation that depends on another for its defence, be that through armed forces, nuclear deterrent or lack of capacity to equip its own military has already potentially lost a future war.

          • Good comment. I would add that often the nation loses the ability to take its own decisions, our nuclear deterrent being a prime example, basically a subsidiary fleet of the USN.

          • Yes this is why that although cross decking F35Bs from other nations is both great for training and shared operations, reducing the load on our own airframes ect. We much not see it as a replacement for being able to generate our own full air wings for the carriers if needed.

            we do need to be able to use these strategic assets on our own as we will have some areas of defence that even now we would be essentially on our own. The classic example is the BAT, if the Antarctic treaty failed ( and it will because America has always said it refused to acknowledge any treaty or claims in the Antarctic and China etc will do what it wants when it’s ready to) We and only we will have any skin in defending the BAT and therefore we need to be able to take on any potential geopolitical adversaries that Used aggression To claim any part of the BAT. So I can see the possibility of a U.K. China war in and around the south Atlantic within the lifetimes of the 2 carriers.

    • Because and you answered your own Question Merlin is a Heavy, and also the fleet end of life is 2030. Why RAF transferred Merlin to the Navy. Wildcat is not a Medium Lift.

      Merlin is Assembled in the UK now from Italian and polish made parts.

    • Except having mates that work on merlin it’s very capable but way too complex, spends way more time in pieces than in air

  4. Whatever the selection the pressure will be on to go with something manufactured locally with a high level of UK content.

    Surely it’s between the AW149 and the Airbus option.

  5. Pity we didn’t replace the Puma with Blackhawks years ago. The Blackhawk has superior performance in almost every criteria.

    • Can’t carry as many troops though – which I’d I recall was reason we didn’t buy it years ago -can’t carry 16 ie a platoon – it’s interesting therefore we don’t seem to have that need now

          • I think 11 is large enough in the newly sized army – as long as we get more helicopters.

            with so few people I don’t think its a good idea to pack them into any vehicle and have a preference for 4 man fire teams going forward that should enable us to purchase smaller land vehicles.

            whilst I accept we need more for the air due to costs – 11 sounds about right.

  7. I am sure the Army’s Boxer procurement team need a new challenge.
    I am looking forward to the results given their inability to procure something that actually works on the ground, that this thing must fly could well lead to an interesting outcome.

    • The self serving gravy train of Business Analysts, Project Managers, Change consultants and Scrum masters all on £500 a day would love an endless project!

      For this reason alone take the off the shelf Blackhawk! Time to go back to basics and buy the best out there. It’s great in all theatres, and having flown in them, 412s, Merlin and Puma2s there’s no contest for this requirement

  8. So perhaps the real question is should temporary helicopters be acquired perhaps even second hand, to fill a gap until a superior US hybrid becomes available or go for a new copter asap and forget about early adoption of a hybrid probably till they themselves get to or close to end of life? I would guess the timeline is a major significant factor here most pertinently when such a hybrid would become available, not sure as and when the winner is expected to enter service, seems to be some way off from memory, even if there aren’t delays (others can probably update us here). A contributory factor to consider will be, taking the above into consideration, just how big a leap over any new copter now a hybrid would be, substantial I feel based on what we know but what disadvantages might there be to consider too, reliability or cost of operation perhaps? Not clear as yet I suspect. In reality waiting for the hybrid would be the ideal solution but in reality I doubt that will be the choice here. Maybe the contract, numbers or whatever will be somewhat biased towards allowing gradual introduction of a hybrid at a later date however or perhaps presented as such, the old ‘design for not with’ solution reworked for the purpose, to face up criticism of potential helicopter numbers.

  9. Not always, but absolutely in this case, Blackhawk works and is available, I’m sure if we signed a contract for 50 machines, we could start deliveries next year….

    But instead, let’s turn this into a European love in, to give the RAF and Army a fragile, difficult to repair in the field, expensive to operate and unproven helicopter, that’s delivered 5 years later than needed and massively over budget.

    I think that’s the standard approach with these things guys.

    • This seems to fit the bill. Could we manufacture these here as part of a large order?

      “The S-70i helicopter can be configured according to customer-specific missions, including troop transport and air assault, command and control, border patrol, search and rescue, cargo lift, and VIP transport.
      The first helicopter successfully made its maiden flight in July 2010.”

      The S-70i Black Hawk helicopter has a maximum gross weight of 9,979kg and can carry two crew members and up to 13 troops.
      The reliable crash-worthy airframe design of the S-70i integrates a machined cabin structure and a single-piece cockpit assembly.

      The structure can resist small-arms fire and high-explosive projectiles. Entry and exit of the crew and troops are provided by two jettisonable cockpit doors and two sliding cargo doors respectively.

      S-70i can be fitted with ballistic protection, an active vibration control system, medical equipment, wire strike protection, Integrated Vehicle Health Management (IVHM) system, auxiliary fuel tanks, an external rescue hoist, rappelling equipment. and a cargo hook.

      https://www.army-technology.com/projects/s-70i-black-hawk-helicopter/

      Purely as an example!

      With the US manufacturer anticipating a letter of request (LOR) to be issued from Berlin for both the Super Hornet and Growler in the coming days, it has opened up bids for development, manufacturing, and support for the fleet to more than 10 German companies.

      https://www.janes.com/defence-news/industry-headlines/latest/boeing-to-expand-super-hornet-growler-industrial-team-for-germany

  10. The latest Blackhawk is surely the way to go. Commonality with the US and Australia, a proven design reliable with a good supply spares chain. It does what it says on the tin, 40 to 50 would be a good buy. The Merlin HC for the RAF also had design problems often ignored by the team who where trying to get it into service, it was found the rear ramp was too steep for Land rovers, the vehicles would ground out on the the rear ramp when boarding,
    It was as far as I know never solved with the answer being use the underslung option. The advanced avionics suite would not load on start up, the result in a control, alt, delete reset. A good looking machine but not rugged enough for the sort of environment it was expected to work in.

    • The Merlin HC3 was a political ‘ jobs for the boys’ procurement, forced on the RAF…

      It’s far better suited to its Royal Navy roll, RM support and resupply at sea etc.

      It was found seriously wanting in Afghanistan, just like most modern composite types. They lack the necessary robust easy to patch construction among other things.

    • 50, let’s be realistic!

      That would maintain force levels and increase slightly.

      I’m not sure if it would suit the Dauphin role though.

      • I would like to introduce to you. One of the US Army’s 160th SOAR MH60M Blackhawks – see attached picture. This is what the guys from Hereford want to replace the Puma for operations around the World. The Dauphin is predominantly used for UK based anti-terrorism. It has a much lower public profile as it looks like a civilian helicopter.

        • Which is exactly the reason why I suggested Blackhawk would not suit!

          Yes, Dauphin is primarily UK ops in civvies. Blue Thunder, as someone calls them, for the on duty Sqn in CRW Wing.

          Now THAT Blackhawk for overseas, yes please!

          • Basically to my point of view they are groupies hanging round their US counterparts and desperate to be them. I have a feeling we won’t agree. My problem is that I read too much about what’s going on in US politics if I could stop I wouldn’t be so furious.

          • The UK SF community wanted to recreate a UK version of 160th SOAR. Hence why there is the Joint Special Forces Air Wing (JSFAW), that incorporated elements from both the Army Air Corps and the RAF. The organisational aspect worked okay. The mixing of enabling personnel didn’t i.e. mixing AAC and RAF engineers.

            The concept however is valid. The new Chinooks the RAF are getting will be pretty much the same as the 160th operate. There was even talk of cooperative crewing. As whenever the SF are operating abroad they inevitably will be working with US operators.

            I know the Dauphin needs replacing. I am just surprised that one of the three candidates would be put to the same use. I guess from a layman’s perspective a AW149 painted in civilian colours, wouldn’t look that much different from a AW139 or AW189. Bit difficult to do that with a Blackhawk I guess!

          • I said we wouldn’t agree ! I wonder when they’re wearing US uniforms and US helmets and US weapons and US helicopters and US aircraft and working under US command whether they’re doing so in US interests not ours.

          • Pity they then go and dismember it getting rid of 657!

            JSFAW is needed. DSF should have dedicated aviation IMO and it is getting gradually dismembered.

  12. Blackhawk would be cheapest and lowest risk. AW149 scores on political ‘levelling up’ agenda, UK jobs etc and would keep open a strategic a European option for the next generation. Yeovil is a Tory seat. Was a liberal democrat until 2010. Needs only a 13% swing to fall to the LD. Local elections coming up….AW149 is a dead cert 😂

      • Speaking just as a taxpayer I can’t speak for the technical pros and cons of the shortlisted machines. Reading the experts it looks like the battle proven Blackhawk by half a length from AW149 with the Airbus trailing by several lengths. Its only probably only there to provide a comparison against Leonardo. The main thing is that we are not doing another Ajax or Warrior exercise. Both leading vendors know how to make decent helicopters. Phew!

    • The lowest risk is a aircraft that hasn’t been mentioned, Super Puma, proven record. Still in production. And the current RAF Puma fleet uses a lot of the Super Puma avionics suit. Very similar footprint to Puma, just with newer avionics, more powerful engines, slightly longer fuselage… The MoD missed a trick not upgrading when the Puma mid life update came along.

      • Well, as they say we are where we are. Super Puma is bigger than the medium sized machine the spec is looking for surely?
        Airbus themselves have submitted the EC175. I notice on the Airbus web site they have a ‘pre-used’ helicopters tab. Maybe they are offering a trade-in deal….

    • Ordinarily I would agree, but in this case, It’s all LMs fault, it’s their baby, they run it and they have dropped the ball so to speak.

  15. Tin hat on. I know some think that the fewest platforms means the lowest cost, but when replacing 44, the danger is we pick something that is too big or too small for certain situations. Perhaps a split buy? Using AW as an example. Buy 30 of the bigger AW149 + 14 of the smaller AW169. That way you have the right size helicopter for the job.

    • The trouble is John, the government would turn a two helicopter solution into a three ring Circus!

      Both would require a raft of UK specific modifications and UK assembly lines, the net result would be a ferociously expensive procurement, late and supplying over complicated helicopters that would be very easy to break and a nightmare to fix in the field.

      The Army requires a robust and relatively simple
      (relative to other options) helicopter, of conventional construction to compliment the Chinook.

      That helicopter is the Blackhawk, in absolutely ‘stock’ US Army spec, possibly with flight deck tie down points added, assuming they don’t come with them?

      An order for 50 UH-60M and perhaps a buy of Pavehawks to compliment and enhance SF roles.

      • The only way the UK will but Blackhawk is if it is a mutual benefit swap deal with Poland i.e. UK buys Polish built Blackhawk & Poland buys UK built weapons to the same value.

  17. I think I have a solution that will please everyone. We buy Blackhawks and the US promises to block any UK defence export to the USA. To purchase and asset strip every UK tech company they can get their hands on. To target with punitive tariffs UK steel exports to the US introduced when we were still in the EU even though they’ve lifted them against the EU itself. All on principle until the UK pulls out of occupied Ireland. Up the RA.

      • We are already reliant on the US for our NATO security, nuclear security, heavy lift ( helo and fixed wing) F35, attack helicopter, MPA, and so on etc ….

        Another medium Helicopter really makes very little difference in the grand scheme of things.

        No point worrying about being in Uncle Sams pocket now, we have been for the last 80 years!

        • Indeed; buts that’s no excise for making dependency a conscious strategy. Self sufficiency should be the default; failing that partnership with dependency a last resort. The French have the right idea; communautaire. Same applies to gas, nuclear energy, food, doctors….I think there must be a civil service department tasked with determining how best the UK can shoot itself in the foot…

          • Hi Paul, but that horse bolted nearly a century ago. I would say the opposite is actually true.

            We have wasted enormous (staggeringly big) amounts of money on bespoke equipment for a small armed forces over the years.

            Its the main reason we have a fairly healthy defence budget, but little to show for it and an Army with obsolete equipment.

            We buy equipment from the US, it generally works well, as advertised, delivered on time and at a good price point.

            The F35 is a side issue to be fair….

          • Not arguing the quality of the US kit, or the fact that a lot of arms these days are commodities rather than circus acts. We seem to be good at circus acts and useless at commodities. 5G stealth stovl fighters and attack helicopters are a circus act, you buy on vendor. Medium utility helicopters are a commodity, you buy on price….or benefit to the economy or society. This last is what distinguishes the French approach.

          • Fair point Paul.. I would say the French find themselves without key equipment, or sub standard equipment, designed by committee..

            No heavy lift helicopters or aircraft (though A400 does have some heavy lift), very expensive Tiger and NH90 helicopters, that really aren’t that great….

            NH90 is a troubled helicopter, being ditched by Australia and Belgium, based on the ferociously high operating costs and poor build quality.

            The Tiger is a typical, designed by committee euro mess..

            The European committee tasked with drawing up the requirements for a pan European Attack Helicopter, were ‘advised’ to sensibly use the Augusta A109 as a starting point, but oh no, not a bit of it.

            The French and Germans insisted on a clean sheet design and reinventing the wheel, at which point the UK very sensibly promptly withdrew!

            The Europeans are now saddled with a mediocre attack helicopter, that’s not a patch on the AH64E the British Army are buying. It’s totally outclassed in real terms….

            The point being that much of France’s equipment is not that great too be honest…

          • Interesting info on the euro helicopters and I take note of your general comment on French equipment. But when the French keep it within the family it works for them: Rafale, Aquitaine….They have a conscious industrial strategy of nurturing and/or acquiring strategic technologies. We all seem to hit understandable rivalry problems when we go european …the more so if the French are involved. That said I will stick my neck out and say that the Italians and us Brits are key peacekeeping ingredients in a europroject.

          • Good points Paul…. Certainly nothing wrong with Rafael….

            Our days of European (as in France and Germany) defence projects are over I feel.

            In many ways it’s a sad state of affairs, but we are on different paths from each other now, that’s just the reality of it…

            That said, I look forward to Tempest evolution over the next few years, free from Franco German intransigence!

          • Yes, we are on different paths. I voted to remain in the EU but am not unhappy with the way things are turning out. Struggling projects like Ajax and Warrior are opportunities for character improvement and leapfrog in ideas. P8 is in service; 2 carriers, T26 and 31, Meteor, Brimstone, Spear 3, asea radar for Typhoon…lots to be optimistic about.
            Important transitions are happening in Albion. Johnson might go down in history as the prime minister who united Ireland. Personally I blame it all on Richard III. If he had stayed buried Brexit wouldn’t have happened. 🙂

          • Which Army is the better equipped the British or the French ? How much US kit do the French use ? They can do it why can’t we ?

    • Its simply not robust enough Tom, the Blackhawk is smaller, but it’s a tough bird, conventionally constructed and able to absorb punishment and get back into the fight with patch repairs.

      Composite airframes really aren’t good at dealing with the harsh reality of modern battlefields. If they take damage it’s difficult to repair, or in some cases impossible and the airframe needs to shipped home…

      Composite construction has its place, but what the Army want and need, is the equivalent of a builders Transit van, no thrills, just a tough reliable workhorse.

      • That’s cool, I see what your saying John. So the replacement will be something thats in use elsewhere, or do we look at new designs?

        • Well, many of us are hoping for Blackhawk Tom….

          I don’t see any other options that really fit the bill.
          That particular blend of rugged capability.

          We could buy the ultimate rugged and simple medium helicopter I suppose, the Mi17!😂👍

    • Over engineered for the requirement. Three engines, light composite designed as a flying frigate with long overwater endurance = expensive, oversized and too delicate for a battlefield.

  20. Keep it simple. Chinook MTOW is 22 tons, Merlin is 15, Wildcat is 6, and Gazelle is 2. I believe that is a good enough spread of capability without too many types to manage. So this project just needs to be a simple utillity version of Wildcat and a few more Merlins. There, job done.

    • Hi Tim, slight issue with Wildcat, it can only carry four passengers, so if you want the uplift of a fleet of medium helicopters, you will need to buy about 300🤣🤣.

      Merlin is an exemplary Maritime Helicopter, absolutely superb …. The HC3 was forced on the RAF as part of the Merlin package….

      Way too fragile…..

      Same with Wildcat, ‘excellent’ Maritime Helicopter, forced on the Army, who struggle to know what to do with it, it’s a stripped out Maritime Helicopter that can’t carry anything, about as useless as a chocolate tea pot.

      Typical political interference unfortunately….

      • “Jobs for the boys” springs to mind re Army Wildcat.

        1 billion plus was it? For 34.

        Blackhawks at 300 million.

        • Morning Daniele, spot on mate, Wildcat stands as a perfect shining example of how to piss away your defence budget!

          It still makes me chuckle when people occasionally try to say its a ‘scout helicopter’, of course it is, you know when its spotted the enemy because its blasted out of the sky and the radio goes quiet!

          Talk about the “glorious 20 minuters” of Black Adder goes forth fame!

        • It’s a really curious decision John isn’t it….

          You design a new helicopter (with an Army utility roll in mind) that can only carry 4 people, massively limiting the sales prospects, you really couldn’t make it up!

          The good old taxpayer footed the bill, so I guess that’s just fine……!

  22. Just a thought, there are hundreds of medium sized helicopters of many different types in civilian service in UK most clumped together in large companies like Babcock or Bristow or CHC Scotia so AW189 that could easily be militarised could replace a lot in UK civilian service as it could provide an amazing war reserve, just like STUFT. I think the army should focus more on attack helicopters for this reason as in major conflicts there is a massive supply of medium helicopters and pilots and private companies already provide SAR that the RAF used to do. It just seems that we can’t have enough of everything and in a major war scenario training civilian pilots to fly attack helicopters would take a lot longer than training them to fly transport helicopters they already fly in, especially as they may not be so willing for more frontline roles.

    • Re my previous comments on Tiger and NH90 … This was in flight global today, years after entering service, reliability and availability are very poor.

      No wonder Australia is already ditching both…..

      ” Airbus Helicopters are again the subject of stinging criticism for their poor operational availability, with their performance branded as “unsatisfactory”.

      Detailing the issues in the defence ministry’s latest operational readiness report, Inspector General Eberhard Zorn says that the helicopters operated by the three branches of the armed forces collectively demonstrated a readiness level of just 40%”.

    • An interesting idea Louis, unfortunately there’s a world of difference between civilian oil support work etc and military aviation.

      A support helicopter will by its very definition, be in thick of it and on the proverbial ‘two way range’, you only had to view the patch repairs on some of our Helo fleet to see that, particularly in the first couple of years after Afghanistan operations…

      • Although my point more was if you can fly a helicopter already you need much less training than someone else and these pilots may be less willing to fly attack helicopters as they are less likely to be able to hack actually killing people. Although I agree with you, I’m just trying to think of ways we can increase the number of attack helicopters. I don’t understand why the army doesn’t fit pylons with rockets or LMM or hellfire as the navy already has that capability.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here