In an intriguing discussion surrounding the future of the Puma helicopters, the UK Defence Committee deliberated on the possibility of extending the aircraft’s lifespan beyond the initially planned 2025 during their oral evidence session on aviation procurement held on 17th May 2023.
During the dialogue, Sarah Atherton MP queried, “Is there scope to extend the life span of the Puma?”
Vice Admiral Richard Thompson responded, admitting that though the Puma was originally planned for retirement before 2025, it had been extended to fulfil roles in Cyprus and Brunei. He suggested, “It could be extended still further out to 2027, 2028—that kind of timeframe—but that decision has not been taken yet.”
He explained that such a decision hinges on the progress of the new medium-lift helicopter competition, as well as the viable alternatives to replace the Puma in Cyprus and Brunei. This programme falls under the Army’s jurisdiction, hence the Vice Admiral’s limited access to its intricacies.
In a subsequent line of inquiry, Dave Doogan MP established that the 23 Pumas in question were those procured from South Africa and upgraded about a decade ago. This information was confirmed by Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, albeit with uncertainty about the exact number still operational.
Doogan further expressed concern over the recurring pattern of uncertainty within the UK’s defence procurement, leading to what he described as a “profound capability risk into the operation of our Armed Forces.” His worry stems from the confusion caused by the new medium-lift’s inclusion and subsequent removal from the MoD’s acquisition pipeline, an action which sends “a really difficult signal to industry.”
Addressing this concern, James Cartlidge MP, the Minister for Defence Procurement, defended the decision-making process. He insisted that they were not flip-flopping but adhering to a standard tendering procedure. Cartlidge admitted the complexity of the situation, stating, “This is not something that we have dropped, as you implied; we are committed to it.” However, he refrained from divulging further details due to commercial confidentiality reasons.
Present at the session were Mr Tobias Ellwood (Chair), Sarah Atherton MP, Robert Courts MP, Dave Doogan MP, Richard Drax MP, Mark Francois MP, Kevan Jones MP, Emma Lewell-Buck MP, Gavin Robinson MP, John Spellar MP.
Witnesses James Cartlidge MP, Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton KCB, and Vice Admiral Richard Thompson.
Needs to be extended at all costs – me thinks
I’ll take the bus it would be safer. Purchased from South Africa? We were all told they were HC1’s the RAF had had since time began that had a refurbishment and as for number that can fly hardly enough for a squadron in the end as most as being robbed for spares.
It’s not buying a rocket to go to Mars but a Helo to move troops around, God help us.
If they did fix & refurbish them would that not be better than nothing (just in case the bus breaks down) or are you suggesting we just get something off the shelf as a stop gap
My thoughts as well. Being a regular reader of Flight International I am sure I would have remembered purchase of second hand Pumas from South Africa . I remembered the program to extend existing RAF Pumas lives to 2025….
Hi Steve. I can confirm 6 second hand SAAF J model Pumas were acquired from SA circa 2002.
Disagree mate, normal serviceability rates for an old, but updated platform.
Hi Angus. Only six used had SAAF Pumas were acquired.
So looking behind those lines are we looking at a cost saving measure from the Gov/MOD where the New Medium Helicopter (NMH) selection will not only be delayed , but due to fiscal constraints the cheapest option will be selected which whislt resulting in short term savings will entail extra long term costs.
Ah further to my last: UK delays New Medium Helicopter service entry and contract award dates BELFAST — The UK has still not approved dates for entry into service or production contract award for a £1 billion ($1.15 billion) New Medium Helicopter (NMH) acquisition, designed to replace Puma HC2 rotorcraft and a number of smaller rotary fleets, including Bell 212, Bell 412 and AS365 Dauphins. New helicopters had been expected to enter service from 2025 onward, but without set critical acquisition targets, such a timeline appears increasingly difficult to sustain. Sarah Atherton MP said during a Wednesday UK defence… Read more »
No point in entering a new contract if you don’t have any money, defence chiefs learning a lesson and the treasury will be zero help.
JIm wrote: “”defence chiefs learning a lesson”” What you mean like how they learnt a lesson after: 1) SA80 debarkle 2) Challenger 2 upgrade 3) Warrior upgrade 4) E3 Upgrade 5) E7 cut from 5 to 3 6) AS90 upgrade 7) Type 23 replacement (2 different types) 8) Selling off RFA Largs Bay I’ve no problem with sound fiscal policies, but all we see across the board at the MOD is a penny shy, pound-foolish mindset. So those are the big money spenders, how about smaller ones. Like when I was a PSI at a TA (reserves camp) and when our soldiers tipped up on a Friday we… Read more »
Wasn’t there a Sentinel related mistake?
Coll wrote: “”Wasn’t there a Sentinel related mistake?”” There was, but what makes that story even more damning is that after been brought into service in 2008, the new Conservative government decided to axe it in 2010, but Libya in 2011 gave it a reprieve, it was supposed to receive upgrades in 2014, but as is the way for this Government, those upgrades were skipped, resulting (like the E3) the system become outdated and obsolete and so it was binned on the never never mindset of future not in service system would take over the role of a world beating asset which… Read more »
Exactly.
Might as well cancel everything then.
That’s the problem mate, spend more money keeping them in service in order to delay purchasing an expensive platform, Kick the can down the road, they’re thinking it will be a Labour problem in less than two years!
Reminds me of an episode of only Fools and Horses, Trigger got a medal for looking after his broom. The same broom he had for 20 years. That broom had 17 new heads, and 14 new handles…
The ‘inclusion and subsequent removal from the MODS acquisition pipeline’ of the med-lift Puma replacement has got absolutely nothing to do with the tendering procedure, or a competition as there are several (3-4) off the shelf helicopters already available. This is purely down to finances and sliding the bill further down the line to ease the pressure on the MOD budget over the next few years. Unless we completely cut this capability, we still have to buy the replacement rotor craft, which will cost more in 4-5 years time, as well as funding the extra support for keeping the Pumas… Read more »
My 1st reaction is it is another exercise in kicking the ball down the pitch to save some ££ off current expenditure. But given the way BW runs things I suspect it could be a matter of juggling priorities. Now if they were to announce any of the following instead I’d struggle to disagree with the logic. Increase the number of CR3 rebuilds to 210 ish. Army 😀 Increased buy of NSM / Aster 30 1 NT. Navy 😃 Buy 2 extra Wedgetails and 3 more P8’s. RAF ☹️ (straight wings are not sexy) Or could it be that they… Read more »
It is kicking the ball. As usual this will cost much more than doing the proper thing. Choosing an helicopter replacement and getting done with it.
But i know what is going on, the same crap with FRES. They want the uber weapon so they are waiting for a reason to justify the V-280.
Choosing and getting done involves money, they clearly dont have any to spend so what alternative should be done?
It is not money, non specialised helicopters without weapons are not that expensive. They could have replaced the Puma ages ago, it is the searching for the wonder weapon.
Get more money allocated?
I would consider keeping our medium lift helicopter capability as way more important than any of them options. Unfortunately it’s looking like another capability holiday is incoming.
So you think that Medium Lift helicopters are more important than an ABM system or adequate AEW/MPA all of which are vital to defend the U.K.
Wow I really don’t know what to say to that one.
Yes, they are needed for any type of war we could get into. There is zero chance we can afford enough abm systems to cover the whole UK and so any system we buy is going to be purely to cover our ships. Very useful in the case of a naval war but only then, plus zero evidence that a abm missile could actually track and hit a ship at sea, all theoretical at this point. Not to mention that no missile has actually taken one out to date, so no one really knows if they work. We have MPA/aew… Read more »
Well AEGIS Ashore in Poland and Romania each have 24 SM3 ABM missiles which is supposed to defend all of NATO. Those missiles have been successfully tested in multiple tests against test targets by both U.S. and Japan. The Aster 30 ABM variants are a different matter and will need testing before entering service but that is the way we are going. I just do not think a medium lift Helicopter is a higher priority than ABM. If someone launches an IRBM at say Sellafield (which was a prime target in USSR days) a Helicopter to move 12 troops will… Read more »
I’m not convinced on the ABM inteecept range of SM3, but we don’t have enough info to be sure. However if it covers all of NATO then our own system is less of a priority. The issue with hitting them in a test situation is all the variables are known by the defender and they are normally targeting an area near the launcher to increase chances of success. Real case scenario would be a missile targettinng an unknown target at an unknown time in unknown weather conditions etc. Human element comes heavily into play, as it takes time for c&c… Read more »
Either that or there’s a capability gap until a replacement enters service but is eventually canceled and we are left without them permanently.
Given the likely life span of the new helicopters, which is probably 20-25 years, would it not be possible for the government to borrow the money at the small rates the UK currently enjoys? Spread the cost over the next 20-25 years like they do with other infrastructure spending?
The government has got itself obsessed with cutting the national debt, even though adding to it now whilst times are rough and dealing with it when things settle down makes more sense, especially as we are inflating our way out of the debt.
Why does ‘the new medium-lift helicopter competition, as well as the viable alternatives to replace the Puma in Cyprus and Brunei, fall under the Army’s jurisdiction’?
Granted that HQ JHC is located within Army Headquarters based at Andover but surely Abbey Wood staff, not JHC, procure helicopters?
I’ve heard on the jungle drums that Wastelands is absolutely furious about this decision, they spent most of April excavating a huge hole in the ground at their Yeovil facility, ready for the MOD to dump billions into…
Joking aside, my guess is the Puma will probably just be quietly pulled without replacement ( like the C130’s) with the 25 Navy HC4’s told to suck it up crack on with the extra work.
Together with a further lease of Helos for the various ancillary roles….
You know the local MPs will be going all out for AW version mate, local jobs and all that. Maybe BH is gaining traction and they’re throwing their toys out the pram?
With at least 10% of tories not standing and swathes of them in threat of bring cast by the electorate at the next election, this is a bad time for Defence.
Why, because it will be your lot next David?!😉
Both as bad as each other.
Nothing to pick between them, incompetent nincompoops the lot of them….
Bit polite.
Labour are picking up serious coin but paying g lip service to holding the Cons to account.
Remind me about dereliction of duty.
You know it mate……
The more I think about it, the more I expect Puma replacement to be either scaled right back, or just dropped completely….
So the Navy would be transporting army personnel around the battle field then?
Probably Graham, I can see it just being dumped on the HC4 fleet, with no Puma replacement…
Morning Graham. Our new poster here, SB1, mentioned a rumour a few weeks ago that the RAF may not actually operate many of the NMH, implies to me there is a fight underway behind the scenes. Intriguing, as I thought the split of battlefield support helicopters between the AAC and the RAF SHF was a longstanding turf war along weight/size lines? RAF insisting any of a certain size must be operated by them? One must also not forget that Puma has only recently been deployed to Cyprus/Brunei, replacing Bells of 84 Sqn and 7 Flight AAC, so already cuts there.… Read more »
I for one would be glad to see the Royal Air Force folded back into the other services. The experiment has already gone on for 5 years too long.
Not me, Bob, but respect your view of course.
I forgot the donkey face emoji 😅
Morning Daniele, I think the weight/size division between AAC and RAF helos has been clear for many years (RAF operate medium and heavy load-lugging helos and AAC ‘light’ helos) , but I do recall a story way back, when Apache was being first procured. Incrediby the RAF thought they should operate it as it would be too complex for the AAC to operate, seeming to conveniently forget that the AAC had a long history of operating helos equipped with A/T missiles from the Scout with SS11 through to Lynx with TOW. Apparently both AAC and RAF were asked to produce… Read more »
Not that I’m aware of, save having to pay for them.
Not surprised re horses, as the AAC will have 100 or fewer now, 50 Apache, 34 Wildcat, 8 Dauphin, plus whatever Gazelle and Bell remain. All fixed wing were transferred to the RAF and then promptly binned too.
Between the KTRHA, HCMR, there must be hundreds of horses. Which I support, they play a national role. They’re not a financial problem, overspend and delaying programs is. I know you weren’t suggesting they were, either, just my own position.
I may be wrong, but I thought the AAC could get away with up to AW139 as it is not much heavier than Wildcat, but AW149 is 2 tons heavier & therefore RAF only.
No idea there.
Here we go again. I spotted this yesterday so we can add this to another delay in army refurbishment. Yes I know it’s RAF but it’s effectively to move the army about. Perhaps we could reduce infantry numbers and save money on not buying helicopters.👿
many a true word spoken in jest ….
I did think it was a mistake to try & replace so many types with just one type. The larger helicopters (Puma) should be replaced with AW149, but the smaller ones with AW169. One size does not fit all.
A good example.
Is the contract to maintain these puma Cyprus Brunei helicopters private or in-house I wonder
I remember seeing a very interesting video in this article
Crewless Black Hawk helicopter flies at 115mph.
AW149: Meet the helicopter that could replace the military’s Puma fleet
LINK
EU launches Next Generation Medium Helicopter programme23 MAY 2023 “The European Union (EU) has launched the Next Generation Medium Helicopter (NGMH) programme geared at converting future rotorcraft technologies into fieldable solutions, either as retrofits to existing platforms or as newbuild aircraft. Announced on 23 May as part of a wider raft of new Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) projects, NGMH sees France (lead), Italy, Finland, and Sweden come together to address operational needs on the upgrade of existing fleets and on the European Next-Generation Rotorcraft Technologies (ENGRT) programme, harmonising the needs and timelines of EU countries on the future capabilities of… Read more »
This is clearly just pissing money away now keeping old airframes in the air …to kick spend down the line…
Frankly, the Westland SA330E Puma can be life extended but that does not remove the obvious that the C-130 Hercules and SA330E Puma are still very won out from the War on Terror despite what fanboys addicted to America’s best Kool-Aid would say and I am absolutely sick and tired of the argument of the outdated and old UH-60 Black Hawk and C-130 Hercules frankly, these designs have a finite development life whereas the A400 and AW149 have far greater room for development If people used their brains, they’d see the USA actually has a far worse version of the problem, the… Read more »
*worn out*
C-5 & C-17 are out of production. What will replace them? Is anyone thinking about this. I know they are good for another decade or so, but after that?
Why is the MOD never serious about anything? 44 AW149 is a piss poor number anyway and it’s only ‘up to 44’. Most other nations our size have hundreds of support helicopters, not dozens. Why is the Navy suddenly getting all this stuff, whilst the army and air force can’t afford anything. I understand we’re an island nation, but we’re at the point where we can’t get 6 more A400s and are keeping a 50+ year old helicopter in service to be replaced by pitiful amounts. Either navy procurement is on top form or the 1SL is sucking somebody important… Read more »
They’ve still got a few years in them beauties yet!!!
I was a member of the Chinook project team at Boeing Vertol from 1977 to 1981 – the succesful resurrection (thank goodness) of the previously cancelled procurement of around
1968. From1987 I was the initial procurement manager in MOD for the RAF version of the Merlin, plagued by on-off-on-off decisions of the government. What is new in this century !!!!!
Why don’t the MOD buy budgie helicopters and be done with it 🚁 ,great savings 💰🙄
They did, for 5 AAC. 5 of them, all in mothballs…..🙄
You would think they would use them as runarounds to replace Gazelles.
You would, I have not worked out what went awry, assume as always money.
The tory sticking plaster at work again, has been politicians who know nothing about defence, Labour promises to fix the problems, we shall see?
Labour’s idea of fixing is called abolishing. They instinctively hate the military.
Exactly. My greatest fear.
Get a grip Pike.
Spoke to a conductor/guard at Didcot on Friday – £40k per annum.
Sorry – Where’s the problem with Govt finances, Daniele?
😆
Away from your neck of the woods? At the railway centre?
Bang on sean ,God help our country, well the only solution is rebuild for the armed forces and it had better happen soon ,
No, we don’t. Don’t tell tall tales.
Deeds not words.
No. You said “… instinctively hate the military.”
Nothing to do with Deeds. Should you want action, I served 9 years.
Thank you for your service and for being an honourable exception to the rule.
I took it Sean meant left wing MPs rather than all Labour voters or ex servicemen such as yourself mate. Assume you did not approve when the previous Labour governments were cutting defence too? And that is the historical precedent Labour have 97-2010. Nothing the shadow DS has said fills me with any confidence. He seems obsessed by the number of army personnel, but rarely mentioning the RN, RAF, or wider defence plans. As pointed out often, that is an easy position for him, whether 73k or 80k if the army is not properly resourced it will still only have… Read more »
You and I are not a mile apart on this Daniele.
A little light reading, as usual will delete after 7 days:
https://i.postimg.cc/Qt1h26TZ/img342.jpg
Part 2:
https://i.postimg.cc/FzG5vwF8/img343.jpg
Part 3:
https://i.postimg.cc/FRWVQZ5G/img344.jpg
Part 4:
https://i.postimg.cc/T3Jk4nwN/img345.jpg
Part 5:
https://i.postimg.cc/jjkBMy30/img346.jpg
Part 6:
https://i.postimg.cc/gkNsymB1/img347.jpg
Part 7
https://i.postimg.cc/RZPMz6pG/img348.jpg
Part 8:
https://i.postimg.cc/tRtGjnYP/img349.jpg
Part 9:
https://i.postimg.cc/ZYjsH8Wf/img350.jpg
10:
https://i.postimg.cc/XJLL2WYZ/img351.jpg
The UK quietly purchased six Puma’s second-hand from South Africa in 2002. These are probably the Puma copy (“Oryx”) built in SA in the late 1980’s during UN sanctions. If so, they will the youngest airframes in service by at least a decade, and keeping them in service until 2027 for the small 2-3 helo flights in Cyprus and Brunei probably makes a lot of sense. The alternative is an expensive and/or undesirable stop-gap.
Hi Richard. I believe the 6 ex SAAF Pumas are not Oryx version but older j model Pumas delivered to the SAAF in 1977.
Hard worked butt extremely well maintained. The SAAF took theses out of service 1991, stored until acquired by the RAF in 2002. So low airframe mileage.
Thanks for the clarification. So they are no younger than many of the Puma’s that the RAF received in the 1970’s, but perhaps have a few thousand less hours on the clock due to being in storage for a decade.
No probs Richard- yep, you’re spot on.
Again?
I find it worrying that Puma’s in service life could be extended. Some years ago a report produced by Qinetiq indicated that the risk of fatality on Puma was around 1 in 120 against a minimum regulatory target of 1 in 1000. It was at the bottom of the list of in service aircraft. My other query would be about how many non ALARP risks have not been addressed due to cost/benefit analysis calculations based on an expected out of service date that is now going to move. Appalling situation.