France, Germany, Greece, Italy and the United Kingdom have announced the launch of a multinational project to develop a Medium Multi Role Helicopter.

The ‘Next Generation Rotorcraft Capabilities’ project is dedicated to the modernization of existing rotorcraft fleets and is one of NATO’s High Visibility Projects (HVP).

A significant number of medium multi role helicopter capabilities currently operated by Allies will reach the end of their life cycle in the 2035 – 2040 period and beyond, with the subsequent need for replacements.

“The Next Generation Rotorcraft project aims to develop a solution for these upcoming requirements, leveraging a broad range of recent advances in technology, production methods, as well as operational concepts. Over the coming years, experts from all five nations will cover an exhaustive programme of work, starting with defining a robust Statement of Requirements and a multi-phase cooperation plan.”

The Defence Ministers of the five Allies signed a Letter of Intent to develop an entirely new helicopter capability. The signature was added virtually from the capitals of participating nations, say NATO in a press release.

“By investing our resources and channeling our development initiatives through a multinational framework, we are making sure Allies are equipped with the best available capabilities, which helps to maintain NATO’s technological edge”, stressed NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoană. 

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

162 COMMENTS

  1. another dead duck. Anything involving the french will lead to problems in design, assignment of work, use of french contractors, leadership and ultimately cost overruns. It’ll be another A400m.

    • Agreed.

      We really need to go our own way with a new generation of multi-rotor stuff (manned, unmanned, vectored-thrust hybrid). Westland was rubbish at running a business (back in the day I was there), but they did come up with some fantastic stuff. The UK (or CANZUK) need to invest in a new set of strategic industries and capabilities and keep the spend within the UK economy. Just needs a bit of vision.

      • Totally agree with you. It’s about time the UK used its friends in the english speaking world and collaborated with them. I cannot understand why we persist with European “partners” who are wedded to the EU, and thus French grandstanding and german reluctance. The opportunities this group of nations presents are tremendous.

        I find it astonishing that the French (slightly anti french i suppose) acquire french made kit for their forces, but when the chips are down have to rely on the UK, most recently the RAF to use our US built c17’s to ferry french troops and kit around Africa because the A400m’s aren’t up to it.

          • The French generally are such bad partners yet we saved their bacon twice. Macron is their latest effort.

          • We are equally a bad partner, from T45 to the drone project, we have a bad habit of changing our minds.

            Let’s hope this project goes a bit smoother, although the armed forces could do with more helicopters now, rather than 20-30 years required to get this project going.

        • You are buying in to old myths etc here… The French asked us for help and we gave it as we should. We asked the French to help with our deficiencies and they have done so as they should… The French have been pretty reliable in the help that they give militarily.

          As for working with European Nations being difficult. I don’t buy this either. We can also be difficult to work with in this regard. We need to have better up front communication and better planning and then we can work better with other nations regardless of what part of the world they are from. We make the mistake of working with nations that have differing needs on a project that then becomes a mess. There are plenty of projects that have gone well (Sepcat Jaguar being one) where the needs of the partner nations were very well aligned. Remember we have been screwed over by the US too…

          • Sepecat Jaguar? Give me a break. It should have, and would have, had F-16 like performance if the French hadn’t insisting it was dumbed down so it wouldn’t be a commercial threat to Mirage.

            The French are terrible “partners”. The US, on the other hand, have been outstanding.

          • That is not true at all! The Jaguar was always meant to be a light strike/trainer. The French did not dumb it down at all! It was never supposed to be a f-16 rival. I think you may be thinking of a different project. It was a requirement to replace the Hunter on the UK side and the Mystère IV on the French side.

        • Err may be the fact that the EU is the UK largest trade partner, which English speaking nations trade is a drop in the ocean compared to the Trade we do with EU.

          • Well hopefully with Brexit we can forge new strategic alliances with the wider world and boost UK trade. The EU is contacting and will contract even faster now we have left. The EU is a dead duck, nothing happens fast as each member states fight each other for years to get anything done. When ultimately any golden eggs laid goes to France and Germany.

        • If you really think that Canada and New Zealand have either the resources or will to engage in this type of endeavor with the UK, good luck to you.

      • CANZUK getting together? Very unlikely, and as for here in Australia, I would say the chances of us getting involved in a UK and/or Euro, helicopter program is zero.

        The MRH-90s have been very problematic for many years (will probably be eventually replaced with something from the US Future Vertical Lift program), and as for the Tiger ARH fleet, they will be replaced very very soon (either AH-1Z or AH-64E).

        Whilst I wish the UK and other Euro countries good luck, production runs are more than likely to be in the ‘hundreds’ only. On the other hand US helicopter production runs will probably be measured in ‘thousands’.

        And partly for those reasons I just can’t see Australia wanting to get involved.

        Thanks, but no thanks.

          • It is brilliant but it is expensive. For the UK it makes sense as the manufacturing feeds back into the economy which offsets the price but for another country buying it, it is expensive compared to the Blackhawk. It would be cheaper if we did not shut down the production lines and then have to reopen them fulfil foreign orders though…

          • The issue is we will end up building too few, which will make the price soar like the wildcat. Decent helicopter but we could have got a more capable option, for less, if we had not gone it alone.

        • I would imagine that given the amount Australia spends on defence, which is considerable, the government would engage with military projects that could not only fill their military requirements, but also provide jobs indigenously. Oh, hang on, Australia foes… shipbuilding …. closed doors equals closed minds.

        • Yes, the Tigers built in Europe have been amazing, the ones that were sent out to Australia in kit form and locally assembled by an Australian company have been very unreliable.

      • In an ideal world, we would never have turned our backs to our brethren across the globe… but we did.

        CANZUK, IMHO is a dead duck, Canada and Australia have land masses much greater than the UKs and armed forces and military budgets much smaller.

        Would they really stump up the additional cost of development, where they would be a junior partner to the UK, when they could just get what they require off the shelf?

        We, the European nations have forged some great weapon systems between us, and yes some lame donkeys too, where we have ultimately failed, is in the marketing of our great products.. (Lynx excluded) We always seem to fail to other nations in the selling of stuff……

      • Westland was rubbish at running a business (back in the day I was there), but they did come up with some fantastic stuff.

        What did they came up for except Lynx?
        All other products were licensed. There is a reason they got bought by Agusta.

      • Agreed, the new helicopter needs to be used by hm coastguard and as part of overseas aid to generate economic production numbers.

        UK and Italy only with both countries having complete production

      • Totally agree mate, the French have done this on numerous occasions and projects which leads to tension within NATO. I think we should go it alone or, if we have to, stick with Germany and Italy as we’ve done well together. Look at the Typhoon as an example……

    • Yep. They only get involved to steal the design ideas. There is rarely an intention to see the project through. Work-share and other classic French demands are just excuses to pull out.

    • This is the thing… Surely the cheapest and quickest option is to simply go for an updated Merlin? We are our own worst enemy when it comes to this as the US have been using and upgrading Blackhawk for long time and it is likely to keep going until the design just can’t cope with new technology anymore. We design and build an incredible Helicopter, order a number of them and then close the production lines… This is no good for export orders and is no good for when we need replacements. If we ordered an initial batch and then ramped the production down to trickle the remaining ones through it would be more attractive to export customers and it would make it easier to get replacements for broken Helicopters in service and also make it easier to keep upgrading them.

      The Merlin is still outstanding and still one of the best medium (if not THE best) Helicopters in the world, why not just get more modern versions of it?

      • Fully agree with this.

        Updated Merlin, but new builds, would reduce a lot of design costs and we save more money per unit, meaning more helicopters for us.

      • Yup, I’ve said this before so I’ll pop it in the mix again.

        Start with Merlin, switch out the complex 3 engine approach and put in a twin engine system, which I believe is now possible as RR have the more powerful engines in their family these days. This reduces development and operating costs. Sort out any obsolescence issues and transfer current mission systems (ASW, AEW, etc) and bobs yer uncle updated Merlin…

        So long as to can stop the brass hats from tinkering with the requirements in the meantime you get a perfectly good aircraft, probably way quicker and cheeper than any European effort.

        Cheers CR

        • In the short-term I think you are right with the Merlin ChariotR.

          In the longer-term, as part of a wider picture, I think the UK or CANZUK should try and develop various capabilities such as next gen multi-rotor-type platforms. I would just prefer that it is done not for arms-export outside of CANUK. OK the large numbers as the USA won’t happen, but just accept it is for “our” l use and fund as part of a wider strategic development. Yikes! Concept of not making military stuff for export.

        • If you are going to replace all the mechanicals and propulsion, change out the obsolescent avionics all you are left with is a metal shell. Might as will replace that with composite if you are going to all those lengths which is essentially a brand new helicopter.

          • Merlin is already a good deal composites. Plus it is not about stripping things away it is about starting with a proven design.

          • Hi John,

            Only true up to a point. There is a lot of work involved in the design of any aircrat even before you get to detailing the structure. The Wild Cat is 90% new, yet still ‘looks’ like a Lynx for a very good reason; it makes use of a considerable body of engineering design work.

            Basing a new aircraft on the Merlin, lets call it Excalibur, replacing the engine / gearbox pack, even redetailing the fuselage a long the lines of the Wild Cat would be cheeper and lower risk than developing an entirely aircraft.

            Cheers CR

          • Hi Ian,

            The main issue is mechanical complexity. The gearbox which takes drive from the engines to the rotor has 3 input shafts instead of 2 which makes for considerably more bits and holes in the casing which carries the weight of the aircraft to the rotor.

            In short, the Merlin in its current form does tend to spend more time than most other types in the Hangar. Performance, wise it apparently does the job well and has plenty of power which is an important point when opperating from small flight decks in heavy weather.

            The long and short of it is that the added complexity of 3 engines increases costs to buy the aircraft and to maintain it, hence its poor sales record with export customers.

            Redesigning it as I suggest would limt development risks and costs whilst significantly improving procurement and running costs, making an otherwise proven airframe much more affordable and viable on the export market.

            This is the same approach that was used in developing the Lynx into the Wild Cat…

            Cheers CR

          • 1. Work out what is in it for the USA, French, Germans and Italians before committing to any project with them, with significant penalties when they follow their usually patterns.
            2. Set an actual short target date (five years) and quantity procured for the UK (100+) then stick to it. If you buy your own other countries and rich people will buy it.
            3. You need a lot of rotary lift, and the way to make it cheap is make and design it yourself. Spin out Merlin, Lynx et Al into a UK vertical lift company?
            2. Norwegian base plus all the extras like Italian special forces version and in flight refuelling.
            3. It probably needs a a bigger internal box for load flexibility (vehicles/robots/swap fits for asw/sar/asr/c3 et al). Strengthen the ramp system. Strengthen the hook system (so as to pick up 155mm).
            4. It should be by standard navalised (as we are an island nation) so that it can be deployed where needed without worrying about corrosion issues. It also needs to work in the artic, as well as hot and high.
            5. Flexibility in hub, gearbox and frame design should be looking at 2-4 engine variants. That way when you need more lift capacity, as it is just an extra engine fit. That also requires fuel tank connectivity and fuelling flexibity. Rolls Royce development of light, medium and heavy helo engines (so they do not go under). Can you get flexibility into the hub design so as to change the number of blades (4-6) easily at point of manufacturer, maintaince, or use.
            6. If you add wings then you get lift, range, and speed.
            7. Strengthen the hard points so munition capability is improved. Full range of UK munitions. Gun pod.
            8. Think about what are the cost drivers usually are: corrosion, vibration, software, systems integration, and weapon qualifying for design, development, and production.
            9. Make it easier and quicker to maintain, which means more flight hours. That in turn requires more stockpiles of the essential parts to make it fly.
            11. As for the actually requirement of helicopters: uav, vrep, attack, team/recon, squad, platoon, company, compound. Merlin is platoon. Squad/team is wildcat.
            12. Can you make your own better version of apache. Is must be navalised, more engines, blades, better wings, and a more survivable tail rotor system? – Can you leverage the US recon helicopter development program which was trashed? – either for this or a uav.
            13. Can you make your own better version of chinook. Is must be navalised, more engines, blades, wings, engines, bigger box for load flexibility, engines at the front and back per beledevere. Does it need to be able to hold or pick up a tracked armoured vehicle?
            14. Do you need to continually reinvent the wheel, with the risks that entail? – nothing actually procurred and manufacturing shuttered.
            15. Is it actually the capacity (number of use able frames) and capability (what can be done now) in the forces locker which is important giving the varied an emerging threats? against the possibility of a technical gap opening.
            16. Is it what your forces use, and what manufacturers actually produce that drives exports? – or is it vapourware and vapour products that never seee the light of day or are delivered.
            17. It is expensive to make things in London and the south of england, because of the runaway cost of living.
            18. We also need to make our own aircraft. Should we buy out the old programs Tornado, Harrier et Al or even Typhoon and simply remake them with more modern materials and equipment as cheaper locker capacity or drones. Navalised Tornado and Typhoon would be attractive if we had appropriate carriers. If we cannot cross deck where are we going with F35B – is lift fan and trap door damage surviable?
            19. Airbus is centralising on Tolouse. Aerospace is going to be a different beast after coronavirus and brexit. Supply changes will be different and either regionalised or national.
            20. Do we need to have the rule of four for carriers. Should we plan to sell the carriers off, or give away, and replace them with bigger and better, or smaller and more. Do we need a third island (the defence island with T45 radar). Do we need nuclear, pod propulsion, an update handling system, more physical defences. Should our naval command, control, and bridge systems be like fighter pilot cockpits and be pods.
            21. Everyone knows we need more ships as an island nation but we need the actually manufacturing skills to make them: like very experienced and highly skilled welders; long products to make shafts, rails, and pylons.
            22. What should the drumbeat be on platforms (ships, aircraft, vehicles), munitions, stores, and other equipement. Is it a destroyer and frigate per year. Should we be lining up T45 to be sold, and replace it with a T45+ program. We need more UK content as that circulates in taxes and other ways in the UK economy.
            23. If the Scots, Irish, and Welsh are leaving through independence or devolution then we need to create appropriate capability elsewhere, resource it and fund it. Make it attractive to those workers who have skills and want work to commute or migrate to those areas.
            24. Should the City of London fund the creation of frigates and destroyers (the naval tax). What ships do we actually need? – are the battleship and cruiser on the way back as platforms?
            25. Most of the places that build and manufacture ships need infrastructure development – some of the places are not suitable for deep draft vessels, or there would be a substantial destruction of homes or commercial property to make them more effective, efficient or viable. Will a UK government be prepared to do that?
            26. Can we swap F35B purchases for other things like emals, Zumwalt or Independence/Freedom design and development information. Leverage it.
            27. Should we make our own ICBM if we want to make space a priority.
            28. Should we make our own operating systems and applications? or be reliant on other nations for the basic enabling blocks of technology.
            29. UK priorities are not US or EU priorities. At the moment, if anyone should say no to us, we simply cannot operate independently. Plenty of countries, organisations, and rich/influential people are going to oppose us in the current climate. Is that appropriate for a security council member?
            30. Are we a toothless paper dog. All bark and no bite, one match sees us done?

          • Looking at tiltrotor craft in general would seem to make more sense to me as well. The US also have a couple of new aircraft of this type coming along as mentioned elsewhere on this thread.

            Leonardo also have a small tiltrotor craft the AW609. It is already flying and is aimed at the commercial market so if the Europeans wanted to really develop a flexible vertical lift capability with legs to go places they could.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW609

            Cheers CR

          • The problem is the AW609 carries so few people about 9 ?
            Were as the Merlin can carry nearly 5 times as many
            So for a replacement Medium Helicopter we should expect the same amount of capacity
            Which I reckon would strike the AW609 off the list

            So we either go to the US types or look at the Leonardo NGCT is suppose

            Or see what the NGR project can come up with.. well once they can afford some pencils, paper, rubber and some colourful crayons ;P

          • Hi John.

            I was not suggesting that we adopt the AW609, as you say it is far too small. I merely mentioned it to highlight that tiltrotor technology exists in Europe. As such if we are developing a medium lift helicopter why not develop a medium lift tiltrotor instead?

            Cheers CR

          • Morning CR,

            Blimey your up early!

            I agree it would be great idea to get a European version of a medium tiltrotor
            We could look at a military version of Italy’s Leonardo Next-Generation Civil Tiltrotor which holds up to 25 people

            We have technology as you said and to be honest I would prefer a European version than leaning towards the USAs V22 Osprey

            Cant wait to see some more detailed information appear on the project

            Cheers

            John

        • But requirements do change, as threats and technology change. If we thought like that we would still be flying round in updated Seakings.

          • Hi Robert,

            You of course correct. However, I believe that the Merlin still has plenty of legs left it yet in terms of overall capability.

            As I understand it, it has two issues; cost and maintenance. Developing a Super Merlin, if you like, would be a sensible way to build some additional capability (via more engine power) whilst still reducing complexity on the aircraft.

            Given the inevitable delays and political wrangling that will joint European programme will run into I would suggest that any new aircraft might arrive time to replace a life ex’ed Super Merlin fleet. Sadly.

            Cheers CR

    • Exactly Paul.
      This programme will be used as an excuse for “salad today steak tomorrow. I’d prefer we just get on and have enough Merlins now . Especially ASW/ Crowsnest variants for RN. Desperately short of those.
      I dont mind a contributory programme with our “friends and allies” in the EU but we have to be much much much much much (hugely more) savvy about technological transfer and stealing tech and design (France) and once design completed under ordering (Germany) that then leads to unit price shooting up.
      The recent history of EU nation collaborative defence programmes is littered with wasted opportunities and some seriously bad partnership behavioural activities that have destroyed trust and undermined the success of programmes like this in the past.
      I think get a firm irreversible contractual agreement first signed in blood, that funds for the programme are paid upfront and on time and unit numbers once research part of programme is completed are fixed alongside unit price so no sneaking out of partnership commitments (Germany and France). If we can pin those issues down with due diligence and foresight then yeah this sounds like a good programme to be involved in.

      • Hi Mister Bell, On collaborative programmes ….I think a few might be on the horizon.

        I agree that the French (or maybe just Dassault!) are very difficult industrial partners, although good engineers. But unlike the UK, the French government does have the balls to see a project through to its completion. Conversely, UK defence procurement is littered with cancellations …. and loss of nerve.

        And to speak-up for the Germans again this week (!), in Tornado and Typhoon, Germany (and Italy) have been stalwart defence partners of the UK for fifty years – and produced world-class products. Indeed, Germany will now order more Typhoons than the UK ……….

        On a new 6th Gen fighter (we’re calling it Tempest), whatever the reservations about collaborating with Dassault, such will be the costs, that I suspect economies of scale may necessitate the UK and France (and Italy/Germany) to join forces on the new jet.

        Since the halcyon days of Mirage III/or F1, Dassault’s offerings on the export market have progressively sold less, and if France wants to keep an independent combat jet capability at an affordable cost, I suspect the French government may now be ready to rein in its tendency for industrial nationalism.

        • The most reliable recent partner of UK have been Italy

          Tornado(GER+ITA)
          Merlin (Agusta+Westland from 1980’s)
          Typhoon (GER+ITA)
          Tempest(ITA+SWE+?)

        • I wonder if what is happening here is that Airbus helicopters has suggested to Leonardo that Merlin would make a great basis for a new heavy lift helicopter….Enchanteur perhaps?

  6. France, Germany, Greece, Italy and the United Kingdom
    Well we are always sceptical of France but with the others involvement I think it will be a good thing if we can find common ground within the design

    Is it to just replace MERLIN?

    • Well you could say Puma too, Puma has had an update but I think It’s getting on a bit. I also believe that Puma Is not going to be Carrier Operated so a new design could give that option too.

      • The Puma cannot be operated from a ship in anything above sea state 2. The problem is, it has too much top weight carried on a narrow undercarriage. If you look at the marinized Super-Pumas/Cougar, they have their rear under carriage splayed out. But again its only enough so they can land and lift in a moderate seat state 4. This is why you never see a RAF Puma operating from a ship, unless its in a harbour. The RAF will look at a future medium lift helicopter that can operate from a ship, if it retains that capability. It is a major bug bear with JHC that the Puma cannot be used in this way. Puma’s OSD is 2025, which will likely be extended. The Pumas transmission and driveshaft arrangement is very old technology. It has been the cause of a number of accidents and fatalities. The sooner its gets replaced the better.

        I am surprised at this announcement, especially with the close ties Bell and Leonardo have. As I would have expected a Leonardo made version of the V247 Valor if it wins the US Army’s future medium vertical lift program. It is likely to win the contract from the USMC to replace their Hueys, as Boeing/Sikorsky have yet to announce a marinized version of their Defiant. Whereas Bell have already produced a life sized model of a marinized version of their Valor, complete with folding rotors, twisting wing and a different placement of the V tail.

          • As I see it, the RAF should get a few squadrons of Merlins, to replace those it had to give to the RN. Not all future wars will be fought within range of sea-based RN helos (Iraq? Afghan?) and so who would provide the mid/heavy lift, to transport the pongos around? Puma’s at the end of life now and Chinook would sometimes be overkill for certain tasks.
            OK, I know Merlin is heavier than Puma, so some light-lift capability would be lost. But I bet the RAF would still be happy to take the Merlin in place of Puma.
            Merlin would be an excellent CSAR platform, too. Oh – anyone heard of CSAR? It’s the task we depend on other nations for, to rescue our downed pilots.
            Also fit the RAF Merlins with the latest digital upgrades, including Link-16 etc. so they can be fully integrated into the battle space.

            Probably lots more stuff as well, but it’s late…

            Cheers!

          • The RAF were kicking and screaming, when they had to hand over the Merlin 3As. This is because the “Danish” versions had a load of extra goodies, such as terrain following radar and the air to air probe. The role the RAF gave them was for combat search and rescue. They no longer have a dedicated aircraft for that role. It has to be done either by a Puma (small cabin, short range) or Chinook (lots of range but very noisy).

            I don’t believe they were too fussed on losing the standard Merlins. They have a propensity of being very maintenance heavy. Its availability in Iraq and Afghan was very poor. For instance. the main forward cockpit windows are bonded to the airframe. In the heat of Iraq, the expansion during the day and the contraction during the cold nights was causing the windows to fracture. The solution was a bit of a by-product. The normal windows are around 1cm thick. These were being replaced with bullet resistant armoured windows that were about 3cm thick. The thicker window was not as effected by the expansion/contraction cycles.

            The issue between the Merlin and Puma is the footprint size. The Merlin has nearly the same footprint as a Chinook. This means it can’t land in the same size clearings as the Puma. The SF lads like this capability, as it means they can land directly in to a compound if needed to. The Puma will have a pair of GMPGs fitted in either door to provide direct support, which is also a bonus. Not a par on the M134s that the Chinook has mind.

          • Sorry that is complete fiction.

            The Danish cabs were only used in the UK for training and were not wargoers for a variety of non standard equipment fits and incompatibility with theatre upgrades (plus the HC3 fleet was large enough to generate deployed cabs).

            The TFR was never fitted for the UK nor was the probe. Nor were they used for CSAR. Joint Pers Recovery as the UK terms it, is a task any rotory platform can and does do.

            The RAF found the Merlin a complete pain in the arse, a maintenance hog with poor availability (something the RN is familiar with for Merlin!), good at taking battlefield damage but a nightmare to repair. The door/ramp layout made fitting guns a nusiance if good access was to be maintained.

            Getting rid of them for more Chinnys was a godsend from the RAF perspective pkus keeping Puma where a smler utility footprint was wanted although that has struggled due to being done on the cheap and the cabs are not far off knackered.

            As so often said, the British Army rides in the best anti-submarine helicopters that money can buy. Merlin was not and is not a good battlefield helicopter – hence the total lack of orders for that.

            Given NH90 is similar, indeed worse – no wonder all are consdiering a clean slate although the dogs dinner that is A400M should give pause for consideration.

            I suspect this is politics, appear still close to EU and maintain some R&D whilst seeing how US programs evolve. Given their kit (AH64/UH60/CH47) works and is battlefield proven – vs green painted corporate helicopters such as AW149 etc. it would be daft to ignore the lessons of history and again take decades to get on their stuff whilst squandering money on political projects in Europe.

            All in all a great shame Hesaltine won in terms of a European alignment for Westland.

          • I guess being earmarked for 28 Sqn’s CSAR was fabrication, as was doing all the training in the Brecon’s and Poland.

            I remember being at Benson when the first Puma 2 arrived from Romania. There was a big fanfare, lots of bigwigs and press. But I was talking with a senior techie NCO. Who said the aircraft was an abortion. The aircraft was going to spend at least 3 weeks being “rectified” as the majority of the new wiring did not conform to the defence standards. He also mention that under the floor of the aircraft was loads of used drill bits and swarf, so everything had to be quality checked.

          • Yes it does support UKSF as you say, but time wise it is the odd one out with a OSD sometime in the mid 20’s, as opposed to Merlin/NH 90 OSD which is some 10-15 years later.
            So, this clearly isn’t aimed at Puma, but more importantly if Puma goes the distance, what is?
            I just wonder if we are going to let this slip away and be left with 3 remaining airframes for our rotary lift capabilities.
            I’m no expert, is it that important size wise if we only have Wildcat/Merlin/Chinook?

          • Yes they do have a pretty extensive range of products, unfortunately I haven’t seen much mentioned- officially about a replacement, which you would have thought the case with only a few years life left in the Pumas!
            Come to think of it, the AAC Gazelles must be in the same position as the Pumas, nothing on that front either I believe. All just a little odd…..

          • I think the Gazelles would be an easy choice if they want something simple and that can replace it today. My choice would be the Airbus H145M (UH-72B). It’s a known quantity as its used for pilot training. The more military variant such as the UH-72B has just a few differences than the civilian version. It is quite a bit bigger than the Gazelle more similar to a Lynx, perhaps that’s what we need is an aircraft that can be a battlefield taxi, liaison and reconnaissance aircraft combined.

          • Cant disagree with that, but like you say, a bit closer in size to Wildcat, so would they consider it-on price perhaps!
            Like I’ve said, its a little odd, here we have something that’s what 10-15 years away, yet we have two airframes almost at the end of their lives, yet not a peep!!!

  7. I’m note sure why some are being negative about this. We will always need to work with others given our budget. MBDA is a prime example, involves the French, and seems to work very well.

    It does seem though that we will need more helos in the short-term given the aspiration to go to 24 escorts. Whether we need more Merlin or Wildcat rather depends on the intended role of the T32. I suspect though that the T32 will not be in service for 10 years as a follow on to T31 so perhaps we are waiting for this new one to be developed.

    • MBDA is a single company. This new project will be at least 4 separate companies all competing to be the lead. Look at A400M pr NH90, financial disasters.

    • “Jas”

      I never bite at this sort of post, but as it was me that raised the concept of CANZUK so I take it you are calling me a racist.

      I believed this Forum was a tad more civilised than to have that sort of post/attitude. I have only ever been polite with my postings and I am certainly not racist. (Jas you know nothing about me or the colour of my skin).

      I hope GEORGE or somebody is moderating this Forum and can take steps to block this person.

  8. And how many years and hundreds of millions will be spent on getting the thing into service?
    It’s a bloody helicopter. No need to reinvent the wheel (or the rotor) but too many experts, too msny countries involved. What could possibly go wrong?

    • ….you are right Bill.

      If only we could stop trying to be too clever, and just use the appropriate level of technology for the job – and in the right numbers. Using all the usual suspects and an un-reformed MoD procurement process is just going to be a money pit again. (why I’m arguing for a new strategic capability organization).

  10. The French have a terrible record on multi national defence projects, they demand design leadership and the bulk of the manufacturing.

    Examples.

    Gazelle/Puma/Lynx helicopterfeal
    Jaguar/AFVG
    Horizon frigate
    Boxer AFV
    FEFA (Eurofighter)

    And others

  11. FFS how to make something really simple very complicated indeed. Leonardo have an up to date line of rotors that can all be built in the U.K. with U.K. IP.

    The US need to find a new Medium rotor as the Black Hawk design dates back almost 50 years.

    Anyway. One of the big wins we could have is that Leonardo have offered the U.K. to move the AW 149 production line to the U.K. if we take it as our new medium lift rotor. This is a new airframe, with its first test flight in 2009.

    its also a very good medium rotor, with a greater lift capacity, troop carrying capacity, range and due to age crash survival.

    finally it would secure our sovereign capability around Military Rotor and give us a very good new export military rotor.

    • The US already has a program to develop two prototypes to replace the Blackhawk and both prototypes are flying and being tested. The US Army expects to pick one for production in 2022.

      • Hi PK, yes, what I was pointing to is that the U.K. actual has access a medium rotor that’s only 10 years off it first test flight. If the US are only just looking at moving to new medium rotor 50 years after the Blackhawk was first designed, the U.K. Government is just throwing cash away on a new programme at this point, we should be setting up our production line and buying the AW149 as is still a new modern airframe.

  13. Great: Another project to create another highly-specific aircraft that costs eleventy-billion pounds and sells twenty airframes.

  15. Have to agree with a lot of the other comments on here in thinking historically it’s often not been a good idea to get into bed with the French on these kinds of projects given that they always wrangle over their own specific requirements and demand a big chunk of the work-share.

    Italy would probably be OK given the existing links through Leonardo and it’s current collaboration on Tempest.

    I don’t see what’s wrong with pursuing new build Merlin’s either seen as it’s a proven and highly capable platform! The American’s are really good at block upgrades of stuff like Black Hawk and Apache so to me a Merlin Mk2 with up to date avionics and engines makes perfect sense.

  16. I seem to remember that France withdrew from the Eurofighter after the other partners refuse to agree to the French demands for all the design work, 60% of the manufacture and the selection of their engine.

    • Hmmm, I think it’s a bad idea, I would steer clear of yet another European bun fight and put money into further development of the Merlin.

      A modern 2 engine development, increased use of composites, a substantially increased all up weight lift capability and greater range.

      Importantly, develop a single common airframe for the Navy and RAF, so airframes can be reconfigured from Maritime attack to troop transport etc as needed.

      • ” I would steer clear of yet another European bun fight and put money into further development of the Merlin.”

        Well Europe will always be involved, it is Leonardo after all, but Italians are artists of political arts, they might get even EU support for it…

        • My point being the further development of Merlin would take place in the UK, as a natural continuation and progression of the current programme.

          Let’s face it, Germany and Frances last transport Helicopter, the NH90 was disastrous, serious problem, piled on top of serious problem …. It’s just coming right now, years late and massively over budget.

          Add to this the mistakes of A400 and I see two bloody good reasons to steer well clear!

          Let’s not squander our new defence money on poorly run European vanity projects, reinventing the wheel Alex….

      • It was certainly one of the issues, the British fought hard for a larger airframe and the French fought hard for a compact carrier capable one, so pulling in opposite directions from the start!

        French intransigence and insistence on design lead, majority build and French engines finished off their involvement in the project.

        Then in the early 1990’s, the Germans got stuck in, threatened to pull out of Eurofighter, insisted on a project pause while they looked at ways of cheapening the design, all ultimately fruitless, but the delay, coupled with German late payments and general feet dragging, pushed up the price of the aircraft again and again….

        So another good historical reason to steer clear of France and Germany on a new MH project!

        Re an advanced Merlin, if a single marinised airframe design could be used, the UK alone could order up to 90 aircraft as Puma and current generation Merlin replacements across the RN and RAF.

        It really does seem like a no brainer…..

  17. Another point i think the tile of this piece misses that might be possible that the solution to this issue might not be an helicopter.

    • I’d say most of the comments are missing this point too. Merlin isn’t going to cut it, as a platform to serve for the next 30-40 years from the mid-2030’s.

      The US Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) program is clearly demonstrating capabilities well beyond anything offered by Airbus or Leonardo to the military market, so both need to offer something competitive to European militaries and foreign customers in that 2035-40 time-frame if not earlier. Earlier would seem to be better for the UK if it wants options versus FLRAA, the UK has already expressed interest in FLRAA and FARA programs in an agreement with the US earlier this year.

      From the FLRAA program, currently the tilt-rotor V-280 Valor seems to be the most promising and the closest to meeting both the US Army and USMC requirements; performance that European militaries might well wish to replicate, especially for marine operations. The more conventional helicopter oriented SB-1 Defiant design probably has the speed, but the range seems to be an open question.

      Like many I have reservations about these multi-national endeavours, but this program is critical to Airbus (France & Germany), to Leonardo (Italy) and for the UK it offers a path to keeping Leonardo Yeovil in the game. So then “its just” coalescing around the specs, including avoiding over-reaching, and work share.

      No problem then!

      • I totally agree, if you want more of the same re-develop the Merlin airframe. However, if you want something to compete with Osprey, Valor or the Defiant then the European manufacturers will have to seriously up their game. The reason I included the Osprey, is that the Merlin is about equivalent to it in size and capacity. Whereas the Defiant and Valor are direct Blackhawk replacements, so Puma sized.

        In this respect Airbus has the lead in future helicopter development with their X3 compound helicopter. The only prototype Leonardo have produced is the all electric project zero. The AW609 is old technology, as it uses the same tiltrotor methodology that Osprey uses, i.e. it tilts the whole engine, gearbox and rotor assembly, so the exhaust is only a few feet off the ground when in helicopter mode, causing massive issues with FOD ingestion. Unlike the Valor, where the engine and reduction gearbox stays fixed and just the rotor hub assembly rotates.

        It would be relatively easy to redevelop the Merlin. Slap on a pair of T55-714s and you are already are making more power than the three RTMs. This has always been an issue for the UK. RR simply don’t have an engine of the size that can compete with the Honeywell T55-714 that produces 4800shp, let alone the GE T64 series and the newer T34 that produces 7500shp. They have since acquired Allison and now have the Osprey’s T406 engine that produces over 6000shp.

        The Merlin does have a trick up its sleeve though, in that it can shut down one of the engines in flight, to save on fuel. The problem though is that even with a engine power boost and new Berp blades to use it, with the best will in the World it will still max out below 200kts. and probably have a top cruise speed of only 170kts. This is way below the Defiants 230+kts, let alone the Valor’s 300kts, whose top speed is estimated to be closer to 350kts

        The main issue is that you have the main rotor doing three jobs: 1 = provide lift, 2 = providing thrust and 3 = providing directional control. Because the main rotor has to do all three jobs not forgetting the parasite on the tail, it becomes severely compromised, I could give a dissertation on the aerodynamics of the rotor hub, tail rotor and blade interaction. A single main rotor is too inefficient and restrictive, which is why Sikorsky went with a contra-rotating pair along with a gigantic pusher propeller and Bell use the tilt rotor. Airbus however, use the compound technique. This is where the main rotor provides all the lift in the hover, some thrust, along with pitch and roll control. The yaw control is provided by differential thrust from its two tractor propellers. Once it gets above 40kts (ish), the two tractor propellers take over providing the majority of thrust. As the aircraft goes faster, the main rotor disc’s collective pitch is reduced as the small wings start to offset the generation of lift. As it goes faster still, the wings generate significantly more lift, so the collective pitch is reduced to a finer pitch. But to increase the speed, they also drop the main rotor speed to 80%, thereby reducing the blade tips airflow speed and preventing it from going supersonic, thus destroying lift and creating drag. These factors combine to give it a top speed of 255kts (472kph. 293mph) in level flight. The aircraft still uses its main rotor for pitch and roll control. Not bad for what is essentially a Dauphin airframe with a set of wings added to it. To make it go faster you would have to reduce the main rotor speed even further, ideally by removing all applied engine power. Thereby allowing the main rotor to spin at the local airspeed turning it into an autogyro.

        Can this technique be scaled up to a Merlin sized aircraft, yes, Fairey did it some 70 years ago with the Rotodyne!

        • Excellent comments. You’ve made the point before but most commenters probably don’t appreciate how much larger Merlin is than other “medium” class helicopters.

          For the European manufacturers its also not just about medium class vertical lift. If they ever want to compete against Chinook, CH-53 and especially a likely Osprey replacement targeted at heavy lift, then they need to be thinking about how they might leverage their medium platform technology for a solution in the 2040-2050’s.

      • Yes, a tilt-rotor would be better for carrier type ops. It has three main advantages over a helicopter, speed, range and operating altitude.

        If you compare the speeds of a helicopter such as the Boeing/Sikorsky Defiant to the Bell V-280 Valor tilt-rotor. You will see a massive top speed difference. The Valor has hit 300mph, whilst the Defiant hit 235mph. Bell say the top speed could be as high as 350mph, whilst Sikorsky are aiming for close to 290mph. Bell have said that they are planning on a max all up weight cruise speed of 280mph. Sikorsky have stated they are aiming for a cruise speed of around 250, but haven’t stated against an aircraft weight. Even so, these speeds are significantly faster than any standard production helicopter.

        The other major benefit is because of its faster cruise speed, it means it could be refuelled by more varieties of aircraft, including the large jets rather than just a Hercules for example.

        However, the tilt-rotor because it has a large wing, has the benefit of developing more lift the faster it goes. Which also means it can fly higher. The major downside is that a tilt-rotor is mechanically more complex, especially if you add wing and blade folding. Conversely the contra-rotating blades of the Defiant will hit blade stall and tip drag problems the faster it goes, thus limiting its ultimate top speed.

        For a carrier that can only fly STOVL or VTOL aircraft. The Tilt-rotor will help massively increase the carriers capabilities and flexibility. Carrier on board deliveries can be conducted further from land. The aircraft can fulfil the role as an airborne tanker as its cruise speed will still be a lot higher than the stall speed of an F35 (not saying the Valor could, as it’s a bit on the small side). As an AEW and command and control aircraft. The additional operating altitude over a helicopter will allow the radar horizon to be pushed out further. For commando assaults the higher top speed means less transit time. Thus giving your adversary less time to react. For anti-surface strikes, the additional range allows you to plan the strike with more variables, such as converging from lots of different directions.

        But I also believe the aircraft will be particularly suited to anti-submarine warfare. This is due to its combined dash speed and range (duration). The Valor in particular has been designed with the lessons learnt from operating the V22 Osprey. For starters the main wing and prop-rotors have been designed for the aircraft’s predicted growth max all up weight. This means the disc loading is significantly less than the Ospreys. Which had a design constraint placed on it. Whereby it had to have the ability to taxi past the island on a Wasp class with a set miss distance. This meant the wing and prop-rotors are shorter than required. Which increased the rotor rpm and blade design, thus increasing the disc loading to counter the aircraft’s weight.

        • Quite so. Shame we’re still going with what is an emergency 1980’s fix upgrade. Seems like however we try, our planners & decision makers are hell bent on sending us to war only half equipped.

  18. I never understood why Britain sucks up to the French and please them despite them treating Britain impolite in every project . Britain can build its own Heli and export it . They have enough other allies. Besides EU states only invite Britain to a project when they benefit the most only . Example next 6th generation jet no invite for Britain lol Greece part of a project? Haha

  19. Morning 5am in Durban.

    It would be nice for starters if the UK could re-acquire some shareholding in Leonardo. We remain vulnerable by having no clout in companies that have facilities and that manufacture in the UK. These include Airbus,JLR and others. If we are to flex our new found ‘independence’ muscle, then reversing the effects of decades in selling off the family silver is an essential step. Without this,we are hugely vulnerable to decisions made by foreign owners ‘a la’ Cadburys for example. I also agree with much of the general comment here regarding new vs upgrades of proven designs, in favour of the latter. The Americans are the masters of this-B52,C130 Hercules, the 1970’s fighters-F16, F15 still going strong. A five nation effort will give the classic ‘design by committee result’-to be avoided especially if it includes France(some of my best friends though are French)

    • The helicopter development know-how is in Italy and all commercial/technical connections all over world. The UK side is an important auxiliary but it is not the root. The fragility of Westland-GKN that made it being bought needs to be understood. The company would have ended.
      The only helicopter developed by Great Britain in last 40 years was the Lynx plus the Merlin with said Italians. That is not a sign of an healthy industry.
      While Westland was comfy in their cornered market for Royal Navy and building licensed products for the Army, Agusta was designing thousands of corporate, rescue, transport helicopters for all world, they also started with licensed products but shifted to in house design. They are still building the A-109 from almost 50 years ago and the design still looks modern. That is a worldwide experience and dimension that Westland side never since it choose to be stuck only on military side.

    • Fascinating article-thanks Paul. As a boy I remember Fairey of course, for the Delta. They were in retrospect an under-rated company and confirm the general opinion that we were brilliant engineers-world leaders in design and innovation but poor marketers and hampered by succesive governments that had neither confidence nor faith in our abilities to produce the best

        • Autogyro was only one of its flight modes. It could take off an land like a helicopter and relied a lot on wing lift in fast forward flight. It was a lot faster than a helicopter, had an impressive range and payload.

          From the article:
          Technical data for Fairey Rotodyne (civil production version)
          Main rotor diameter: 31.7m, wingspan: 17.22m, fuselage length:19.66m, height: 7.06m, internal cabin length: 15.24m, passenger/baggage payload: 5897kg, cargo payload: 8392kg, loaded weight: 24267kg, cruising speed: 322km/h, max range:1046km, range with 57 passengers and baggage: 402km

          50 year old British technology which puts Osprey V22 in the shade …..
          Think what we could make with modern engines and the sort of software capabilities which control 4gen fly by wire and 5th F-35….

          • For more information. If you can find a copy, try getting “Fairey Rotodyne” by David Gibbings. ISBN 978-0-7524-4916-6

            It tells you the history of the Rotodyne from concept, through prototyping and finally the cancellation. There are accounts from test pilots on how benign it flew when transitioning from hover to forward flight and back again. Crucially it discusses the purported issues over noise. Yes it was noisy, but not a lot noisier than other jet aircraft of the time. After Fairey were taken over by Westlands, they came up with a new design of tip jet and noise suppressor. It was found that during testing it significantly dropped the generated noise. But came too late to sway the minds of the politicians.

            The Army/RAF were only just realising the benefits a helicopter gives for offensive and defensive mobility. If they had more modern views on how the Rotodyne could be used, perhaps it could have been saved. Fairey were going to make the production Z version slightly bigger and in two flavours, a civilian regional airliner and military transport. The military one was going to have a beaver tail ramp instead of a clamsheel door. To think that this aircraft was bigger than a Chinook and had the same payload as an early Chinook, but in the 1950’s, only with hindsight can we see the golden opportunity that this aircraft could have given the UK.

          • Thx for the book reference.? Also worth mentioning how much composites technology has moved on as well as the application of computing power to noise and vibration management. Fascinating story all round.

          • Yes, just the difference in rotor blade design between then and now, would see a massive increase in performance. The Rotordyne used thin metal blades. These today would be a lot wider with a more efficient profile. They could be a lot shorter, if we upped the blade count. If the rotor hub was connected to the top deck by dampers, just like the Merlin, you could use active control to minimise the induced vibration. A new main wing would also help using a modern profile. But I would also include a longer twisting and folding wing extension past the engine. This would during a hover rotate vertically to minimise the obstruction of air being pushed down from the main rotor. But it would also fold back when parked. The wing extension would be crucial to providing more lift, thereby raising the operating altitude.

            I believe the convertiplane is a better compromise than a tilt-rotor. It is definitely less mechanically complicated. The prop-rotors on a tilt-rotor have to compromise their profile ass they have to perform in both a helicopter mode and a propeller mode. In the convertiplane, you have one main rotor, with the blade profile shaped for vertical lift and the option of propellers, ducted fans or turbofans for the thrust. So both can be optimised for the function they have to do.

          • It is not like other countries could not do something similar after it if was so good. But they didn’t.
            So most have been a reason or reasons.

        • The main reason it was binned was the perceived noise issue and lack of forward thinking by the then ministry of supply. Aerodynamically the aircraft was leagues ahead of anything until the XV15 and Osprey program.

      • Yes, looking back I see our post war engineering brilliance as being marred by a political ‘cancel’ culture which was dominated by despair at our national debt and dependence on the US. Perhaps our membership of the EU will be seen in historical perspective as a stepping stone back to being a confident and self sufficient nation. That said of course, no man is an island.
        Attitudes are changing. We built the carriers; Type 26 is a success story; T31 is becoming reality; we rebuilt the skills to build the Astutes. Boris is thinking confidently on defence funding and infrastructure. We are making an increasing number of sensible pragmatic decisions like P8, Boxer.
        And the UK manufacturing sector is much larger and healthier than is commonly presented. Our science, engineering and design is well respected by foreign friends and competitors. The challenge is to make it so esteemed here at home!
        Was speaking recently to a final year Oxbridge Physics undergraduate asking about his career plans. He was going for a job in the City. Says it all.

        • Exactly Paul.P.

          IMO the worst part of it is, not the buying of a foreign-owned company’s product, but the cumulative affect that then has on UK innovation and manufacture. Once that expertise is lost it is gone forever or has to be built up from scratch. Virtually every defence-related industry is suffering from this in the UK.

          far better to have small batch or continuous UK design and production of certain critical items. Any £expenditure is retained within the wider UK economy and not our the front door to other countries.

          Our politicians need a bit of vision and long-term strategy.

    • Paul.P…….with modern engines, materials & computers could this be the answer to our AEW requirements ………better looking too

  22. Inevitably multinational programs take longer as more decision makers take part, ask anyone who has worked on design and production of the A400M, Tornado and Typhoon. This lengthen timescales which causes further problems as the individual nations realise they cannot afford the outturn cost estimates which change as the optimistic costing at the time of signature of the agreement fade into away. The orders are cut back and/or development and production are slowed ending in a crisis when nations decided they don’t want the numbers to make the project break even (A400M) Given where we are today its difficult to see what this new helicopter will be when compared to Merlin except perhaps a two engine version so why not re work the Merlin ( a la Wildcat). UK industry would receive far more workshare and the opportunity for radial re-engineering must be attractive to our current Merlin operators and industry..

  23. Logically Leonardo should have the medium helo market cornered: the S-92 and Caracel / super pumas all have terrible safety records, and Airbus helicopters delivery record (tigre and NH90) is awful. But as is often the case protectionism comes into play reducing the market. Is Yeovil sustainable making 12-18 units a year? Is it an industry where Britain can keep / needs a qualitative edge ?

    My heart says yes, my head says perhaps not…..

  24. Will the French do what they normally do? Study all the proposals, data, designs and concepts and then Foxtrot Oscar on their own and leave the project?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here