Third supplementary memorandum from the
Ministry of Defence
1. What was the competition referred to by CDM
in his response to Q242? What was the requirement and what criteria
were used? Did it include new-build helicopters? [Q242]
1.1 As Eurocopter are the Original Equipment
Manufacturer (OEM) of Puma and Eurocopter had conducted a very
similar programme for the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the approved
procurement strategy for the Puma Life Extension Programme (LEP)
was a sole source contract with Eurocopter. The Department did,
however, "market test" the Navigation and Communications
solution for the Puma LEP and, as a result, this work also went
to Eurocopter.
1.2 The Department examined a range of options
to sustain the medium lift capability provided by the Puma Mk1
fleet, including procurement of new-build helicopters. Against
the criteria of programme delivery, technical risk, affordability
and value for money, the conclusion was that the best route to
meeting the capability was to invest in the existing platforms
with the OEM to extend their life.
2. Dr Tyler said that the Puma LEP was going very
well. Against what criteria? [Q243]
2.1 The programme is performing well against
the contract schedule. The first aircraft was inducted into the
programme on schedule on 1 October and contract milestones due
to date have been met on time.
3. Why does Dr Tyler consider that the Puma LEP
has low technical risk and that the Puma is a known quantity,
given that experience has shown that new engines, new avionics
and other unique equipment never make for low risk, and that the
Puma Mk2 will be a unique helicopter? [Qq244 and 247]
3.1 Eurocopter has previously undertaken similar
modifications to those in the Puma LEP for other operators; notably
the airframe, engine installation and Navigation/Communication
suite. The changes that we are planning to make to UK Puma aircraft
are substantially the same (~75% common) as a Puma upgrade programme
that was successfully prosecuted for the UAE. The features specific
to the RAF platform are largely those associated with achieving
the UK Theatre Entry Standard and ensuring interoperability with
international partners.
4. How does CDM's comment that there is nothing
wrong with the Puma aircraft reconcile with the Dixon/Moss report
on crashworthiness? [Q246]
4.1 The stability and general crashworthiness
of the current RAF Puma is comparable with similar medium helicopter
types in-service with other countries around the world. The introduction
of modern avionics, a Digital Automatic Flight Control System
and enhanced engines of the Puma HC Mk2 all improve the intrinsic
safety of the platform.
4.2 The Dixon report undertaken after recent
Puma accidents concludes that Human Factors (Aircrew) issues predominate
with notable contributory causes being the potential distractions
of a busy operational mission, whilst operating the aircraft close
to its performance margins, and the handling characteristics of
the aircraft. The hazards associated with these handling characteristics
are mitigated on the Puma HC Mk1 through training.
4.3 The introduction of more powerful and responsive
engines, a modern avionics suite (including Digital Automatic
Flight Control System) and expected lower Centre of Gravity will
further help improve the handling characteristics and reduce aircrew
workload on the Puma HC Mk2.
5. Can the CDM provide further information to
support his comment that you can get more helicopters into operation
quicker by going down the Puma LEP route than by buying new helicopters?
[Q248]
5.1 To procure new helicopters with an equivalent
level of capability as offered by the Puma LEP would have required
an additional £500 million-£800 million over the next
four years. This additional funding could not be found without
detrimental effects elsewhere across the Defence Programme.
5.2 Within the current funding profile assigned
to the sustainment of the Puma and Sea King Mk4 and the delivery
of the Future Medium Helicopter project, we could only afford
to buy a maximum of seven new helicopters by the end of 2012,
with up to 18 helicopters delivered by mid-2015. This approach
would create a substantial gap in lift helicopter numbers from
2012 until at least 2017 that, at its worst would reduce support
helicopter Forward Fleet numbers by up to 40%. Such a shortfall
would reduce the numbers of support helicopters we could deploy
on operations from 2013 for at least five years and would create
a significant shortfall against the current requirement in Afghanistan.
5.3 We concluded, therefore, that within available
resources we needed to sustain either the Puma or the Sea King
Mk4 if we were to avoid an unacceptable impact on operations.
Of these two types, the Puma LEP will deliver a much more capable
aircraft with significantly improved performance. We now plan
to retire all marks of Sea King during 2016 and the planned investment
in the Sea King Mk4 has been substantially curtailed.
6. Can the CDM explain the numbers he quoted in
response to Q250—where does the figure 44 come from? Does
this figure include Sea King Mk4? How will Puma be replaced and
by when? [Q250]
6.1 To clarify, it was the view of AgustaWestland
that 44 new Merlin helicopters could, when operated alongside
our existing fleet of helicopters, deliver the same operational
effect as the current Sea King Mk4 and Puma fleets. Our analysis
suggested that 49 new Merlin would be required to meet Defence
Outputs.
6.2 As part of the Rotary Wing Strategy announced
on 15 December 2009 we anticipate replacing Puma with a niche
fleet of small medium helicopters aimed specifically at troop
insertion and extraction in confined urban environments for which
larger helicopters such as Chinook and Merlin are not well suited.
7. Which has greater lift, the Merlin or the Puma?
[Q251]
7.1 A single comparison of the performance of
different aircraft types is not possible as they respond differently
to variations in altitude and temperature. We do however employ
a methodology devised by the National Audit Office in 2004 (termed
a Capability Equivalence Exchange Ratio, CEXR) to describe the
relative performance of aircraft types against standard reference
missions.
7.2 This approach shows that Chinook is the
most able lift helicopter that we operate, being able to lift
two and three times more than either the Merlin or Puma. It is
for this reason that our new strategy focuses our investments
towards buying new Chinook helicopters. It also shows that for
maritime operations the Merlin has about twice the lift capability
of our current Puma fleet and offers slightly better performance
than the upgraded Puma—this is why we want to focus our
investment in Merlin on delivering our maritime requirement. Analysis
also indicates that the upgraded Puma will exhibit particularly
strong lift performance in the higher temperatures and altitudes
in environments such as Afghanistan.
7.3 Furthermore, Puma is physically smaller
and its rotor disc generates a lower downwash, making it much
better suited for operations in urban environments than both Chinook
and Merlin. Our current and planned investments in Chinook, Merlin
and Puma is therefore focused on building solutions that are well
matched to the different tasks we require of our lift helicopters;
it also helps ensure we sustain the required levels of capability.
14 January 2010
| 
