Can Pakistan collaborate with Turkey in helicopter production?


Foreword: This is not a news story, but a piece for discussion. The details offered in this article are not authoritative pieces of information, but rather, opinions of the author.

In September, Turkish Aerospace Industries’ (TAI) General Manager Temel Kotil announced that TAI is in the process of developing new aircraft, among them a 10-ton general purpose helicopter to complement the T625 6-ton utility helicopter, which is expected to see its maiden test flight in September 2018. Shortly after unveiling the T625, TAI envisaged building a transport helicopter family comprising of original designs.

In parallel, the company is also engaged in the Turkish Utility Helicopter Program (TUHP), which involves the local licensed production of the S-70i Black Hawk. Under the T-70 designation, TAI also acquired rights to export the T-70 to third-party customers. However, with a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of 10 tons, TAI’s new program would basically duplicate the core dimensions, capabilities and roles of the T-70.

Though the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) and Pakistan Army procured a number of Leonardo AW139 utility helicopters for search-and-rescue (SAR) missions (the aviation journalist Alan Warnes reported that Pakistan selected the AW139 over the S-70), the AW139 is a 6-7 ton design. It is not a directly analogous solution for supplanting the Army’s 7+ ton Puma or the Pakistan Navy’s 9-10-ton Sea King helicopters.

It does not appear that either has a successor on the immediate roadmap. In fact, the Pakistan Navy is reinforcing its Sea King fleet with three additional flying aircraft and upgrades, which include the Leonardo SeaSpray 5000-series active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radars (IHS Jane’s). However, as these are aging platforms the cost-effectiveness of flying them will gradually diminish as fewer centres are available to rebuild them and newer engines and platforms become more ubiquitous.

TAI’s 10-ton utility helicopter program can offer Pakistan an opportunity to stage a long-term solution to supplant the Puma and Sea King helicopters. The principal avenue for engaging would be through Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC), which is already assuming helicopter-support work, such as a maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) site for Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6 turboshaft and turboprop engines and – if negotiations with TAI come to fruition – production of parts for the T129 attack helicopter. It would also reinforce the Kamra Aviation City initiative, which aims to significantly expand Pakistan’s aircraft manufacturing and aviation services base over the long-term.

For PAC, participating in the TAI program would not be for its own sake, but to produce a solution that supports the domestic industry, is accessible for customization (in terms of subsystems and weapons), and free of end-user restrictions in terms of use and deployment. In effect, it would be the same rationale as that of the PAF and Project Azm, which aims to free – or greatly minimize – Pakistan’s dependence on foreign suppliers for next-generation combat aircraft.

Flight International’s World Air Forces (2017) estimates that the Pakistan’s Army and Navy are operating 45 Puma and six Sea King helicopters (not including the additional batch being prepared by U.K.-based Vector Aerospace), respectively. Replacing them on a one-to-one basis with analogous aircraft available on the market, especially from the West, could incur a significant cost. For reference, a 2015 deal for nine UH-60M for Saudi Arabia had a price (including support) of $495 million U.S. – i.e. $55 million. The AW101 from Leonardo, which is generally marketed as a Sea King successor, has a markedly higher price. In effect, importing such solutions from the West is infeasible for Pakistan. Instead, Pakistan could aim to channel the large-scale investment for new utility or multi-role helicopters to its local economy.

In August 2016, Quwa had discussed the ingredients necessary for setting up the production of helicopters in Pakistan. In this article, the Navy and Army’s respective requirements were amalgamated into a single requirement (so as to justify scale), but in reality, a standard platform is difficult to materialize.

The Navy and Army manage distinct operational realities. For example, the Navy requires airframes that have a high level of resistance to corrosion. Moreover, these may need to be equipped with relatively sophisticated self-protection suites to guard against anti-air warfare (AAW) threats, the Sea Kings are capable of firing anti-ship missiles (AShM). However, the Army has a spectrum of needs which range from relatively thinly-equipped helicopters for purely transport and logistics to versions with countermeasures suites and/or armaments for combat SAR (CSAR) and special operations forces (SOF) missions.

Ultimately, Pakistan can only engage TAI if the respective headquarters of each service arm (PAF included) agree to a platform. In effect, the core design would need to meet the needs of each arm, and the specific characteristics of one branch can add to the cost of the whole program (e.g. corrosion-resistance). It must be noted that TAI itself has the T-70 to position for defence requirements, so it is unclear if this domestic design would be steered to complex requirements. Rather, TAI itself may have the incentive to keep the design as simple as possible so as to make it attractive to commercial and cost-sensitive defence users.

There is certainly an element of risk in partnering on a new development, especially in aviation and with a new entrant in the helicopter design and development space (i.e. TAI). Moreover, PAC would enter with even less experience (if any) to bring to the table. However, Pakistan can leverage its domestic market to help generate secured scale for TAI’s helicopter, whilst partnership funding can lighten the overhead on TAI. It would be premature to say that this would be the cheaper alternative from a budget or fiscal view, but the costs incurred in the production of these helicopters would be spent in Pakistan. The helicopter program would serve as a stimulus in the economy instead of an exit of foreign currency.

This is certainly not the perfect opportunity, but it may be a valuable one provided Pakistan can identify enough overlap between TAI’s design and its domestic military – and possibly even civil services – needs. The TAI program being in its infancy (if not less developed) bodes well for the situation seeing that Pakistan itself is in no apparent rush to replace the Sea King or Puma. Besides fulfilling future requirements through expenditure in domestic industries, the program might also broach the global aviation market, thereby opening Pakistan to engage in production for customers in third-party states.





Source link

176 Comments
  1. April 24, 2018 | Reply
  2. May 23, 2018 | Reply
  3. June 8, 2018 | Reply
  4. June 9, 2018 | Reply
  5. June 9, 2018 | Reply
  6. June 10, 2018 | Reply
  7. June 11, 2018 | Reply
  8. June 11, 2018 | Reply
  9. June 12, 2018 | Reply
  10. June 12, 2018 | Reply
  11. June 12, 2018 | Reply
  12. June 14, 2018 | Reply
  13. June 18, 2018 | Reply
  14. June 19, 2018 | Reply
  15. June 19, 2018 | Reply
  16. June 21, 2018 | Reply
  17. June 23, 2018 | Reply
  18. June 23, 2018 | Reply
  19. June 26, 2018 | Reply
  20. June 27, 2018 | Reply
  21. June 27, 2018 | Reply
  22. June 27, 2018 | Reply
  23. June 28, 2018 | Reply
  24. June 28, 2018 | Reply
  25. June 28, 2018 | Reply
  26. June 28, 2018 | Reply
  27. June 28, 2018 | Reply
  28. June 28, 2018 | Reply
  29. June 28, 2018 | Reply
  30. June 29, 2018 | Reply
  31. June 29, 2018 | Reply
  32. June 30, 2018 | Reply
  33. June 30, 2018 | Reply
  34. July 1, 2018 | Reply
  35. July 1, 2018 | Reply
  36. July 1, 2018 | Reply
  37. July 1, 2018 | Reply
  38. July 1, 2018 | Reply
  39. July 2, 2018 | Reply
  40. July 2, 2018 | Reply
  41. July 2, 2018 | Reply
  42. July 2, 2018 | Reply
  43. July 2, 2018 | Reply
  44. July 2, 2018 | Reply
  45. July 2, 2018 | Reply
  46. July 3, 2018 | Reply
  47. July 3, 2018 | Reply
  48. July 3, 2018 | Reply
  49. July 3, 2018 | Reply
  50. July 3, 2018 | Reply
  51. July 3, 2018 | Reply
  52. July 4, 2018 | Reply
  53. July 5, 2018 | Reply
  54. July 5, 2018 | Reply
  55. July 6, 2018 | Reply
  56. July 6, 2018 | Reply
  57. July 6, 2018 | Reply
  58. July 6, 2018 | Reply
  59. July 6, 2018 | Reply
  60. July 6, 2018 | Reply
  61. July 6, 2018 | Reply
  62. July 7, 2018 | Reply
  63. July 7, 2018 | Reply
  64. July 7, 2018 | Reply
  65. July 7, 2018 | Reply
  66. July 7, 2018 | Reply
  67. July 7, 2018 | Reply
  68. July 7, 2018 | Reply
  69. July 8, 2018 | Reply
  70. July 9, 2018 | Reply
  71. July 9, 2018 | Reply
  72. July 9, 2018 | Reply
  73. July 10, 2018 | Reply
  74. July 10, 2018 | Reply
  75. July 10, 2018 | Reply
  76. July 10, 2018 | Reply
  77. July 10, 2018 | Reply
  78. July 10, 2018 | Reply
  79. July 11, 2018 | Reply
  80. July 11, 2018 | Reply
  81. July 11, 2018 | Reply
  82. July 11, 2018 | Reply
  83. July 11, 2018 | Reply
  84. July 12, 2018 | Reply
  85. July 12, 2018 | Reply
  86. July 12, 2018 | Reply
  87. July 13, 2018 | Reply
  88. July 13, 2018 | Reply
  89. July 13, 2018 | Reply
  90. July 13, 2018 | Reply
  91. July 13, 2018 | Reply
  92. July 13, 2018 | Reply
  93. July 13, 2018 | Reply
  94. July 14, 2018 | Reply
  95. July 14, 2018 | Reply
  96. July 14, 2018 | Reply
  97. July 14, 2018 | Reply
  98. July 14, 2018 | Reply
  99. July 15, 2018 | Reply
  100. July 15, 2018 | Reply
  101. July 15, 2018 | Reply
  102. July 16, 2018 | Reply
  103. July 16, 2018 | Reply
  104. July 16, 2018 | Reply
  105. July 16, 2018 | Reply
  106. July 16, 2018 | Reply
  107. July 16, 2018 | Reply
  108. July 16, 2018 | Reply
  109. July 16, 2018 | Reply
  110. July 16, 2018 | Reply
  111. July 17, 2018 | Reply
  112. July 17, 2018 | Reply
  113. July 17, 2018 | Reply
  114. July 17, 2018 | Reply
  115. July 18, 2018 | Reply
  116. July 18, 2018 | Reply
  117. July 18, 2018 | Reply
  118. July 18, 2018 | Reply
  119. July 18, 2018 | Reply
  120. July 18, 2018 | Reply
  121. July 18, 2018 | Reply
  122. July 18, 2018 | Reply
  123. July 19, 2018 | Reply
  124. July 19, 2018 | Reply
  125. July 19, 2018 | Reply
  126. July 19, 2018 | Reply
  127. July 19, 2018 | Reply
  128. July 19, 2018 | Reply
  129. July 20, 2018 | Reply
  130. July 20, 2018 | Reply
  131. July 20, 2018 | Reply

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: