Jump to content

Norway dumps NH-90, wants it's money back


Slater

Recommended Posts

How on Earth has the SEAhawk managed to be without flotation gear?

 

I wonder how many the USN and other users (15 air arms according to Wiki) have lost in the drink and how many crew have perished as a result of them sinking very quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wellsprop said:

 

Easily, Wildcat is a small heli, 13.5 m (nose to tail rotor blades) with the rotors folded, nh90 is 13.6 m folded. 

 

 

Seahawk is 12.5 m folded. Like I've said before however, the Seahawk has no flotation gear, if you end up in the water, your day is going to be a whole lot worse in a Seahawk than a Wildcat... 

Hah youve been geeking 😂I popped in to flight test today ....useful chats with one of your bus drivers 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HeliOps recently had a planning application approved in principle for a new hangar.  In the planning committee meeting one of the local councillors apparently said “I understand HeliOps may be replacing their existing Sea King Mark 41s with a new aircraft, the Sea Lion. We are concerned that their proposal for a new maintenance hangar will require engines to be tested on the ground resulting in more noise and pollution.”

 

I may perhaps have inadvertently made it seem more definite than that.

 

According to Jane's, Germany has just taken delivery of their 13th aircraft from 18 ordered.  This is the first in Step 2 configuration, with plans to upgrade airframes 1-12.  No1 goes back to late 2019 and operations only commenced in June 2020.  So they are essentially new aircraft.  The Sea Lion is the new SAR and transport aircraft and will only go to sea on Berlin class auxiliaries.  The Lynx replacement for warships will be a different variant, Sea Tiger.  But earlier in the year Germany criticised low availability rates across all of its NHI helicopters.  Apparently there are 9 current configurations across the 4 aircraft types and NHI are taking up to a year per airframe to complete configuration harmonisations.  That may be 10 with the arrival of Sea Dragon Step 2.  They are said to have very time-consuming inspection and maintenance systems and the multiple configurations lead to spare parts incompatibility and maintenance differences.

 

One wonders if they might perhaps have decided to standardise on the Sea Tiger for afloat operations.  That might have thrown up 2 surplus Sea Lions.  Or just revised their need.  But with low serviceability you would think that more would be needed, not less.  But it seems that Germany is becoming another disgruntled NH90 user.

 

 

 

Edited by Das Abteilung
Saved too soon!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Filler said:

How on Earth has the SEAhawk managed to be without flotation gear?

 

I wonder how many the USN and other users (15 air arms according to Wiki) have lost in the drink and how many crew have perished as a result of them sinking very quickly.

 

The Australian navy (RAN) has been operating Seahawk variants since 1988, in both S-70B-2 & SH-60R modes. It has recently ordered a further 13 airframes. Once delivered, that’ll bring their fleet to 36 Romeos. 
 

In that time, only one has gone into the drink, with no casualties. Maybe floatation gear isn’t as big a deal as postulated, especially if aircraft reliability is high?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GMK said:

In that time, only one has gone into the drink, with no casualties. Maybe floatation gear isn’t as big a deal as postulated, especially if aircraft reliability is high?

I did wonder if that was the case. Wiki claims just shy of a thousand have been produced and the USN have operated them since 1984.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Filler said:

How on Earth has the SEAhawk managed to be without flotation gear?

 

I wonder how many the USN and other users (15 air arms according to Wiki) have lost in the drink and how many crew have perished as a result of them sinking very quickly.

The old SH-60B/F models seem to have had flotation gear but it has been removed from current SH-60R & S models. The “logic” is explained at the bottom of this article.

https://www.nasc.gov.tw/eng/News_Content.aspx?n=824&s=143716

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Das Abteilung said:

However those Kystvakt vessels with embarked aircraft like the Nordkapp class are limited to an NH90-size aircraft and currently still operate Lynx.

 

 

The Norwegian Lynx helicopters were retired in 2014. The Coast Guard has sailed without helicopters since.

Edited by Vingtor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Vingtor said:

The Norwegian Lynx helicopters were retired in 2014. The Coast Guard has sailed without helicopters since.

Which shows how necessary it is to check the dateline on sources..................🤡

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, GMK said:

 

The Australian navy (RAN) has been operating Seahawk variants since 1988, in both S-70B-2 & SH-60R modes. It has recently ordered a further 13 airframes. Once delivered, that’ll bring their fleet to 36 Romeos. 
 

In that time, only one has gone into the drink, with no casualties. Maybe floatation gear isn’t as big a deal as postulated, especially if aircraft reliability is high?

 

 

 

Seahawk crashed (rolled off the deck) because of a mechanical failure, with the loss of 5 crew - the helicopter sank taking the 5 crew with it...

 

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2022-05-04/navy-helicopter-crash

 

Admittedly there are few crashes (fortunately), however, I certainly wouldn't want to fly over water without flotation gear - hence why the Brits have flotation gear on their naval helis.

 

Norway uses the 169 for police roles, I wonder if they would consider the AW189 for their coast guard (as the UK does)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wellsprop said:

 

Seahawk crashed (rolled off the deck) because of a mechanical failure, with the loss of 5 crew - the helicopter sank taking the 5 crew with it...

 

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2022-05-04/navy-helicopter-crash

 

Admittedly there are few crashes (fortunately), however, I certainly wouldn't want to fly over water without flotation gear - hence why the Brits have flotation gear on their naval helis.

 

Norway uses the 169 for police roles, I wonder if they would consider the AW189 for their coast guard (as the UK does)?

Ack. To clarify, I was referring to the Australian Seahawk experience, which is nil fatalities in 34 years of ops. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/06/2022 at 13:22, wellsprop said:

 

Just a tad enormous! That said, they are a superb ASW platform.

 

 

Been looking for deck sizes of frigates & destroyers in service but hard to find. But if the RN River class Batch 2 can operate Merlin from a deck I estimate to be 23.5m long, there is no reason that the Fridtjof Nansen can't operate it from a deck I estimate to be 27.5m. Italians have operated them of the Andrea Doria class which I estimate has a helideck about the same length as the Norwegian ships. Only other issue becomes weight. Merlin is about 4 tons heavier at MTOW.

 

If anyone has more accurate data I'd like to hear about it.

 

Meanwhile a photo to illustrate the size of deck available.

f314-thor-heyerdahl-20.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Das Abteilung said:

"We are concerned that their proposal for a new maintenance hangar will require engines to be tested on the ground resulting in more noise and pollution.”

 

Would rather they were tested on the ground and fail there, rather than at height....

 

I work in an architectural practice and have recently taken to viewing the online planning meetings that our local authority hold - To paraphrase the chap on the Hindenberg newsreel.

 

"Oh, the stupidity!"

 

(Rant and thread hijack over)

 

IanJ

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GMK said:

Ack. To clarify, I was referring to the Australian Seahawk experience, which is nil fatalities in 34 years of ops. 

 

That's incredibly good - especially as flying overwater inherently carries a lot more risks, I'd be very curious to know how many hours they've flown.

 

3 hours ago, EwenS said:

 

Been looking for deck sizes of frigates & destroyers in service but hard to find. But if the RN River class Batch 2 can operate Merlin from a deck I estimate to be 23.5m long, there is no reason that the Fridtjof Nansen can't operate it from a deck I estimate to be 27.5m. Italians have operated them of the Andrea Doria class which I estimate has a helideck about the same length as the Norwegian ships. Only other issue becomes weight. Merlin is about 4 tons heavier at MTOW.

 

If anyone has more accurate data I'd like to hear about it.

 

Meanwhile a photo to illustrate the size of deck available.

f314-thor-heyerdahl-20.jpg

 

 

 

15.75 m folded for the EH/AW101 - not vastly bigger than the 13.6 m NH90.

 

That said, it is quite a bit larger - it may be driven by a height dimension - I'd be curious to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, wellsprop said:

 

That's incredibly good - especially as flying overwater inherently carries a lot more risks, I'd be very curious to know how many hours they've flown.

 


The first Seahawk fleet - S-70B-2 - comprised 16 aircraft, in service from 1988 - 2017, accrued >88,000 flight hours. No breakdown of land based to shipboard ops. Couldn’t find public domain data on the SH-60R. 


https://www.navy.gov.au/aircraft/sikorsky-s-70b-2-seahawk

 

“Seahawk has given the RAN more than 29 years of service accruing in excess of 88,000 flight hours,”

 

Using massive assumptions & shonky maths, that’s an average of ~190 hours per aircraft per year. That number doesn’t account for the delivery window (1988-1992), or the long running upgrade program, and how that affected availability. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Bonhoff the planning application also covered bringing in third party repair and servicing work in addition to their own resident aircraft, although it was expected that these would come in by road and not fly in.  Locals are already up in arms about the current flying and noise levels at all hours, compared to the site's previous use as Coastguard SAR and FAA HMS Osprey before that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2022 at 11:52 PM, Slater said:

Was Sea King equipped with flotation gear? Probably a moot point since I believe it could float.

Yes all British Marks or at least AW made....and float.....on occasion if its not too harry roughers and you still can hover taxi (kinda)

10 hours ago, wellsprop said:

 

That's incredibly good - especially as flying overwater inherently carries a lot more risks, I'd be very curious to know how many hours they've flown.

 

 

15.75 m folded for the EH/AW101 - not vastly bigger than the 13.6 m NH90.

 

That said, it is quite a bit larger - it may be driven by a height dimension - I'd be curious to know.

Depends how big the hangar is 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/06/2022 at 15:10, Slater said:

Wonder if Norway has identified a replacement yet?

No, they (we) haven´t. I guess it will take some time when you look at the time spent choosing helicopters tha last few decades. We never buy products form the shelf, we have all kinds of specifications that complicates things. The process of purchasing new rescue helicopters took over 20 years... The RNoAF also lacks helicopters to support the army in the north. They used to have Bell 412 SP for this purpose, but these were relocated to the southern part of the country some years ago. Some say that a combination of Blackhaek and Seahawk could fill the void after NH90 and Bell 412.

But no decision is made yet.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2022 at 11:04 AM, Das Abteilung said:

But with low serviceability you would think that more would be needed, not less.  But it seems that Germany is becoming another disgruntled NH90 user.

Germany was one of the first unhappy customers, with the refusal to send any to Afganistan due to being "unfit for combat". A ground clearance that prohibited landing around large rocks / tree stumps, a weak cargo deck, etc, etc. The result was tasking being directed to medical evacuation flying "dustoff" style.

 

My helo-driving contact in the RNZAF has snuck off, so I'll have to track him down and get some info on the Kiwi state of affairs with these pieces of junk.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, hairystick said:

Germany was one of the first unhappy customers, with the refusal to send any to Afganistan due to being "unfit for combat". A ground clearance that prohibited landing around large rocks / tree stumps, a weak cargo deck, etc, etc. The result was tasking being directed to medical evacuation flying "dustoff" style.

Speaking as one who spent 32 years working in defence procurement and much of the latter 10 years of that looking at contract requirement definition and trying to improve the conversion of user requirements into contractual obligations, how in the holy sphincter of hell did Germany (and others) end up choosing the NH90?  Some of the things you describe are fundamental.  Please tell me that there were user acceptance trials and reliability qualification trials against defined specifications, preferably on a prototype and then again on the first-off production example before service acceptance.  Or is this just another mis-managed NATO-sponsored project?  Or just another example of a civilian-sector company attempting to produce a military product without the relevant background and knowledge?  Not that NH90's serviceability and maintainability shortcomings would be any more acceptable in the civilian sector.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Das Abteilung said:

Speaking as one who spent 32 years working in defence procurement and much of the latter 10 years of that looking at contract requirement definition and trying to improve the conversion of user requirements into contractual obligations, how in the holy sphincter of hell did Germany (and others) end up choosing the NH90?  Some of the things you describe are fundamental.  Please tell me that there were user acceptance trials and reliability qualification trials against defined specifications, preferably on a prototype and then again on the first-off production example before service acceptance.  Or is this just another mis-managed NATO-sponsored project?  Or just another example of a civilian-sector company attempting to produce a military product without the relevant background and knowledge?  Not that NH90's serviceability and maintainability shortcomings would be any more acceptable in the civilian sector.

 

The company behind the NH-90, NHIndustries, was established in the early nineties by aircraft producing companies (Eurocopter, Augusta and Fokker) from France, Germany, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands and a major order totaling in excess of 350 airframes was placed in the early 2000s. This was only a few years after the prototypes had taken to the air and the development of the NH-90 had not yet reached production state.
The project has been hampered by delays and technical issued throughout its existence but I guess the participating nations didn't want to lose face and bin the it, hence they continued to support it in order jo keep the industry going and maintain the jobs. Lately, France has shown its continued support to the keep the NH-90 in the air (https://verticalmag.com/news/french-military-order-set-to-help-nh90/).

 

In 2001 the NH-90 was one of the runner-up’s for a major Scandinavian order under the Nordic Standard Helicopter Program with Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark seeking a common helicopter. Denmark went its own ways and opted for the EH-101 while the three remaining countries continued with the common purchase of the NH-90.

 

Apart from a couple of follow-on orders from the original costumers, a quick look at Wikipedia indicate that only one new country has been added to the list of new costumers over the past 15 years, when Qatar ordered 28 airframes in 2014.
In Europe, Belgium in 2000 announced that they will phase out their fleet of the TTH variant by 2024 due to its high operating costs.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2022 at 5:05 PM, wellsprop said:

 

Easily, Wildcat is a small heli, 13.5 m (nose to tail rotor blades) with the rotors folded, nh90 is 13.6 m folded. 

 

 

Seahawk is 12.5 m folded. Like I've said before however, the Seahawk has no flotation gear, if you end up in the water, your day is going to be a whole lot worse in a Seahawk than a Wildcat... 

And yet those helos keep selling.   Crazy to think that professional navies might know more than the experts on the internet, right??

Edited by 11bravo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, 11bravo said:

And yet those helos keep selling.   Crazy to think that professional navies might know more than the experts on the internet, right??


We armchair procures never hear about the ’back stairs dealings’ that govern government spending…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, 11bravo said:

And yet those helos keep selling.   Crazy to think that professional navies might know more than the experts on the internet, right??

Only the one you quoted works at a helicopter manufacturer. Hardly just some random on the internet. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 11bravo said:

And yet those helos keep selling.   Crazy to think that professional navies might know more than the experts on the internet, right??

 

https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2020/12/16/south-korea-to-order-12-mh-60r-anti-submarine-helicopters/

 

Don't underestimate the influence of politics in defence procurement. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...