Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Norway Threatens To Cancel NH 90 Order  
User currently onlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3932 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13427 times:

Norway threatens to cancel NH 90 order


Four years after the Norwegian military should have receaved 14 new NH 90 helicopters, only one has been delivered. Now the Defense Ministry has made it clear to the producer that it is actively searching for alternatives to the NH90.

- We have been crystal clear to the supplier. Now our patience has been stretched far enough. We do not want to hear any more explenations. We demand the helicopters, says Ingebrigtsen ( State Secretary in the Ministry of Defence )

The 14 new NH90 helicopters should have been delivered from 2005 to 2008, but only one machine is in operation.

The helicopters should have been on active duty with the Norwegian navy and coastguard, replacing the aging Lynx helicopters.

Of the 14, 8 is to be specially adapted for the Coast Guard needs, while 6 is to be configured for placement on the frigates.

The Norwegian defence department is now prepared to terminate the contract, if it is not honored soon.


Several countries have had problems in getting the helicopter on time, as the producer apparently have had problems with the various national special requirments. Several countries has already terminated their contracts.


Franky I think Norway should have terminated the contract a long time ago. The helicopters should have been delivered a long time ago. The contract has been renegotiated several times where the producer has been given more time. The Norwegian defence department is slow to act I think.

If the order is cancelled, I am wondering what type of helicopter the defence department will choose instead. On shelf products without the special national requirements ?


http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10059263

53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLarshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 13403 times:

I could see Norway go with the AW149 if it will be ready in time, or perhaps the AW159 if they want to stick to something they know. I believe the AW101 is too high to use the hangar in the norwegian frigates.

I am glad that Denmark went with the EH-101 instead of the NH-90 like Norway, Sweden and Finland. We have had some problems with it but it has been flying since we got them.

It is amazing how late the NH-90 is. Sweden ordered at the same time as Norway and is expecting they will be operational by 2017, they even ordered Sikorsky UH-60Ms for use until the NH-90 is delivered.

/Lars



139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
User currently offlinesasd209 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Oct 2007, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 13340 times:

Quoting Larshjort (Reply 1):
Sweden ordered at the same time as Norway and is expecting they will be operational by 2017, they even ordered Sikorsky UH-60Ms for use until the NH-90 is delivered

The Swedish deal was finalized in May of 2011 and as of June 2012 there are at least 3 Hkp 16's (UH-60M) operating on exercises in Sweden.... That's quite a quick delivery (from existing US Army new production aircraft). Would it be unreasonable to assume a similar quick turnaround time should Norway also go this route?

~SASD209


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1823 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 13303 times:

The NH90 project is a mess, Sweden still waits for it. It seems to be the A400 in helicopters..

The UH60s are a very mature design used all over the world, it was a good choice made by my often lame country.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 13177 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Thread starter):
Quoting Larshjort (Reply 1):
Quoting sasd209 (Reply 2):
Quoting sweair (Reply 3):

I had to hit all you guys... This is very much like the Canadian Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone program.

As a side note... I was having a few beers a couple of days ago with a buddy (A Sikorsky engineer @ the Palm Beach facility) and he told me that because of the delays... Canada would pretty much be getting these A/C for free! And then we joked about how at least they had the US Army contracts to keep them in the black.  

[Edited 2012-07-25 17:26:44]


harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13028 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 4):
I had to hit all you guys... This is very much like the Canadian Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone program.

Yup, that one's a goat as well. Both the Liberals and Conservatives share the blame. BUt DND also take a hit (on most acquisition programs, not just the helicopters) since they want to "Canadianise" the damn thing. Whatever that means. Same with the EH-101s, submarines, and truck program.

Canada has imposed penalties on Sikorsky for being late, and these will increase in time.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 12634 times:

I'm surprised that the immature NH-90 has been ordered by so many countries - over a dozen. Agressive pricing maybe, but I don't suppose that's the whole story. There must be something good about it if it can be made to work.

Can anyone update me on the Dutch NH-90s?

The last I heard was of performance problems and of a rotor head modification making the helicopter taller, causing it not to fit in frigate hangars   

How many have been delivered and are they anywhere near operational? I understand the Lynx is already virtually out of service. I'm not sure if this is mainly due to budget or technical problems, but there's a real operation going on off Somalia.

Peter:")



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 12498 times:

Lol, below we see an interesting a.net article from 2001:

Norway Buys NH-90´s (by Caravelle Nov 30 2001 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

Look at reply #2:

Quote:

At last we can say goodbye to the worn out Sea Lynx! (At least after 2005 Big grin )
Quite a step up in performance one might say.....

 
Quoting ptrjong (Reply 6):
I'm surprised that the immature NH-90 has been ordered by so many countries - over a dozen. Agressive pricing maybe, but I don't suppose that's the whole story. There must be something good about it if it can be made to work.

The program is a recipe for failure. Two major variants (naval vs tactical), six different assembly lines chosen for political reasons, tons of nation-specific customization, etc.

Wiki has more on the situation with Norway:

Quote:

In December 2011, the first Norwegian NH90 helicopter was delivered.[20] In an announcement on july 20th 2012, Norwegian Deputy Defence Minister Roger Ingebrigtsen stated that "once our current Westland Lynx helicopters reach their end of life in 2014, we are going to have new helicopters on our naval vessels. If the NH90 hasnt been delivered, we will purchase another helicopter." He also said that "considering that the aircraft were to be delivered by 2005, and that delivery is yet to start by 2012, doesnt increase our confidence in the producer". Sources in the Defence Department that remain unnamed, told TV2 that "we have started looking for other producers". [21] NH90 is also a candidate for the Norwegian All Weather Search and Rescue Helicopter (NAWSARH) that is planned to replace the Westland Sea King Mk.43B of the Royal Norwegian Air Force in 2015.[22] The other candidates for the NAWSARH contract of 10–12 helicopters were AgustaWestland AW101, Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, Eurocopter EC225, and Sikorsky S-92.[23] However, the V-22 was eliminated from the competition in 2012.[24]

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHIndustries_NH90



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1823 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12434 times:

Many nations serving in Afghanistan has gotten used to the black hawk, I guess it has proved it self with a lot of customers over the years, a very harsh environment. It has so many versions to choose from as well. A very decent all rounder IMO.

The old work horse the Chinook has also shown its worth in that conflict, but sadly many have been brought down too with big loss of life.

Maybe the new X2 inspired faster transport would be better in a battle like this, 220 knots must be harder to hit?


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14026 posts, RR: 62
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12424 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 6):
I'm surprised that the immature NH-90 has been ordered by so many countries - over a dozen. Agressive pricing maybe, but I don't suppose that's the whole story. There must be something good about it if it can be made to work.

Can anyone update me on the Dutch NH-90s?

The last I heard was of performance problems and of a rotor head modification making the helicopter taller, causing it not to fit in frigate hangars

How many have been delivered and are they anywhere near operational? I understand the Lynx is already virtually out of service. I'm not sure if this is mainly due to budget or technical problems, but there's a real operation going on off Somalia.

Peter:")

EADS thinks they have the monopoly on military goods for European militaries, same as Boeing and Lockheed Martin think about the American market. Unlike 40 years ago, there aren´t a multitude of competing players in the respective markets left. The big ones have practically cornered the markets and think that it is a machine for printing money for substandard products.
It is time for us tax payers (European and American) to show them who is actually paying for their junk and thatn they´ll better get up to speed if they want to have more of our money.

Jan


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 12378 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 9):
It is time for us tax payers (European and American) to show them who is actually paying for their junk and thatn they´ll better get up to speed if they want to have more of our money.

It is remarkable to see how the same companies behave when selling to foreign entities. For instance Boeing paid out a lot of cash to Australia over delays in Wedgetail that we'd never see them pay in their contracts with the US government.

The problem in the US is the cozy relationship between the government and the contractors.

I don't realistically see a way for this to change.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1823 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 12359 times:

It will change when the economy tanks for real, by now most sane people should understand that printing new credit doesn't solve a thing, the western world i broke and we only have hope left. I have a hard time believing in aliens coming to earth and solving our debt problems.

The military will be slaughtered one way or the other, if it comes to bread for the population or new toys for the military, we all know how that ends. In Sweden the government has used the military budget to balance other areas like social benefits and all crap they can score PC points with.

LM and Boeing will find out that the pork is thin..


User currently offlineLifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1922 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 12189 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 6):
I'm surprised that the immature NH-90 has been ordered by so many countries - over a dozen. Agressive pricing maybe, but I don't suppose that's the whole story.

NH Industries is founded by Agusta, Eurocopter and Stork (Fokker). If the last party wasn't involved, I suspect the Dutch would have ordered American.

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 6):
Can anyone update me on the Dutch NH-90s?

The last update can be found here: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...gramme-suffers-fresh-delay-363694/

snippet from the article:

Quote:
"We still have a long way to go," ten Haf said, but added: "It's a good aircraft, despite all the negative press. It will get there."

I know some crews flying the NH-90. They are mainly positive about the helo and as Flightglobal reported last year, they expect to be fully operational by the end of this year.

Cheers!   



Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12157 times:

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 12):

Thanks.

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 12):
NH Industries is founded by Agusta, Eurocopter and Stork (Fokker). If the last party wasn't involved, I suspect the Dutch would have ordered American.

Yes, I know. Otherwise the Dutch are not supportive of the European industry at all, which is very bad. I's the only way forward, despite the way programmes are being messed up.

It's the early NH-90 export orders that surprise me somewhat.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 12076 times:

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 12):
The last update can be found here: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...3694/

The section:

Quote:

Issues relate mainly to maintenance support and availability of spare parts

is troubling. It seems every phase of this program is problematic.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 12041 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
The section:

Quote:

Issues relate mainly to maintenance support and availability of spare parts


is troubling.

Well, it's not good, but easier to solve than structural problems with the aircraft itself if you ask me.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12142 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11975 times:

In addition to the German Army having problems with their NH-90s, so is the RAN.

For Norway perhaps it is better to cancel the contract now and get an order in for the HH/MH-60 series, or the AW-149. They can have some HH-60H/J/Ts in the fleet by 2014 when the RNAF/NCG Lynx Mk.86/HAS.2s begin retiring.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1823 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11794 times:

Has the NH90 served in Afghanistan yet? How well does it perform in a tough environment? It should be a very good way to test it? Cant think of a more hostile environment to engines and rotors than that dusty country. Occasional rpg or bullet as well, you can get that wear and tear in a lab IMO.

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1823 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 11548 times:

You can add Portugal looking at cancelling the NH90 order, mostly financial reasons I guess.

User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2630 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 10823 times:

I think the NH90 could potentially be/have been a good helicopter, but the whole program setup is flawed. It reminds me a bit of the EF Typhoon. There are not 2 versions of the helicopter as advertised, but 17 (one per customer per subvariant). The various countries, with the excuse of "unique operational requirements", have used customization as a political job-creation program for their national industries. Hence, it has gotten completely out of control.

User currently offlinethunderboltdrgn From Sweden, joined Jan 2012, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 10719 times:

Quoting Larshjort (Reply 1):
Sweden ordered at the same time as Norway and is expecting they will be operational by 2017

Swedish Air force have already received a few NH-90s and according to FMV
the delivery is (according to them) expected to be finished in 2015.
http://www.fmv.se/sv/Nyheter-och-pre...erlamningsceremoni-for-Hkp-14/?p=4

however according to blog post below (written by the battalion chief),
all will be delivered by 2013-2014 according to him.
http://blogg.forsvarsmakten.se/flygv...ggen/2011/05/11/hkp14-hkpflj-sant/

So the question is who is most right of them?



Like a thunderbolt of lightning the Dragon roars across the sky. Il Drago Ruggente
User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 10704 times:

Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 20):

In modern military aviation, you can be pretty sure that the slowest delivery schedule is correct (unless there are further delays). And it need not even be about the NH-90.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineLarshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 10567 times:

Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 20):

Swedish Air force have already received a few NH-90s and according to FMV
the delivery is (according to them) expected to be finished in 2015.

There is a difference between the helicopters being delivered and operational.

The first danish EH-101 was delivered in 2005, but the S-61 was not retired until 2010.

/Lars



139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 880 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10528 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 19):
The various countries, with the excuse of "unique operational requirements", have used customization as a political job-creation program for their national industries.

That is one of my favorite phrases in international arms sales. It is such a crock of crap in about 95% of the circumstances where it is used. There are basically three customers that are big enough worldwide to have unique requirements. The US, Russia and China. Everyone else is for the most part just creating jobs. Now there may be things out there that are not 100% optimized for what they might want to do. And in some cases it will justify the minimal cost difference to say build your own tank rather than buy one. But for the most part there is very little other nations need that is really unique from one another.

If Europe wants to build weapons on its own then fine, but stop pretending that every little state there has unique operational requirements when they really don't. It is just a huge waste of money.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10484 times:

Quoting Larshjort (Reply 1):
It is amazing how late the NH-90 is.
Quoting sweair (Reply 3):
The UH60s are a very mature design used all over the world

Sorry to stop your bashing, the NH-90 is the world's most advanced transport helicopter. Of course you could buy a UH60 or even a UH1 and it would be more mature. However nowhere as sophisticated.

How late was the A380 or 787 or a400M? It's not they are lazy or experienced some trivial problems at the production.

Wasn't it worth to wait for the A380 or 787?

If Norway want's to drop the NH-90 in favour of a old-tech chopper, go ahead. Better for the other nations waiting.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1823 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10539 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 24):

Sometimes you can not afford to wait, you need the capacity now and not 5 years away, just saying  


User currently onlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10526 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 24):
Sorry to stop your bashing, the NH-90 is the world's most advanced transport helicopter. Of course you could buy a UH60 or even a UH1 and it would be more mature. However nowhere as sophisticated.

How late was the A380 or 787 or a400M? It's not they are lazy or experienced some trivial problems at the production.

Wasn't it worth to wait for the A380 or 787?

If Norway want's to drop the NH-90 in favour of a old-tech chopper, go ahead. Better for the other nations waiting.

Did you read the top post ?

The helicopters should have been delivered between 2005 - 2008. That's a long time ago ! Norway has been very patient and given the producers way to much time already. Plenty of extensions to original delivery plan, but no change in attitude from the producer. The helicopters should have been delivered a very long time ago. By any standard, it's a total failure by the producer to meet it's obligations. There comes a time that one just have to draw the line, regardless of how fancy the helicopter might be.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 10582 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 24):
If Norway want's to drop the NH-90 in favour of a old-tech chopper, go ahead. Better for the other nations waiting.

The naval NH-90 (NFH-90) is not in service with any country yet and many countries (ie Germany, Sweden and Australia) are having troubles introducing the simpler TTH-90 (Army Helo) and are expressing dissatisfaction with it. Sweden ended up buying Blackhawks to overcome the delays with their aircraft. Also despite already having purchased the NH-90, the RAN chose the MH-60R over the NFH-90 to replace the their S-70Bs.

The NFH-90 has been in the works for about 10 years longer than our CH-148's and is probably only a little bit ahead in terms of development. Not exactly a ringing endorsement since the NH-90 had almost 13 years of a headstart in development.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 28, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 10559 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
10 years longer than our CH-148's and is probably only a little bit ahead

You have not really an idea what you are talking about.

The NH-90 is made of more then 85% CFRP, that mean's the chopper has a unprecedented resistance to corrosion. Extremly low RCS, the only helicopter awarded with ADS33 Level 1, unique Rotor and Tail Folding systems (folding at sea in under three minutes in strong winds (60kts,) and high seas, without crew on deck.) multi-box blade technology,one-engine-out flyaway capability, can withstand crashes up to 10,6 m/s, quadruplex fully redundant fly by wire, not to talk from the ASW/ASM systems.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 29, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 10521 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 28):
The NH-90 is made of more then 85% CFRP, that mean's the chopper has a unprecedented resistance to corrosion. Extremly low RCS, the only helicopter awarded with ADS33 Level 1, unique Rotor and Tail Folding systems (folding at sea in under three minutes in strong winds (60kts,) and high seas, without crew on deck.) multi-box blade technology,one-engine-out flyaway capability, can withstand crashes up to 10,6 m/s, quadruplex fully redundant fly by wire, not to talk from the ASW/ASM systems.

That's a lot of features, ones that the customers are paying dearly for.

It seems to be a case of "the great is the enemy of the good"...



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinesasd209 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Oct 2007, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 10433 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 28):
The NH-90 is made of more then 85% CFRP, that mean's the chopper has a unprecedented resistance to corrosion. Extremly low RCS, the only helicopter awarded with ADS33 Level 1, unique Rotor and Tail Folding systems (folding at sea in under three minutes in strong winds (60kts,) and high seas, without crew on deck.) multi-box blade technology,one-engine-out flyaway capability, can withstand crashes up to 10,6 m/s, quadruplex fully redundant fly by wire, not to talk from the ASW/ASM systems.

While all this is well and good, it does absolutely NO good at all if Norway doesn't have it and therefore cannot fly it on operational missions, as intended by now!!


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 880 posts, RR: 11
Reply 31, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 10425 times:

Quoting sasd209 (Reply 30):
While all this is well and good, it does absolutely NO good at all if Norway doesn't have it and therefore cannot fly it on operational missions, as intended by now!!

The biggest issue has to be the price point to me. It is not a big deal as a frigate helicopter but as a general utility helicopter for an army it is. In the current small peacetime armies it is not a huge deal. But if something were to change and you needed to expand your force I would rather have more of the cheaper helicopters. You can get nearly 2 UH-60's for 1 NH-90. The NH-90 is better, but it is not that much better that it is more valuable than having 2 of them.


User currently onlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (2 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 10052 times:

The Norwegian ministry of defence has asked the Norwegian airforce to make a report on what they would consider to be the best alternative to the NH90, IF that contract is scrapped. They have concluded that two versions of the Sikorsky Seahawk might be a good alternative. One of the alternatives is the Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk.

Apparently it's the helicopters for the navy that the NH90 producer have the most problems with delivering.

No desicion has been made to go for any of the alternatives and the airforce and ministry of defence is still hoping for the NH 90.

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/ir...dalehelikopteret-NH90-6965597.html


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 33, posted (2 years 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 9909 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 31):
The NH-90 is better, but it is not that much better that it is more valuable than having 2 of them.

Rubbish, you are comparing a 767 with a 787/A350. The UH-60 are a 1970's design which is prone to corrosion, nowhere as stealthy or system wise capable as the NH-90. The NH-90 represents newest helicopter technology.


If you want quantity(the UH-60 is a fine chopper tough) over quality it doesn't make sense to order NH-90 in the first place.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 880 posts, RR: 11
Reply 34, posted (2 years 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 9858 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 33):
Rubbish, you are comparing a 767 with a 787/A350. The UH-60 are a 1970's design which is prone to corrosion, nowhere as stealthy or system wise capable as the NH-90. The NH-90 represents newest helicopter technology.

For the most part in a utility battlefield helicopter that is just not something that gets me too worked up. The biggest problem that a lot of the Euro forces have had in Afghanistan is not that they don't have good enough helicopters it is that they don't have nearly enough of them. In that respect I see a utility helicopter like the UH-60 as more of a flying Jeep than anything else. Yeah, having a nice one is great. But I would rather have two that are good enough if given the choice.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 35, posted (2 years 1 month 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9830 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 34):
But I would rather have two that are good enough if given the choice.

Today everything is specialised, the USAF hat in the 50's much more plane that today? Why? Because some small number of advanced planes can do the job better then a hundreds of older planes.

Why planes/helicopters are being always more expensive? A Mustang P-51 did cost in 1945 50 000 - 60 000 $ (with inflation today 650000$) A F-22 costs about 400 millions $ but they are so much capable and sophisticated.

Same with ordenance. In the second world war tons of bombs needed to be dropped on a target to be sure to hit it.

Today a expensive GBU-10/12 can do the job precisly "almost" without collateral damage.

What's more efficient, legions of old helicopters(with high MTBF) or some hundreds highly capable and modern platforms which are much more flexible and safer.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlinesasd209 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Oct 2007, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9714 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 35):

What's more efficient, legions of old helicopters(with high MTBF) .....

Do you have specific examples of MTBF of the "old" helicopters you are talking about versus the "highly capable and modern platforms which are much more flexible and safer"? Are there any published statistics that your more "modern" helicopter is indeed more flexible or safer? Or are these just personal observations and opinions?

~SASD209


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9708 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 35):
What's more efficient, legions of old helicopters(with high MTBF) or some hundreds highly capable and modern platforms which are much more flexible and safer.

We aren't talking about a front line combat aircraft, we are talking about a support aircraft. You don't need cutting edge technology here.

The NH90 has yet to prove itself in service for what is a fairly redundant program that's having major teething problems, not to mention the numerous variants of the aircraft (this got the Tiger attack helicopter into trouble as well).


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 38, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9654 times:

Quoting sasd209 (Reply 36):

Do you have specific examples of

No i don't have. But from specifications and extrapolations you can get a picture. For example Gearbox problems of the CH-148 does it say you something? Corrosion of the conventional frame in a UH-60 for example? The UH-60 fleet causes a corrosion after 5 years which cost's US ARMY astonishing 82,751 940$ to repair.(as comparison the AH-64 corrosion repairs cost 32 millions$.)

Interesting document about corrosion problems of US Army helicopters.

https://www.corrdefense.org/Academia...ion_Issues_Sidney_Harrison_CoE.ppt

Let's see what is more reliable, a conventional hydraulics flight control or a quadruplex fly by wire system?

Quoting sasd209 (Reply 36):
safer

The NH-90 can withstand a crash with 10m/s sinkrate without any wsecondary injuries for the crew compared to other helicopters.

http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubF...RTO-EN-HFM-113///EN-HFM-113-06.pdf
http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/hkom/pub...ationen/themenheft/03/bansemir.pdf

[Edited 2012-08-16 04:51:43]


“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12142 posts, RR: 51
Reply 39, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9618 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 35):
What's more efficient, legions of old helicopters(with high MTBF) or some hundreds highly capable and modern platforms which are much more flexible and safer.

What is more effcient is having a system in hand to use it when you need to. A promised system that has yet to be delivered is useless.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 38):
Let's see what is more reliable, a conventional hydraulics flight control or a quadruplex fly by wire system?

See above. But to answer your question, hydraulic systems are very reliable, and very well known from a maintenance standpoint. They are relitively easy to fix, got a leak, just tighten a B-Nut or replace the leaking unit. A FBW system is very complicated from a maintenance standpoint. Sometimes you can simply R&R a box somewhere, other times you are troubleshooting a software problem, which can take days to track down and fix.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 38):
The NH-90 can withstand a crash with 10m/s sinkrate without any wsecondary injuries for the crew compared to other helicopters.

While that is true, it still serves no purpose if you cannot get the helio into your fleet.

Helios are very reliable as military machines. The CH-47 has been around since 1962, and the smaller CH-46 since the late 1960s, as have the CH-53. The UH-1 has also been flying since the 1960s, as has it gunship sister the AH-1. Yes, all of these have been updated over the years with modifications and newer models, but there overall safety records is undisputable when you consider the number of flying hours and types of missions they have flown in the past 50 years. Even today, there are military missions no newer helio can do that the CH-47 does everyday in Afghanistan. No operational helio today can out lift a CH-53. Even the 1970s vintage UH-60, in all its different missions on land and at sea cannot fully be replaced in the types of missions it does. So why does anyone even need the NH-90? Its record to date is poor (at best), it has been critisized by almost everyone who has it in service and cannot get delivered on the time scale other countries need it.

In Norway's case, they bought the NH-90 in 2001, with deliveries (originally) to begin in 2005. That was 7 years ago and Norway has yet to get their first new helio! Norway is up against a critical timeline as their Lynx Mk.86/HAS.2s will begin reaching the end of their lives in about 18 months.

If Norway wants a later design, there is the AW-101 or AW-139 available.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 40, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9591 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
What is more effcient is having a system in hand to use it when you need to. A promised system that has yet to be delivered is useless.

What a nonsense. You could say the same about the F-35, F-22, 787, A350.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
But to answer your question, hydraulic systems are very reliable, and very well known from a maintenance standpoint.

More nonsense, the hydraulics are nowhere as reliable as a FBW, heavier, more complex, less damage tolerant, and FBW is also very well known.

Why does Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Eurocopter, Sikorsky, Bombardier , one moment well all manufacturers use FBW today over hydraulics if it's such a maintenance nightmare and less reliable as you say?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
So why does anyone even need the NH-90?

Ask all the countries who bought it and have found out there is need for it which a other helicopter couldnt do.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
service and cannot get delivered on the time scale other countries need it.

I find it funny how you guys jump on the wagon and are stirred up about the delays of the A400M and NH-90 but forget that your manufacturers are also such loosers when it comes to deliver on time. Let's see F-35 = late ,P-8 was late, V-22 = extremly late, i could go on.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
Its record to date is poor (at best), it has been critisized by almost everyone

Not true, while there were some initial issues and critizism now it seems some inital operators are very pleased with it:

German Army has made positive experiences about the NH-90

http://www.deutschesheer.de/portal/a...38i_1qW_X09DVat-emwvMIRy_irMMfg!!/


Commander Guillaume Guitard from French Navy was very positive about the NH-90

http://www.eurocopter.com/mh90-ng/de...-positiv-uber-den-NH90-NFH_17.html



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (2 years 1 month 19 hours ago) and read 9492 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 38):
No i don't have. But from specifications and extrapolations you can get a picture. For example Gearbox problems of the CH-148 does it say you something? Corrosion of the conventional frame in a UH-60 for example? The UH-60 fleet causes a corrosion after 5 years which cost's US ARMY astonishing 82,751 940$ to repair.(as comparison the AH-64 corrosion repairs cost 32 millions$.)

Composites can suffer from delamination; for example, on our CH-149's, we had a problem in the fuel bays and also under the APU blanket.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 38):
Let's see what is more reliable, a conventional hydraulics flight control or a quadruplex fly by wire system?

Let's see if it actually works; for example, on the CH-148, we will a fly by wire system. The conventional S-92 uses hydraulics. Apparently, they are having a devil of a time with the basic flight characteristics with the CH-148's FBW systems... something about it being a total change in the Flight Controls, Flight Modes, Flight Director etc. The aircraft subsequently have different handling and flight envelopes that requires a significant amount of certification. For example the Auto-rotation envelope for the S-92 and CH-148 will be different as will basically all flight maneuvers.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 38):
Gearbox problems of the CH-148 does it say you something

Different aircraft. The S-92 and the CH-148 are totally different aircraft. They are significantly different enough that they are built on two separate production lines.

Other changes include the following:

1. Folding head and tail which in turn means different main rotor blades. Different rotor head. Different Nr.

2. The cockpits look similar and share some of the same controls and displays but a number of changes were made to account for the different aircraft systems functionality. Different FMCDU from commercial S-92s. Armoured Seats. The addition of the Cable Angle hover. Interface between mission system and the FMCDU.

3. Different variant of the same engine to produce more power. (Mostly software change)

4. Different Landing Gear and the addition of the RAST probe.

5. Changes to fuel sponsons to make them ballistically tolerant. Different amount of fuel.

6. Different All-up-weight. (ie changes again to flight envelope)

7. Changes to both the electrical and hydraulic systems (mostly to account for the mission system).

8. Changes to the MGB.

9. Changes to the anti-ice system.

10. Changes to the Cabin to include new main door, 2 x GPMG mounts, changes to various avionics racks/storage, basic cabin layout is all new. Requires completely different egress certification.

11. Different Radio Fit and new ICS.

Some of these changes in themselves are fairly minor (ie new radios and amoured seats) but when they all add up they are significant. In addition, all these changes are for the most part without considering the mission system which in itself are significant. The individual bits of the mission system of are mostly C/MOTS but the integration is all developmental.

Oh yeah almost the forgot the addition of Cup Holders to all crew positions. I am pretty sure this requirement has been met and currently isn't holding up delivery (yet).


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 42, posted (2 years 1 month 17 hours ago) and read 9466 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 41):
Composites can suffer from delamination

True, that can be the case on all aircraft made with CFRP,

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 41):
on our CH-149's

no wonder, i guess Augusta have still to learn some lessons about CFRP.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12142 posts, RR: 51
Reply 43, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 9116 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 40):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):What is more effcient is having a system in hand to use it when you need to. A promised system that has yet to be delivered is useless.
What a nonsense. You could say the same about the F-35, F-22, 787, A350.

Although the B-787 and F-22 were late/very late, they are now in service. The F-22 is still having problems with its oxygen generation system, but it is still combat ready/capable.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 40):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39): But to answer your question, hydraulic systems are very reliable, and very well known from a maintenance standpoint.
More nonsense, the hydraulics are nowhere as reliable as a FBW, heavier, more complex, less damage tolerant, and FBW is also very well known.

Why does Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Eurocopter, Sikorsky, Bombardier , one moment well all manufacturers use FBW today over hydraulics if it's such a maintenance nightmare and less reliable as you say?

In many (not all) FBW aircraft, the inputs control hydraulics that do the actual movements of the flight controls.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 40):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):So why does anyone even need the NH-90?
Ask all the countries who bought it and have found out there is need for it which a other helicopter couldnt do.

The answer is there are several helios that do the exact same missions the NH-90 does.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 40):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39): service and cannot get delivered on the time scale other countries need it.
I find it funny how you guys jump on the wagon and are stirred up about the delays of the A400M and NH-90 but forget that your manufacturers are also such loosers when it comes to deliver on time. Let's see F-35 = late ,P-8 was late, V-22 = extremly late, i could go on.

If you have read my posts in other threads, you know I am no fan of the F-35 or VH-22. The P-8A is not late. Boeing won the contract in May 2004, and in July 2004 the USN ordered the first 5 MMA airplanes and scheduled the FF for 2009. In 2008 the USN deleted the MAD Boom and added a new system to replace it. The first P-8A still flew for the first time in April 2009 and is still in flight testing. IOC is scheduled for 2013, as it was since the contract was signed back in 2004. In 2010 LRIP was approved by the DOD.

The only 'hic-cup' in the P-8 program is the ice detection system on the P-8 was defective due to the use of several counterfeit components. It is alleged that these sub-standard parts had been poorly refurbished and sold to P-8 subcontractor BAE Systems as new by a supplier in China. This was found last year, in 2011. To date, the P-8 program is still on its original schedule.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 44, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 9110 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43):

Although the B-787 and F-22 were late/very late, they are now in service. The F-22 is still having problems with its oxygen generation system, but it is still combat ready/capable.

So it will be the NH-90, and now you agree that your point above is nonsense.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43):
In many (not all) FBW aircraft, the inputs control hydraulics that do the actual movements of the flight controls.

How does that relate to being more reliable?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43):
The answer is there are several helios that do the exact same missions the NH-90 does.

True, but none of this helios is as capable.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43):

If you have read my posts in other threads, you know I am no fan of the F-35 or VH-22.

Doesn't matter i can give you more examples.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43):
The only 'hic-cup' in the P-8 program is the ice detection system on the P-8 was defective due to the use of several counterfeit components.

And who's fault was it?



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8972 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 44):
So it will be the NH-90, and now you agree that your point above is nonsense.

NH-90 is under what I call developmental 'hell'. The numerous variants for each nation is essentially a separate design sharing the same basic shape. It will take many more years until all of this is sorted out.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 44):
How does that relate to being more reliable?

The FBW system controls hydraulics.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 44):
True, but none of this helios is as capable.

Except for the AW101, which is more capable. And the Eurocopter EC725, which is more mature and has actually seen service in a war.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 46, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8941 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 45):
NH-90 is under what I call developmental 'hell'.

Then the F-35 is in that hell to. Besides the NH-90 is already in serivce.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 45):
The FBW system controls hydraulics.

I was referring to conventional flight controls vs FBW.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 45):

Except for the AW101, which is more capable

Not true. It can load 100kg less(4100kg vs , it can climb 2000m less, rate of climb is less(9,98 m/s vs 11m/s), it's heavier, nor system-wise as advanced. Only marginally more range and high speed.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlinejollo From Italy, joined Aug 2011, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 8921 times:

I browsed the thread but could not find this information; sorry if this has been already discussed:

* How many "unique operational needs" did Norway bring into the design? That is, how many ad-hoc variants did Norway add to an already bloated program?

* Norway got a "local" (well, nordic) assembly line as part of the deal, didn't they?

It looks like Norway, as other European countries, had no compunctions in jumping on the political job-creation bandwagon with the artificial excuse of "unique needs", and in doing so contributed (in no marginal measure) to the creation of the technical "hell" the program is currently stuck into.

In my very humble opinion, Norway has every right to scream at delays screwing up they fleet turnover, but isn't justified in threatening to walk away from the program: if their deadlines were so inflexible, they could have choosen to buy one of the (many) variants already planned for, built in one of the 3 original FALs.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 48, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 8900 times:

Quoting jollo (Reply 47):
In my very humble opinion, Norway has every right to scream at delays screwing up they fleet turnover, but isn't justified in threatening to walk away from the program:

Couldn't agree more. There are also a lot of politics in this whole program.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently onlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 49, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 8872 times:

Quoting jollo (Reply 47):
if their deadlines were so inflexible

Can't really say that Norway has been inflexible with this, as the deadlines has been renegotiated and the producers has gotten the schedule renegotiated several times. From what I can see the producer has pushed the plan and Norways pations far enough.


User currently offlinejollo From Italy, joined Aug 2011, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8779 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 49):
Can't really say that Norway has been inflexible with this

If you buy a Ferrari with custom interiors you know that you're going to have to be flexible with delivery times; if you order it with a custom engine, custom suspensions and you want your car to be 50cm longer than the base design because you're a tall guy, you're seriously asking for trouble; if you want Ferrari to open a dedicated new factory in your neigborhood and to hire your cousins just to build your car... well, you're not really interested in ever driving it.

 

My point is: these "deals" have a fundamental degree of unreality. IMO you shouldn't be surprised when reality bites back.


User currently offlineSAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 781 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (2 years 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8703 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Thread starter):
Four years after the Norwegian military should have receaved 14 new NH 90 helicopters
Quoting Mortyman (Thread starter):
- We have been crystal clear to the supplier. Now our patience has been stretched far enough

Well,since your patience with the F-35 seems to be a lot bigger in terms of delivery date and not to mention the price,why just don't do as we (Sweden) did,order a bunch of black hawks ( or similar) as a interim solution?



It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
User currently offlineLifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1922 posts, RR: 7
Reply 52, posted (2 years 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8707 times:

Some good news on the Dutch NH-90's:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...st-fully-operational-NH90s-375683/

Cheers!   



Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 53, posted (2 years 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8697 times:

Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 51):
Well,since your patience with the F-35 seems to be a lot bigger in terms

That's what amazes me. When Lockheed Martin or Boeing is years behind, with incredible cost overruns nobody cares.

When Eurocopter or EADS has delays and also cost overruns the anti-EADS crowd is so outraged with such a emphasis.

The many topics with bashing contests show that.

     



“Faliure is not an option.”
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Norway Threatens To Cancel NH 90 Order
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airbus Threaten To Cancel A400M posted Thu Jan 7 2010 05:32:56 by Daysleeper
NH-90 Still Too Heavy For Dutch Frigates posted Fri Jun 12 2009 07:53:08 by Lumberton
NH-90 Lost In Airshow Crash (pics) posted Sun Jun 1 2008 08:41:51 by CURLYHEADBOY
NH 90 Delay Germany Discusses Alternatives posted Fri Mar 21 2008 11:10:30 by Columba
UK To Cancel New Carriers For The Royal Navy? posted Tue Jan 23 2007 21:21:22 by Lumberton
Spain’s Government Selects The NH 90 Helicopter Fo posted Mon May 23 2005 22:05:58 by Columba
Norway Buys NH-90´s posted Fri Nov 30 2001 16:56:17 by Caravelle
Norway To Replace Crashed Hercules posted Tue May 15 2012 09:34:43 by Mortyman
Another Big F-15 Order To Saudi Arabia posted Thu Dec 29 2011 07:13:01 by PC12Fan
RAF To Order 22 Chinooks - Cuts To Pay For Them posted Tue Dec 15 2009 04:30:40 by Ant72LBA

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format