I’m curious how you’re coming to this conclusion?With no modifications to the engines power output, weak ballistic protection and the same main and torque rotors, the H-160 just promise to be another sluggish inadapted beast from AirbusM.
None of the aircraft the H160 replaces have ballistic protection. It has low rotor loading, lower than attack helicopters such as the Apache/Tiger and lower than transport helicopters such as Blackhawk/NH-90. Power margins seem pretty decent based on published hover performance (9,200ft out of ground effect @ 5,670kg ISA which should meet the US Army standard of 6K/95F).
So it may not be perfect, but there doesn’t seem to be anything fundamentally wrong with the H160 design for military use. Certainly should be more successful than the US Army’s similar attempt 15 years ago (ARH-70… which was too small). And compared to what it’s replacing it should be a huge improvement.
Last edited: