NHIndustries NH90

So. They volunteer to re-assemble them in the glory name of Airbus. But would there be any pilots to volunteer for the reception flights also?

The irrational world of the Taipan needs to be put to the ground. If you weren't yet convinced, this should do.
 
Last edited:
Stovepipe said:
The F111s were buried because they poisoned the mechs who worked on them. Look up the cancer saga of those guys. Shameful reading.
Click to expand...
Yes, jet fuel, Mil-H-5606A "cherry juice" hydraulic fluid, brake cleaner, etc are all known carcinogens.
 
That it is irrational:
- to claim the Taipan was not retired because of reliability issues, like the Tiger will be.
- to claim volunteers could rebuild fully disassembled airframe in-time and quality wise for Ukraine forces.

I don't see also what is the link with Australians honour. I am not from Australia, so you might know better. But they do fly a lot of airframe, including legendary ones that stood for long, that all across the globe, reliably. The RAAF saved the MRTT program for example.
 
TomcatViP said:
That it is irrational:
- to claim the Taipan was not retired because of reliability issues, like the Tiger will be.
Click to expand...
There were multiple issues and yes reliability was one but the primary one, IMHO (though based upon appropriate knowledge), is that there are certain senior Army Aviation officers who never wanted the MRH90/Tiger (they wanted Blackhawks/Apaches) 20yrs ago and now those same officers are un senior positions to do something. Some of the things I have seen on this front in the last 12 - 24mths should be subject to criminal investigations!
TomcatViP said:
- to claim volunteers could rebuild fully disassembled airframe in-time and quality wise for Ukraine forces.
Click to expand...
These are technicians and the like who worked on these exact airframes in recent years. They are not amateurs.
TomcatViP said:
I don't see also what is the link with Australians honour. I am not from Australia, so you might know better.
Click to expand...
The honour is related to the dishonourable way our Army and Political leaders have treated the Ukrainian requests, including even further activities in the last few weeks. It is shameful!
 
Some of the items in the following story are starting to highlight the issues :

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

Australian Army blocks Taipan helicopters for Ukraine to cover up their own failures - APDR

The only thing between Taipan helicopters being donated to Ukraine is a veto by the Army, which the government is too weak to overrule.
asiapacificdefencereporter.com asiapacificdefencereporter.com

And for some context, the Senator David Fawcett in the article is actually a former Australian Army Aviation helicopter pilot.
 
GTX said:
Some of the items in the following story are starting to highlight the issues :

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

Australian Army blocks Taipan helicopters for Ukraine to cover up their own failures - APDR

The only thing between Taipan helicopters being donated to Ukraine is a veto by the Army, which the government is too weak to overrule.
asiapacificdefencereporter.com asiapacificdefencereporter.com

And for some context, the Senator David Fawcett in the article is actually a former Australian Army Aviation helicopter pilot.
Click to expand...
More on this - watch until the end:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=hhYCEWZZORUWnktP&v=gn2uO-UxlCY&feature=youtu.be
 
Pathetic. "Qui veut noyer son chien, l'accuse d'avoir la rage". That translates as: "He who want to drawn a good dog, says - he has rabbies."
 
From link above:

On Friday Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy told reporters the Taipans were no longer in flying condition and would require a huge expenditure of time and resources to get them back.

"The best value for money option for the Commonwealth was to sell the spare parts and dispose of the rest of the asset, and I'll refer you to what the Ukrainian ambassador said: It's time to move on."
Click to expand...

I would suggest we do as well.
 
GTX said:
Yes they have been asking both informally and formally since at least September/October. I can even share a copy their formal request.
Click to expand...
Copy not necessary, the fact that they have formally asked for new helos is good enough.

I assume all of "new-NATO"/former-WARPACT are working on trades to swap whatever Soviet hardware they still have for new H60s?
 
I know both LTGEN Simon Stuart and MAJGEN Jeremy King and I find it both extremely disappointing and infuriating for them to be continually taking the line that they are here. I believe they are being fed BS from others and they are now continuing the 'story' rather than doing the right thing:

View: https://youtu.be/OP3TeDd25SY?si=WvbBxi2Kd0E394Yk
 
On the Airbus Helicopters Linkedin page, Spanish Amy Aviation - FAMET NH90 shown trials with ALANO (Autonomous Logistics Assistant to Operational Nucleus) embarked for the first time on an NH90 of the Spanish Army thus is a high-mobility 6x6 multipurpose electric vehicle designed to accompany dismounted infantry units. Among the missions it can carry out are pack mule, advanced reconnaissance and observation, tactical attack unit, MEDEVAC as well as other functions related to the engineering of each Army.


FAMET_NH90_ALAMO_1.jpeg FAMET_NH90_ALANO_1.jpeg FAMET_NH90_ALANO_2.jpeg FAMET_NH90_ALANO_3.jpeg FAMET_NH90_ALANO_4.jpeg


cheers
 
Very cool. ... until the battery runs out.

Still it does show some of the opportunities that can be had with the increasing number of unmanned systems.
 
But did NHI fix the issue with the rear loading ramp that couldn´t take significant load without jamming?

Also, I don´t know what is the mass of this UGV but I see that probably the cabin floor hooking points are not really up to the task, being what look like aluminum inserts. If it's meant to offer some marginal crash safety, 2 seems a bit marginal.. The UGV hooks are not really designed for that purpose anyway.
The clearance height is also quite minimal.
Wouldn´t that make more sense to have it hooked under the the NH90 as a sling load?
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
But did NHI fix the issue with the rear loading ramp that couldn´t take significant load without jamming?

Also, I don´t know what is the mass of this UGV but I see that probably the cabin floor hooking points are not really up to the task, being what look like aluminum inserts. If it's meant to offer some marginal crash safety, 2 seems a bit marginal.. The UGV hooks are not really designed for that purpose anyway.
The clearance height is also quit minimal.
Wouldn´t that make more sense to have it hooked under the the NH90 as a sling load?
Click to expand...
In combat, slingloads suck. It is like flying a B-17 mission. You cannot maneuver or fly NOE.
You point regarding the weight and CG issues along with the ratings for the tie downs is a fair point. There is also the relevant point that the ground forces are not overly aware of physics and will pile on extra equipment well beyond the approved carrying weight of the UGV or the aircraft. So a ~1000lbs cargo UGV could easily be loaded to ~1300lbs. So unless the ramp is rated well beyond the design weight of the UGV there is a good chance the ramp will be broken, unless the vehicle is weighed before being loaded onto the aircraft.
In fairness this is a universal challenge for all cargo aircraft.
 
yasotay said:
Any thoughts if Belgium will get on the "NATOhawk" train? Or will they go with EC725 Caracal?

This must be infuriating at the Eurocopter HQ.
Click to expand...
NH90 is not an Airbus Helicopters product (sorry the name changed more than 10 years ago, but having "Euro" in the name seem to provoke some pavlovian reflex?). It is a NHIndustries programme implemented for a NATO agency, NAHEMA. NATO, you remember? They manage the programme and in particular created the multiplicity of versions. NHIndustries is also AgustaWestland (to give the old name here also) and FokkerTechnologies.

Sad to see this forum is dying from politizisation always from the same quarter.
 
Last edited:
timmymagic said:
Surely NZ would just do the usual and pickup some secondhand from other operators who are running for the hills?
Click to expand...
Maybe?

While the Kiwis haven't had any public issues with their NH90s, I suspect that's because they looked at NHI's suggested spare parts stocking, compared it with how many spare parts they had for their Hueys, and bought spares as if the NH90s were 50yo Hueys.

So I'm not totally sure the Kiwis would be able to buy enough spares to run the NH90 NFH versions. It would be good for their logistics to do that, though. Even if they did a custom ASW version using all the SH2G ASW gear installed into an NH90 airframe, the RNZAF would be able to support with spares.
 
timmymagic said:
Surely NZ would just do the usual and pickup some secondhand from other operators who are running for the hills?
Click to expand...
The only used NFHs are the 14 Norwegian ones (8 in SAR configuration and 6 ASW).

Could be a good choice as Norway’s NH90s have barely flown despite being apparently in perfect operating condition. With the mechanical issues now fixed (1,800 hr TBO for all the key mechanical components), the corrosion issues also resolved, and manpower needs reduced with 900hr inspection intervals, as long as users like NZ can get hold of spare parts (which remains the big sticking point), the NH90 should work great.
 
H_K said:
The only used NFHs are the 14 Norwegian ones (8 in SAR configuration and 6 ASW).

Could be a good choice as Norway’s NH90s have barely flown despite being apparently in perfect operating condition. With the mechanical issues now fixed (1,800 hr TBO for all the key mechanical components), the corrosion issues also resolved, and manpower needs reduced with 900hr inspection intervals, as long as users like NZ can get hold of spare parts (which remains the big sticking point), the NH90 should work great.
Click to expand...
I still insist that the reason NZ hasn't had much trouble flying their NH90s is because they laughed at the manufacturer's suggestions for spare parts and ordered spares to the same levels they kept for their 50yo Hueys.
 
H_K said:
The only used NFHs are the 14 Norwegian ones (8 in SAR configuration and 6 ASW).

Could be a good choice as Norway’s NH90s have barely flown despite being apparently in perfect operating condition. With the mechanical issues now fixed (1,800 hr TBO for all the key mechanical components), the corrosion issues also resolved, and manpower needs reduced with 900hr inspection intervals, as long as users like NZ can get hold of spare parts (which remains the big sticking point), the NH90 should work great.
Click to expand...

There might be the Swedish ones coming up for sale as well in the future. Different model though (hi cabin)
 

Belgium to Sell 4 NH90 Helicopters, Buy 15 Airbus H145M Instead

The Belgian defense ministry wants to buy 15 Airbus H145M helicopters. These are light helicopters that are versatile and, above all, much cheaper to ...
www.defense-aerospace.com www.defense-aerospace.com

So..... Arbeisbeschaffungsmassnahme-90...problems, troubles and too expensive?
OK a rather very small fleet
 
Things are only going to get worse for the NH-90 until Airbus start to design a better helicopter to replace it.
 
Good but it doesn't eradicate it's main problem, spare parts and the prices of those in 24 karat gold.... That every nation has somehow a little bit of a different version doesn't help it either

Just my 2cents
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom