- Joined
- 19 July 2016
- Messages
- 4,044
- Reaction score
- 3,089
Paywall unfortunately.
Paywall unfortunately.
From the article:
Revealed on 1 November, the proposals laid out by General Micael Byden, head of the Swedish military, will see the country retire the NH90s operated by its armed forces for battlefield support and naval missions, replacing them respectively with additional Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawks and a yet to be determined type.
Stockholm earlier in the year had commissioned a review into the performance of its NH90 fleet, particularly relating to upgrades required to bolster the type’s anti-submarine warfare capabilities. Availability issues with the troop transport variant have also been a concern.
On the back of that process, Byden’s plans call for it to “decommission” the HKP-14Es and -14Fs – Sweden’s designations for the NH90 troop transport and maritime helicopters – over the period from 2024 to 2030. The 18-strong fleet comprises nine of each version.
Under the proposals, Stockholm will begin the procurement of a new maritime helicopter in the 2024-2030 period, while also buying additional Black Hawks for the battlefield support role.
“The aim is to meet operational requirements earlier and increase availability of the helicopter fleet to be able to support the army, special forces and navy needs,” the plans indicate.
Retirement of the NH90 fleet will be completed by 2035 at the latest, in parallel with the acquisition of new Black Hawks, the document says.
Airbus Helicopters appears to be keen on the acquisition of the UK’s Puma fleet for part-out when the helicopters leave service in the coming years, potentially adding a further dimension to its interest in NMH.
Christoph Zammert, executive vice-president customer support and services, says those assets would allow the manufacturer to keep other operators of the legacy type flying.
“Providing the price is right and the documentation there, we would be interested in buying them back.”
Airbus Helicopters has already acquired several civil rotorcraft – 13 H120s and three H135s – for dismantling, with its “harvest list” including dynamic components, landing gears and avionics equipment.
Boeing shifts stance on prime contractor role for NMH
Boeing has shifted its approach to the UK's New Medium Helicopter (NMH) contest and is no longer pursuing the requirement as a prime contractor, FlightGlobal understands.www.flightglobal.com
Boeing shifts stance on prime contractor role for NMH
Boeing has shifted its approach to the UK's New Medium Helicopter (NMH) contest and is no longer pursuing the requirement as a prime contractor, FlightGlobal understands.www.flightglobal.com
Here si the official skinny
Greetings from Heli EXpo 2023 in Atlanta.
cheers
The companies? Yes.Boeing shifts stance on prime contractor role for NMH
Boeing has shifted its approach to the UK's New Medium Helicopter (NMH) contest and is no longer pursuing the requirement as a prime contractor, FlightGlobal understands.www.flightglobal.com
Here si the official skinny
Greetings from Heli EXpo 2023 in Atlanta.
cheers
Boeing and Airbus teaming together? Has that happened before?
"What makes me think that the Blackhawk is more air transportable than any of the other contenders" Jackonicko?What makes you think that the Blackhawk is more air transportable than any of the other contenders? I don't know about the H175M's air-portability, but the AW149 fits in anything that a Blackhawk can, and its shorter wheelbase makes it simpler to load.This might have already been mentioned, but another important design capability of a S-70 Blackhawk derivative is its inherent ability to be air transportable (RAF C-17's) more than any other competitive design - especially given that the UK government/DOD seems obsessed with the Pacific AO and China overnight.......
Just an operational consideration.
Regards
Pioneer
That's quite a presumption you're working on, Pioneer. The S-70 Blackhawk will only fit in a C-130 if the rotor head assembly is removed. Because of this, Sikorsky had to get a waiver in the UTTAS fly-off!"What makes me think that the Blackhawk is more air transportable than any of the other contenders" Jackonicko?What makes you think that the Blackhawk is more air transportable than any of the other contenders? I don't know about the H175M's air-portability, but the AW149 fits in anything that a Blackhawk can, and its shorter wheelbase makes it simpler to load.This might have already been mentioned, but another important design capability of a S-70 Blackhawk derivative is its inherent ability to be air transportable (RAF C-17's) more than any other competitive design - especially given that the UK government/DOD seems obsessed with the Pacific AO and China overnight.......
Just an operational consideration.
Regards
Pioneer
Well, Im working on the presumption that the Sikorsky Blackhawk was specifically designed from the get-go to meet the stringent UTTAS requirements of the US Army to be transportable by Lockheed C-130 Hercules, C-141 Starlifter and C-5 Galaxy. As such it has numerous components that simply fold up, as opposed to the need to disassemble. Do any of the other contenders have such a demand incorporated into their designs?
(P.S. granted, the attached picture is the YUH-61 prototype, which is folded to the C-130 Herc configuration. But this design requirement, even though suspended, still allowed the Blackhawk to have better air-transportability than any other assault transport helicopter Im aware of.)
Regards
Pioneer
Yes, a presumption. I never claimed my analogy was concrete.That's quite a presumption you're working on, Pioneer. The S-70 Blackhawk will only fit in a C-130 if the rotor head assembly is removed. Because of this, Sikorsky had to get a waiver in the UTTAS fly-off!"What makes me think that the Blackhawk is more air transportable than any of the other contenders" Jackonicko?What makes you think that the Blackhawk is more air transportable than any of the other contenders? I don't know about the H175M's air-portability, but the AW149 fits in anything that a Blackhawk can, and its shorter wheelbase makes it simpler to load.This might have already been mentioned, but another important design capability of a S-70 Blackhawk derivative is its inherent ability to be air transportable (RAF C-17's) more than any other competitive design - especially given that the UK government/DOD seems obsessed with the Pacific AO and China overnight.......
Just an operational consideration.
Regards
Pioneer
Well, Im working on the presumption that the Sikorsky Blackhawk was specifically designed from the get-go to meet the stringent UTTAS requirements of the US Army to be transportable by Lockheed C-130 Hercules, C-141 Starlifter and C-5 Galaxy. As such it has numerous components that simply fold up, as opposed to the need to disassemble. Do any of the other contenders have such a demand incorporated into their designs?
(P.S. granted, the attached picture is the YUH-61 prototype, which is folded to the C-130 Herc configuration. But this design requirement, even though suspended, still allowed the Blackhawk to have better air-transportability than any other assault transport helicopter Im aware of.)
Regards
Pioneer
The AW149 fits in an A400 or C-17 with LESS disassembly than a Blackhawk.
Though Leonardo won't talk about their existing AW149 military operator it is known that Egypt's AW149s routinely operate from the Mistral class landing ships, suggesting that they 'fold' sufficiently to use elevators, etc.
It does seem a bit of a tradition. Of course we have our own issues on this side of the pond, espescially with reconnaissance helicopters.I am shocked I tells ya!
2027-28 is getting close to Merlin replacement time so maybe they will try to kill several birds with the same stone. It is frustrating though when off-the-shelf stuff is there and when there is a chance to actually buy something that might work and not end up as another "MOD effed it up" headline story.
I am shocked I tells ya!
2027-28 is getting close to Merlin replacement time so maybe they will try to kill several birds with the same stone. It is frustrating though when off-the-shelf stuff is there and when there is a chance to actually buy something that might work and not end up as another "MOD effed it up" headline story.
Don’t think this is a party political issue.I am shocked I tells ya!
2027-28 is getting close to Merlin replacement time so maybe they will try to kill several birds with the same stone. It is frustrating though when off-the-shelf stuff is there and when there is a chance to actually buy something that might work and not end up as another "MOD effed it up" headline story.
I wonder . . . 2028 should be the election after next, is the RAF thinking '2024, Labour get in, defence cuts, so Puma Replacement chopped, leave it until 2028, hope for Tory victory, then combine Puma / Merlin replacement, 'two for the price of one, Prime Minister, honest . . .'.
cheers,
Robin.
Don’t think this is a party political issue.I am shocked I tells ya!
2027-28 is getting close to Merlin replacement time so maybe they will try to kill several birds with the same stone. It is frustrating though when off-the-shelf stuff is there and when there is a chance to actually buy something that might work and not end up as another "MOD effed it up" headline story.
I wonder . . . 2028 should be the election after next, is the RAF thinking '2024, Labour get in, defence cuts, so Puma Replacement chopped, leave it until 2028, hope for Tory victory, then combine Puma / Merlin replacement, 'two for the price of one, Prime Minister, honest . . .'.
cheers,
Robin.
Both main UK political parties are well practised at defence cuts, it’s just one of them (Tories) is rather more practised at promising increased defence attention/ focus and budgets, and then ends up cutting them in practice anyway.
A wider issue is that irrespective of which party is in power in the UK the underlying economic forecasts and spending plans structure (a lot of planned general spending cuts are back loaded, almost like the relevant party doesn’t expect to still be power at that point) don’t look good for further increases in defensive spending for projects like this,
You forgot the bit about selling the factories to developers for housing/offices/retail parks... always had a suspicion that BAe made more money selling factories than they did selling aircraft...I guess the plan is to let all the people who know how to build helicopters in the UK find another job or retire and then order some. It worked well with armoured vehicle, ship and submarine building!
Well too late: Netherland was quick to grab them (my guess only). See below (12 Caracal for Netherland SoC):Emirates canceled orders of Caracal might have left some good opportunities to aquire supplementary airframe. Pure speculation, obviously.
I hope they will refine their specifications to make it more clear for the industry.
But let's admit, no Hercule, old Puma... It doesn't sound good for British mobility.
My thrust was, by waiting until both Puma and Merlin need replacing, and proposing a common replacement for both airframes, the Service can play on the economies of scale that this would produce.
cheers,
Robin.
Arlington Securities was sold though in 2001 as part of the divestment of all its non-defence assets (to raise a cool £1bn) as BAE Systems became a defence behemoth that didn't need to tinker around in other areas.zeb: BAe as a Land Bank. No suspicion, specific purpose. Govt unloaded Royal Ordnance and Rover Group to them solely, specifically so. They set up a Property Manager, Arlington, initially to handle Saudi Air Defence System infrastructure, then bought Liverpool Airport (?!).
The A in their name lost any meaning decades ago.
My thrust was, by waiting until both Puma and Merlin need replacing, and proposing a common replacement for both airframes, the Service can play on the economies of scale that this would produce.
cheers,
Robin.
Robin, you know better than spout such nonsense. A joint requirement? Economies of scale? Oooooh! Me sides! Me sides! They've split like Bill Werbernuik's trousers.
Chris
They pulled that one to get Chinooks.
Chris