Norway drops NH-90

[DeV]

Why not go for the Super Puma/Cougar then?

Airbus didn’t offer it ?

wonder if it’s to do with the manufactured in U.K. element

[SouthernOne]

Why not go for the Super Puma/Cougar then?

Ultimately the CH-47 is just a big box for carrying "things" in, which also has a hook underneath for carrying whatever is too large to fit inside the box. Everything that enables that "box" to get airborne, move to the desired location, and unload whatever is in or under the "box" has been updated as technology has improved. The way the "box" is constructed has also changed several times, and from a structural perspective today's model shares very little with the original. All those changes have been made in a very deliberate, incremental way. I'm not certain how big an issue it is if the appearance of the "box" hasn't really changed too much.

[Anzac]

Would you really want to see a 70 year old design as the backbone of troop transport?

Yep. Its called the C-130. First flew in 1954.

[Anzac]

Do you have a link (can find news reports but not the report itself)?

was NZ the launch customer of NH90 ?

NZ was well into the production run when we got them.

The AG report will likely gone off their website site some time ago and be now a parliamentary library print copy sitting on a shelf gathering dust.

[na grohmiti]

Not much of the original UH-60A would still be in production, though, apart from things like doors and basic shape of the fuselage. The CH-47 has been in production even longer, but under the skin, pretty much everything has been changed several times.

Why not go for the Super Puma/Cougar then?

[SouthernOne]

A 40 year old design though?

Not much of the original UH-60A would still be in production, though, apart from things like doors and basic shape of the fuselage. The CH-47 has been in production even longer, but under the skin, pretty much everything has been changed several times.

[na grohmiti]

A 40 year old design though?

[DeV]

I thought LM and Boeing were out. In any event the S70 is not much more modern a design than Puma, having entered service in 1979, compared to the Puma's introduction just 11 years earlier. Would you really want to see a 70 year old design as the backbone of troop transport? It would be akin to having a C-47 in frontline use as a troop transport today.

Not sure tbh

combat proven, in operation worldwide, interoperable, doesn’t look to be going anywhere and has been constantly upgraded

[na grohmiti]

I thought LM and Boeing were out. In any event the S70 is not much more modern a design than Puma, having entered service in 1979, compared to the Puma's introduction just 11 years earlier. Would you really want to see a 70 year old design as the backbone of troop transport? It would be akin to having a C-47 in frontline use as a troop transport today.

[DeV]

I notice no such effort to create a heli by committee to replace the Puma in service with NATO. Instead there is a clear choice between either the H175M or the AW149. Both types already well established.

No time for a brand new design, the procurement timeline is too tight (and is already behind)

in November, they selected 4 finalists:
Airbus H175M
Leonardo AW149
Lockheed Martin S-70M
Boeing MH-139 (US military version of Leonardo AW139)

not sure if any changes to that since

[DeV]

The NZDF has had issues. A 2012 Auditor Generals Report was scathing on the NH90 acquisition.

Southern One is right in that the ADF had a benchmark to judge the NH90 against in the UH60 which in hindsight for both Forces was the MUH that they both should have bought right from the get go.

Do you have a link (can find news reports but not the report itself)?

was NZ the launch customer of NH90 ?

[na grohmiti]

I notice no such effort to create a heli by committee to replace the Puma in service with NATO. Instead there is a clear choice between either the H175M or the AW149. Both types already well established.

[SouthernOne]

The NZDF has had issues. A 2012 Auditor Generals Report was scathing on the NH90 acquisition.

Southern One is right in that the ADF had a benchmark to judge the NH90 against in the UH60 which in hindsight for both Forces was the MUH that they both should have bought right from the get go.

It's a similar story with Sweden. Initially they purchased a small number of UH60s for "interim" use. Fast forward a decade and they have decided to walk away from the NH90 and apparantly plan to acquire additional UH60s and potentially MH-60s.

[Anzac]

Interesting view points on why Australia has had NH90 issues and New Zealand hasn’t

https://asiapacificdefencereporter.c...nce-logistics/

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/...atives#new_tab

The NZDF has had issues. A 2012 Auditor Generals Report was scathing on the NH90 acquisition.

Southern One is right in that the ADF had a benchmark to judge the NH90 against in the UH60 which in hindsight for both Forces was the MUH that they both should have bought right from the get go.

[Anzac]

Other than the NH90, the Kiwis only have experience with the old UH-1 and AW109, which is not really a military helo.

SH-2F and SH2G as well.