New Medium Helicopter - Discuss

[Spotty_Jag]

Following some comments on the 'Interesting Internet' thread, I was surprised there wasn't already a dedicated thread to discuss what helicopter the UK will choose to purchase soon for it's NMH contract.

The key point, which some posters seem to have overlooked in the other thread, regarding 'just buy Blackhawk' attitude, is that this isn't just a Puma replacement... New Medium Helicopter will replace the Bell 212, Griffin, Dauphin & Puma in UK military service.

So, discuss alway...

[centaurus18]

No need to discuss it. The AW149 will get it either outright or partial, otherwise Leonardo's long-term future in Yeovil (where it is the major employer) looks very bleak.

[boff180]

It's going to be between the Airbus and Leonardo contenders.

The Boeing is too small and the S-70 whilst prolific is less capable than the other two, you can't even stand up in the cabin!

[centaurus18]

It's going to be between the Airbus and Leonardo contenders.

The Boeing is too small and the S-70 whilst prolific is less capable than the other two, you can't even stand up in the cabin!

Yep. Maybe a small number of Airbus' to replace the Dauphin whilst the Aw149 mops up the rest.

[Tommy]

This is going to sound very boring and middle of the road, but all of them have their pros and cons.

The H175 has some people raising concerns about Chinese input/involvement, as well as the site proposed being little more than a hangar and needing all the kit to be set up etc. I think it’s a slightly hollow promise. I think it’s technically the newest design (given the 149 derives from the earlier 139).

The AW149 is regarded as “unproven” (though I disagree with this sentiment) and “a militarised civvi design” rather than a military helicopter by design (though this is also arguable). But the manufacturing line is already set up (they did lots of work on the Coastguard 189s and some others in/out), unlike the H175M. Plus it will help preserve the heritage and longevity of a historic U.K. aircraft manufacturer and U.K. aviation factory (albeit with an Italian name now). Leonardo have also said that if the U.K. wins, it’ll shift all 149 production to the U.K. plant, so there’s additional benefit of foreign orders, too. This might be dismissed as “politics” but it’s not nothing. Industrial benefits are a huge part of any defence contracting.

The S-70s won’t be built in the U.K., they’ll be built in Poland, and they’re an old design. The base airframe is 50 next year, which isn’t by default a problem (look at Chinooks - though as yet no replacement for them exists), but there’s only so much you can add to a 50 year old design. Indeed, the US Army has just selected its replacement. However, it is “proven” as Mike said in the other thread, and is clearly a very good aircraft, and does the job pretty well. I think the Blackhawk would have been ideal in the 1990s, as license built, but now I just think that that ship has sailed. I suppose all designs are well “proven” at the end of their natural lives.

I’m not sure whether Boeing are actually pitching the MH139 Grey Wolf, but it’d surely be an outlier, given it’s just the smaller version of the Leonardo design anyway. It’d be a remarkably stupid move, even for Whitehall, to select that and not the 149.

I’m not informed enough to be confident which one is the best, as they all have varying pros/cons. I am confident about two things though:

1) they are all capable enough to do the job. I’ve seen people saying that lots of soldiers will die if the wrong aircraft is chosen, which is palpable rubbish. If they were that bad, they wouldn’t have made it through the down selection process. Nor would the companies have even proposed them in the first place.

2) anyone who says one is “clearly” the best choice without being open to the concept that whatever option is chosen will be better in some areas and worse in others than the other contenders, is also talking rubbish.

Despite my love of UH-60s/S-70s, I’d personally prefer that we chose the AW149, and I think that’s the way it’ll go given the industrial benefit, it’s capability, and it’s generally a little more future proof than the old S-70 design, but the notion that any of them will be so much worse than the others that it risks the lives of troops is, I think, nonsense. They’re all of a good standard.

But, as always, and probably as usual, I could be wrong.

[Orion]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW149
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Medium_Helicopter
I gather from this that the AgustaWestland would be built at Yeovil while the Airbus would be made at Broughton. I suppose that the long term view might help the Yeovil factory

[DOUGHNUT]

Whichever type is chosen lets just hope they buy enough to actually do the all the jobs expected of them.

[Tommy]

(Interesting, given Boeing’s partnership with Leonardo pre-existing partnership in the US MH-139 contract)

[cg_341]

NMH is going to fail because there's too many different types of mission being rolled in to one.

You need an S-70i to replace Puma (even though puma should never have been bought in the first place, should have gone with UH-60 back then)

Then to replace Bell 212/412, AW109SP, AS365 you need something akin to an AW149. You could even save an absolute fortune and just buy more H145s!

As ever though, Yeovil is sacred so we'll end up with AW149s to do all of it and the ex-Puma Force will suffer because of it.

[Tommy]

I’d have thought that H145s are ideally placed to replace the Bell 212 and 412, and given that the RAF operates them, there’s a supply and logistics chain set up, as well as crews already trained/qualified on the type (which for the Griffin is how it seems to have worked), but there we go. Perhaps I’m missing something.

(Likewise, the WS-70 probably ought to have been procured back in the 80s to do the Puma’s job - that would have kept Westlands, whilst also get the platform)

But then, since when did the MoD procure anything sensibly - MFTS in the pits, Poseidons coming after a 10 year MPA gap, too few Wedgetails, barely enough F-35s, Voyagers without a boom/cargo door…

[Brevet Cable]

(even though puma should never have been bought in the first place, should have gone with UH-60 back then)

That would have been a bloody wonderful bit of magic by MOD Procurement, given that the Puma entered RAF service several years before the UH-60 first flew and almost 10 years before it first entered service.........

[bizfreeq]

(even though puma should never have been bought in the first place, should have gone with UH-60 back then)

That would have been a bloody wonderful bit of magic by MOD Procurement, given that the Puma entered RAF service several years before the UH-60 first flew and almost 10 years before it first entered service.........

I was thinking exactly that, Puma entered RAF service in 1971, the first flight of the UH-60 was '74 and entered service in '79.

[Tommy]

It’s a 40+ year old design now. Nothing wrong with that per se (see the Chinook, C-130, B-52 etc), and the current ones are pretty high tech, but you can only cram so much into old designs. The US Army has already selected their H-60 replacement.

It was obviously before my time, but I’ll bet that some people used to say exactly the same about Blackhawks when they were new as they said about Hueys. “It’s not battle-proven”, “it’s too plastic”, “we should just buy more Hueys”. Fundamentally, human beings don’t like change.

Personally, I think the U.K. should have purchased the WS-60 decades ago, but I can’t help but feel that the Blackhawk boat has now sailed.

The U.K. NMH anticipates the contract running 2023-2028. So, if we want 20-30 years’ service out of these things (as a minimum, surely?), then by the time of retirement of the youngest airframes, the H-60/S-70 design (not the airframes) will be nearing 70, perhaps even 80 years old. Will it be redundant in the face of more modern adversaries/challenges? Will they require significant upgrades? I don’t know.

Does that make it the “wrong” choice? I don’t know. Chinooks are ticking on. As are Apaches. But then they don’t have a replacement/alternative as of yet.

Or perhaps, as per, I don’t know what I’m talking about. Usually the case.

[cg_341]

(even though puma should never have been bought in the first place, should have gone with UH-60 back then)

That would have been a bloody wonderful bit of magic by MOD Procurement, given that the Puma entered RAF service several years before the UH-60 first flew and almost 10 years before it first entered service.........

Sorry, I mixed up my timelines. I should have course have said Blackhawk for AST.404, which was the original Puma replacement back in 197x!

[Andyph]

I might be wrong but I understand the Blackhawk is the only contender that was 100% designed as a Military Helicopter.
The rest are (to a more or lesser extent) Militarised versions of civilian machines.
As long as they dont buy NH-90s!

It was famously said when the Blackhawk first flew that the last Blackhawk would be delivered to the Boneyard slung under a Huey!

[Tommy]

On balance, that’s probably correct but depends how technical/hair-splitty you want to get.

I could be wrong, but the AW149 was designed from the off to be a military helicopter, but it’s “based on” the smaller AW139. It’s unfair to say it’s a “militarised” AW139 because it’s not the same helicopter/design, but it’s also unfair to say the AW149 is a clean-sheet military design, either. There is a civilian version of the AW149, which is the AW189, but as far as I recall, that came after, so it’s a civilianised AW149, rather than the other way around.

As for the AW139 itself - I think that was designed in principle to replace the Bell 205/UH-1 family as a whole, so it’s probably unfair to say it’s strictly a civilian-designed helicopter. But it does have a huge variety of civilian (and military) use.

The H175 is slightly easier, but again, it was designed both civilian and “parapublic” roles according to wiki (this doesn’t necessarily mean “military”, but it’s designed to be more than a plastic VIP-truck).

Though I’m unaware even if they are civvi helicopters, why that’d be a dealbreaker. The SAS operates civilian-designed helicopters with their Dauphins (which also see a large variety of military use around the world). Likewise plenty of nations use the AW139/189 in demanding roles (either military, or things like Coastguard work). The H175 or it’s derivatives are used for incredibly demanding North Sea oil rig work.

In both cases, even if they are civvi helicopters, they’re no slouches, and then or their derivatives either are already in military service, or do some of the most demanding civilian work available.

(But again, I could be wrong)

[Tommy]

It was famously said when the Blackhawk first flew that the last Blackhawk would be delivered to the Boneyard slung under a Huey!

Quite. And the “best replacement for a Dakota\C-47 is another Dakota”. And what was the Tornado/MRCA program acronym referred to? Something like “Must Refurbish the Canberra Again”?

We get attached to machines in service, particularly ones that have had a pretty stellar service record.

As I said before, the Blackhawk would have been a great choice for the U.K. thirty years ago, but I think that the boat has sailed on that.

[Andyph]

On balance, that’s probably correct but depends how technical/hair-splitty you want to get.

I could be wrong, but the AW149 was designed from the off to be a military helicopter, but it’s “based on” the smaller AW139. It’s unfair to say it’s a “militarised” AW139 because it’s not the same helicopter/design, but it’s also unfair to say the AW149 is a clean-sheet military design, either. There is a civilian version of the AW149, which is the AW189, but as far as I recall, that came after, so it’s a civilianised AW149, rather than the other way around.

As for the AW139 itself - I think that was designed in principle to replace the Bell 205/UH-1 family as a whole, so it’s probably unfair to say it’s strictly a civilian-designed helicopter. But it does have a huge variety of civilian (and military) use.

The H175 is slightly easier, but again, it was designed both civilian and “parapublic” roles according to wiki (this doesn’t necessarily mean “military”, but it’s designed to be more than a plastic VIP-truck).

Though I’m unaware even if they are civvi helicopters, why that’d be a dealbreaker. The SAS operates civilian-designed helicopters with their Dauphins (which also see a large variety of military use around the world). Likewise plenty of nations use the AW139/189 in demanding roles (either military, or things like Coastguard work). The H175 or it’s derivatives are used for incredibly demanding North Sea oil rig work.

In both cases, even if they are civvi helicopters, they’re no slouches, and then or their derivatives either are already in military service, or do some of the most demanding civilian work available.

(But again, I could be wrong)

For example helicopters designed to be Military from the get go will have a larger door to allow a door gunner/gun AND space to let troops to get in and out - also seat positions to make that work.
Unless of course it is called NH-90!

[aviationanoraks]

Just an observation, and not a comment on the types suitability, but having spent quite a bit of time on the North Norfolk coast where the AW139 oil rig helicopters fly over it is very apparent they are very noisy and you can hear them coming long before you can see them.
Would any military variation of the family would have some sort of equipment/upgrade to reduce this?

[Andyph]

Just an observation, and not a comment on the types suitability, but having spent quite a bit of time on the North Norfolk coast where the AW139 oil rig helicopters fly over it is very apparent they are very noisy and you can hear them coming long before you can see them.
Would any military variation of the family would have some sort of equipment/upgrade to reduce this?

No

[Tommy]

Probably not, or not at huge expense at any rate.

[Orion]

So why doesn't the British Army also select the V-280? Is it a question of finance?
https://newatlas.com/military/us-army-2 ... wk-apache/

[Tommy]

The short answer is because it’s not being offered in the NMH programme. I cba to look into the legalities of it right now, but the MoD can only select what’s been submitted and scrutinised as part of the tender.

[Tommy]

[Tommy]

The article (which I responded to a WhatsApp, and when I went back to it, paywalled itself before I could finish reading, so I’m happy to be corrected) states that:

The level of industrial input it is proposing is such that Sikorsky will bill the S-70 as “the most British helicopter” in the contest. Rivals Airbus Helicopters and Leonardo Helicopters are pitching their respective H175M and AW149 platforms, both of which will be built in the UK for the domestic and international markets.

Given the cost advantages of Sikorsky’s existing production line in Poland over whatever it creates in the UK, the airframer is likely to focus on the export potential of certain elements - such as mission systems or sustainment - rather than the bare airframe

So “the “most British helicopter” in the contest” sounds to be pretty disingenuous, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see what they say at DSEI.