Posted on 07/08/2006 11:02:19 AM PDT by llevrok
Satisfied with the first twelve NH90 helicopters it bought (and will not receive until next year), Australia has ordered another 34, at a cost of $44 million each. The first twelve were bought to replace Vietnam war era UH-1s. The new lot will replace aging Sea Kings and Blackhawks. Delivery of the 34 helicopters will take place over the next nine years.
NH Industries, the European firm the makes the NH90, has been eating into the export market for American made Blackhawk transport helicopters. Over 500 NH90s have been sold so far, and often they beat out Blackhawk for sales. American armed forces currently use some 2,000 Blackhawks, and hundreds more have been sold to overseas customers.
The ten ton NH90 comes in transport and naval version (used for reconnaissance, anti-submarine and anti-ship missions.) The transport version can carry 21 troops or twelve casualties on stretchers, plus the crew of two. Powered by two engines, the NH90 has a top speed of 300 kilometers an hour and a maximum endurance of 5.5 hours. It first flew in 1995 and uses state of the art avionics and other components to justify it's $40 million+ dollar price tag.
NH Industries is a consortium of French, German, Dutch and Italian firms. The Blackhawk design is twenty years older than the NH90. Although the latest version of the Blackhawk is up to date technically, it is slightly smaller and lighter than the NH90, and can only carry eleven troops. Blackhawk max speed is 285 kilometers an hour and endurance is 2.1 hours. The NH90 has more powerful engines and larger fuel capacity, as well as being a bit larger. The big difference is in cost, with new NH90s more than twice as expensive as a new Blackhawk.
Of course, I wouldn't either.
You pay a lot for a little bit of additional capability. Usually that little bit of capability isn't used.
It is very important to trip back your requirements before you visit the dealer.
"Usually that little bit of capability isn't used."
It sounds like the Blackhawks need conformal fuel tanks to extend their mission time. Those would only be configured if needed, of course.
The UH1 is still the best. It is simple and robust. I do not see the like of NH90s rolling into the alleys of Iraq the way the Blackhawk would either. This copter is hightech and fast and nice looking, but it's big and does not look made to withstand the "drill" at twice the price of a Blackhawk, imo.
We shall be reminded that the Comanche was canceled because it were made for stealth radar attacks and were too unarmored, delicate and expensive to field in assymetric combat against terrorists. Although I believe we still need it for first stealth strike operations on border radar stations like in NK or China.
Nearly double the troop capacity (11 vs 21) and 2 1/2 times the endurance is "a little bit of additional capability?"
Mark
No matter how big the helicopter, it generally fly back empty.
Because of that, the advantage of large payload is somewhat diminished.
One of the requirements is to deploy a full platoon off the LPAs in one lift. 
There are only two Heko operating spots on the aft deck. There is another spot on the foredeck, but tha is usually used to tote a couple of LCM(8)s 
That rules out the 11 troop Blackhawk which needs 3 helos to meet the requirement.
The other contenders Aerospatiale Puma, Augusta/Westland Merlin, Sikorsky 92 and NH-90 could do it with two (the Merlin, one).
However the Puma, and the NH-90 (amd blackhawk) can also cross deck onto frigate helo pads. Puma and Blackhawk are old designs, while S-92 is so new Australia would virtullly be the launch customer.
ergo Eurocopter NH-90.
I presume that the folks making up the requirement knew what they were doing. They studied. I havent.
If you change the size of a platoon, you get a change to the requirements, or you get added capability that may, or may not be tactically useful. If you have an ability to quickly fold rotors, then you can, perhaps, get 3 choppers in a space that would usually only hold 2.
The cost of the bigger, more expensive helicopers is seen in every flight, and even now, before the first ever use, the customer is paying for the added capability.
The theoretical advantages of larger loads (say a 10 ton truck) compared to a smaller (say a 5 ton truck) are often compensated by tactical rigidity (with 2 end items you can only land in 2 places, with three, you can land in 3, leaving to greater dispersal, less vulnerability, and Lower average cost, considering that most pilot training will occur with the chopper completely empty.
Aircraft usage is, on one system I am familiar with, 80% pilot training, 13% exercises, and 7 % combat. This is a vastly different system, but it perhaps illustrates that you have to look at the entire system, and not put too much empasis on any single requirement.
I heard the Marines are excited about getting their V22... so I think some of the naysayers should listen to the soldiers a bit... and indeed, if the V22 had been the size of the Pave Low, for rapid deployment and what not, it would have been a truer "do it all" capability replacement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.