Another Helo Bites the Dust

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

MIflyer

1st Lieutenant
6,232
11,944
May 30, 2011
Cape Canaveral
Last year the the USAF delayed procurement of the MH-139 Gray Wolf due to technical issues associated with FAA certification. Since then the US Army announced that the UH-72 fleet will have to be modified to correct the choppers in ability to handle warmer temperatures. Now, this news from Norway.

I wonder about this fascination with buying European helos. And it seems that all the Euros are not happy with them, either.

"Norway has terminated its contract to acquire 14 NH90 medium-lift helicopters it intended to use for coast guard and anti-submarine warfare missions. Citing 20 years of frustration with the NH90 helicopter program, the Norwegian government additionally requested a full refund from NHIndustries."

"The NH90 program, operated by NHIndustries, is a joint venture between Airbus Helicopters and Leonardo that began in 1995 and delivered its first helicopter in 2007. To date, 471 have been delivered to a variety of armed forces, primarily in Europe. The twin-engine helicopter features fly-by-wire flight controls, useful load of 9,260 pounds, maximum speed of 162 knots, and range of 530 nm. It was designed to provide a European-made alternative to Sikorsky's ubiquitous UH-60 Black Hawk."

"Over the years a variety of operators have reported a range of operational issues with the NH90 related to its rear ramp, fuselage strength and corrosion, engines, transmissions, and spares availability."

"Based on a joint recommendation by the Armed Forces and associated departments and agencies, the Norwegian government has therefore decided to end the introduction of the NH90 and has authorized the Norwegian Defense Materiel Agency to terminate the contract," said Norwegian minister of defense Bjørn Arild Gram today in Oslo. Gram said Norway will begin seeking alternative solutions to meet the missions for which it ordered the NH90."

"Norway originally signed a contract for the delivery of 14 aircraft in 2001 for deliveries beginning in 2008. As of today, eight have been delivered in fully operational configuration. The fleet is currently required to provide 3,900 flight hours annually but in recent years it has averaged only about 700 hours, the ministry said. "We have made repeated attempts at resolving the problems related to the NH90 in cooperation with NHI, but more than 20 years after the contract was signed, we still don't have helicopters capable of performing the missions for which they were bought, and without NHI being able to present us with any realistic solutions", said Gro Jære, Director General of the Norwegian Defense Materiel Agency. The Agency will now begin preparations to return the helicopters along with any spares and equipment received. It will also request a refund from NHI, which will include the approximately NOK five billion ($520 million) it has paid under the contract, in addition to interest and other expenses."

NH90Helo.jpg
 
The AW139 (the civilian version the MH-139 is derived from) is actually an excellent helicopter. My former company was the largest operator of them worldwide. We had zero issues with them other than your normal ones that occur when you operate every day in a salt water environment (and these issues occurred with all helos).

I wonder how much of the "technical issues" are actually the USAF changing their requirements to the point that they exceed its design capabilities.

The Army has a habit of doing that as well. See the OH-58D for a great example of this.
 
The Air Force had some additional requirements for the MH-139, which is hardly surprising. That part that baffles me is why they had to get the FAA to recertify the chopper after those mods.

The use of the designation MH-139, which is rather obviously based on the AW-139 commercial name, is rather odd, too. In the past the military has taken COTS equipment and given it a military designation, such as with multimeters and avionics, but to do that with an aircraft is unusual. In the case of the DC-10, KC-10 made sense, based on what other aircraft were being designated, but we did not call the VC-137 the VC-707.
 
The Air Force had some additional requirements for the MH-139, which is hardly surprising. That part that baffles me is why they had to get the FAA to recertify the chopper after those mods.

The use of the designation MH-139, which is rather obviously based on the AW-139 commercial name, is rather odd, too. In the past the military has taken COTS equipment and given it a military designation, such as with multimeters and avionics, but to do that with an aircraft is unusual. In the case of the DC-10, KC-10 made sense, based on what other aircraft were being designated, but we did not call the VC-137 the VC-707.
In recent years this is a common requirement where any aviation product that has any relation to a civilian COTS aircraft has to have FAA certification. It seems the military, in this case the USAF is using the FAA model to ensure that this product is produced/ procured to a "type design" and holds a Type Certificate Data Sheet. I know the USAF has their own process for this. When I worked at the the USAFA, all the gliders used on the soaring program (that were COTS aircraft) had an FAA AND a "USAF" airworthiness certificate.
 
The Air Force had some additional requirements for the MH-139, which is hardly surprising. That part that baffles me is why they had to get the FAA to recertify the chopper after those mods.

The use of the designation MH-139, which is rather obviously based on the AW-139 commercial name, is rather odd, too. In the past the military has taken COTS equipment and given it a military designation, such as with multimeters and avionics, but to do that with an aircraft is unusual. In the case of the DC-10, KC-10 made sense, based on what other aircraft were being designated, but we did not call the VC-137 the VC-707.

So again, that comes down to the USAF requirements not the aircraft itself. The 139 is an excellent and proven airframe.
 
So the US Army have bought 460+ UH-72A since 2006 for use in a variety of roles. They have over 1m flight hours on the fleet. Since 2010 they have been using them in places like Puerto Rico and Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific. Last time I looked they were pretty hot.

And from Sept last year an upgraded UH-72B with a fenestron tail rotor and five blade main rotor, more powerful engines improved avionics etc has begun delivery to the National Guard.

My quick googling is not finding anything indicating US Army dissatisfaction with either model leading to it needing more powerful engines. They have just signed a new support contract for them with Airbus.

So just what is the real story here?
 
My last year working I was a maintenance planner with Air Methods Corp., probably the largest civilian rotor wing operator in the US. I was on the program where I would plan maintenance for 4 EC-145s and we always had issues with the VARTOMS system which matched up rotor speed and torque between the two engines. It seems we had less issues with the EC-135s.
 
My last year working I was a maintenance planner with Air Methods Corp., probably the largest civilian rotor wing operator in the US. I was on the program where I would plan maintenance for 4 EC-145s and we always had issues with the VARTOMS system which matched up rotor speed and torque between the two engines. It seems we had less issues with the EC-135s.

We had quite a few avionics issues with our 135s and 145s, but again we were operating daily in a salt water environment.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back