The next stage of the New Medium Helicopter (NMH) Programme has been announced by the Minister for Defence Procurement, James Cartlidge, today.
The Ministry of Defence say that the NMH Programme is an initiative to acquire a modern medium-lift support helicopter, which will deliver up to five rotary wing requirements using a single aircraft-type.
“This means that the platform will be able to undertake Defence tasks that were previously undertaken by up to five different aircraft types, streamlining our capabilities. This will improve efficiency and operational flexibility, positively impacting ongoing and future UK operational capability. Once in service, it will provide the Armed Forces with a new medium lift aircraft capable of operating in all environments in support of a broad spectrum of Defence tasks, from warfighting to humanitarian efforts and operations around the world.
It was announced at the International Military Helicopter conference in London today that the Invitation to Negotiate has been released, meaning the three NMH candidate suppliers – Airbus Helicopters UK, Leonardo Helicopters UK and Lockheed Martin UK – will now compile their bids to be evaluated by the Ministry of Defence to determine the winning bidder.”
The competition will be managed by Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) and proposals will be evaluated through 2025 when, subject to Government approvals, a contract award is anticipated.
Minister for Defence Procurement, James Cartlidge said:
“The New Medium Helicopter will provide essential support to our military operations, and weāre pleased to have reached this next important stage of the programme.
The programmeās competition includes essential criteria that are key to securing vital rotary wing Operational Independence, allowing us to respond swiftly to emerging threats in a highly contested world.”
I reported last year that new data from the Ministry of Defence revealed that the timeline for the New Medium Helicopter programme had been extended by three years, while the project’s whole-life cost has also seen a notable increase. The data, extracted from the MOD’s annual report on major projects for the financial year 22/23-Q4, highlights the challenges and revisions encountered in the project’s journey.
In the MOD’s latest update, it was disclosed that “compared to financial year 21/22-Q4, the project’s end-date at 22/23-Q4 increased from 2028-07-07 to 2031-09-30.” The primary reason for this extension is “further analysis on the programme schedule” and amendments made during the Ministry of Defence’s Annual Budget Cycle 2022.
Simultaneously, the Whole Life Cost, compared to the previous financial year, has seen a substantial uptick from Ā£1,172 million to Ā£1,329 million. The MOD cited this increase was mainly “due to the programme receiving an uplift to safeguard the capabilities that the New Medium Helicopter programme plans to deliver.”
The Infrastructure and Projects Authority’s Delivery Confidence Assessment rating for the programme, however, remains at Amber. This rating is primarily linked to “the delay in securing the Outline Business Case approval.”
Off the shelf with minimum modifications should be the mantra for this project.
We already know the mantra Jim, repeat after me 100 times.
“Bags of money must be laid at the Wastelands altar”
It’s of absolutely vital strategic importance that an Italian designed helicopter, is assembled in an Italian owned factory from Italian parts kits.
Vital to Italy anyway….
A simple fly off competition is required, there won’t be one.
To be fair though, the vast majority of the workers are British, paying British Taxes and spending a lot of money in the local area…. Added to all the other business’s and workers throughout Britain who would be involved in this order.
The Car Industry can be viewed in the same way, take Jaguar Land Rover for example.
Someone actually needs to do the analysis of the cost benefit of spending the money in the U.K. versus spending it abroad. Then we and the mod would know what is the benefit. It can then use that data to ask the treasury/dept of business to chip in for U.K. built projects.
I certainly wouldn’t be opposed to that idea, with the extra money coming from the treasury, not the defence budget.
That is the key.
Because if it costs more to buy home built, there should be compensation for the budget, especially if the helicopter ordered is not the one the military want.
One of the reasons for buying at home is to have what we want. Clearly the military is not stating their requirement clearly enough.
What’s the difference? It all comes from the tax payer? On the other hand if they increase the defense budget there is a better chance it will still be there next year.
What nonsense MS. The treasury doesn’t get the benefits – society does in the form of jobs, skillls etc. The reason so much is built at home is to build those benefits alongside the rest of private enterprise which provides the seed money in the first place.
So the Ā£1b spent on U.K. parts gets VAT, the wages get taxed, the Staff and suppliers purchase goods, services and food from U.K. businesses which is again subject to Vat and other taxes and so on with all that cash recycled through the economy with the treasury getting a chunk each time.
Or the Ā£1b goes directly to another country and the treasury sees none of it.
All the things you mention also benefit. Take the Italians. There dept of business pays some of the bill when the Italian forces purchase Italian made helicopters and other products.
Realistically it’s never that straight cut, as even for foreign buys there will be uk parts within and uk ones foreign parts. But yeah agree with the theory.
Vat isn’t even included in the bid price MS it is added on afterwards and is recycled back to departmental budgets as is medicines for the NHS or books for Schools. You also seem to forget all these VAT registered businesses will recover their VAT expenditure from HMRC. Therefore for every Ā£1 Billion charged by say BAE who will collect Ā£1.2 Billion from HMG and then have to almost immediately pay back to HMG Ā£200 Million via HMRC. Thus from the perspective of the MOD and BAE and HMG the value of the transaction is Ā£1 Billion.Vat is irrelevent.
True but the workers wages gets spent on goods like food etc, many from the uk which includes vatā¦
All the staff have to pay national insurance and income tax .. Westlandās have to pay employers NI
All the staff then us their pay to buy stuff that has vat on it, they pay road tax, stamp duty, etc etcā¦
weslands have to pay corporate tax on profits made in this county.
All the supplies pay corporate taxā¦.
a huge amount gets recycled back to the treasury.
It’s the same for every employee in the country. Taxes are collected and they pay for public services – all of them. All countries buy stuff from abroad it contributes to global trade. The art is not to buy stuff from countries who do not reciprocate by buying a similar amount from the UK.
All that is why there should be a study to work out the benefits/costs/downsides of domestic production.
If MOD knew they could save 5% of the purchase price purchasing foreign but then the spares and through life cost would be 50% higher and getting parts in a conflict scenario became difficult that should effect the decision.
Joined up thinking between departments with a long term costs worked out.
Itās way above my knowledge level.
Iām hopeful perun will do a YouTube video on the topic.
MS the MOD do, I’m sure, have a broad idea of the financial benefits to the country of home grown solutions. The issue though which is perhaps more important is the importance of having a home grown industry in Aerospace for example. It is perhaps similar to the importance of having the ability in the UK to produce our own PPE or medicines. Our lives may well depend upon it if things go pear shaped.
As for your Italian example MS – what is the difference. Just because the Italians dress it up as a bribe doesn’t change the reality. It is all coming from the tax payers.
The difference was that the Italians see the benefit of domestic production for some items and that as that production benefits the country it shouldnāt only be the defence budget that pays for it sometimes.
The government and companies then benefit when exports happen.
Itās a fine line working out when an industry should be supported and when it isnāt worth it.
I just think it would be nice to know where that line is.
Buying from within the UK also keeps production lines open or created and skilled people within the UK. If you suddenly find yourself in a full on war scenario, the quicker you can ramp up production of military assets is essential to survival, can’t do that if you outsource everything. We just need to increase the defence budget regardless of where the cash for the equipment is going.
I don’t buy that it would work with modern equipment. Any one item has parts from hundreds of companies across dozens of countries. You can’t just ramp up the domestic production line and magically expect all the other companies and countries will supply the parts faster. Ukraine has found this, it just can’t ramp up production because of the many international dependencies.
The treasury gets some of it. If the product is built by uk workers then 20-40% or so of the part of the cost covering wages to the workers goes back to the treasury as income tax for egā¦ if built overseas the income tax goes To the country where it is built.
True Dave but that could be said of any British worker in any industry. The fact is these are simply taxes which are being collected to spend on all public sector expenditure NHS, Schools, transport, defence etc. We need to be careful we don’t double count those taxes.During times of full employment, for example (doesn’t happen often), it would actually benefit Britain to purchase from abroad.
The treasury gets huge benefits..a very significant amount of money spent on a British product gets cycled back into the treasury via all the tax routes..money spent on a foreign productā¦gets cycled into some other nationās treasury via their tax systemā¦
Hello Jonathan,
A bit more info on what’s on offer can be found via this link.
https://
breakingdefense.com/2024/02/uk-invites-industry-bids-for-new-medium-helicopter-acquisition-sets-2025-contract-date/?utm_medium=email&_hsmi=295989215&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9_WKsBM7aBkTW2uZrRORyHRiFvZX30D0rT7-TtcNUszNdcd-SbAUmh8hE4pI283UcAtMmf1i_nNbsW4GVGbLJjyfq7w&utm_content=295989215&utm_source=hs_email
Yes good little summary, for me the interesting thing is the commitment to move the international production line for the AW149 to the UK..the UK getting a production line for a good internationally successful medium rotor is hugeā¦in rotor production terms is as good as we could getā¦getting 70% of the total manufacturing of a rotor that could sell around 500 aircraft is big.
We often forget that defence of the nation is intimately tied to manufacturingā¦people can complain all they want but in geopolitics, geostrategic and the idea of the long war one of the key domains that separate the winners and losers are the capabilities of the military industrial complexā¦anything that strengthens our military industrial complex is strategically beneficialā¦.anything that weakens it is not.
The workers and company buidling something in the UK pay income tax, corporation tax, etc. to the UK treasury so it gets some of the money back from any project built in the UK. For anything built overseas the treasury gets nothing back. Something built in the UK can cost the MoD more but the Treasury less than a direct purchase of a foreign built thing – the MoD sees nothing of this Treasury saving.
Doesn’t it really Andy? Let’s say for the sake of argument a third comes back to the treasury. The same is true for Doctors & nurses salaries, teachers etc. It is at the end of the day the wealth of the nation and a slice of it, regardless of which sector you work in disappears back to the treasury who in turn dole it out to Government departments.They spend it and a third comes back yet again. Yet more money for departments.
Whilst it is true that money spent abroad doesn’t come back so easily if the country we are buying from reciprocates by buying from us then nothing is lost.
I vaguely recall reading an article years ago that worked out the average benefit from domestic manufacture was about 20% of the programme cost.
Phrased differently, that means a bid with no significant UK industry involvement has to be around 25% cheaper than a majority British build in order to represent similar value for money.
Obviously that ignores other factors like delivery times, social benefits of domestic employment, strategic resilience, etc, but when it comes to negotiating with the Treasury, we know cash value is the most influential factor.
Actually according to Hansard if the contract is awarded to a firm based in the UK eventually 67% of the contract cost finds it way back to the treasury.
Have you got a link for that? I’d be interested to see what sort of timeframe they’re looking at.
Private enterprise pays for it all the end. Government enterprises recycle the money they get by taxing private enterprise.
So when you build at home the underlying problem you have is then the employees buy a BMW or an iPhone the money leaves the country. Of course there’s taxes take from the company and employees which pay wages in the public sector, but if a fireman or nurse then spends it on foreign goods the money has again left the country just takes a few more steps and a bit more time.
So as a country with negative balance of payments money leaves the country either way one is just more direct than the other. The only benefit to the treasury is the amount of time money remains in the UK.
If we had a positive balance of payments then that would be a sign that more people are buying at UK goods, so money is staying in the UK Or we we’re exporting more, so foreign money coming in paying wages, therefore taxes.
in the end you Simply have to build stuff or offer products and services that people from other counties will buy or useā¦if you donāt at some point entropy gets you.
Or be like France and play nicely with no one. It seems to work too.
It depends how you view it, while that might (arguably) benefit the economy in general, it won’t benefit the defence budget.
We don’t require an all singing, all dancing Rolls Royce of a helicopter, a relitivly simple, proven and reliable Tonka tough option is needed now, not in 5 years time.
It’s no wonder we run our defence budget in the red when we have to ‘gold standard’ every procurement.
I would just order S-70’s straight off the Polish line, with a UK support hub as part of the deal.
There’s the possibility of a Government to Government deal with the Polish, buying more Merlin and increasing their CAMM order perhaps.
Just keep it simple…
I should keep a low profile If visiting Yeovil mate ļ»æšļ»æ Seriously though, it’s a big employer, it’s a big site and it has been contributing to the British economy one way or another for many many Decades.
I wouldn’t argue with you, but the defence budget has been sacrificed in the process.
The fact is it’s no longer British owned in any way shape or form.
As Labour seems to want to hoodwink us all with its jingoistic Great British Power Company and Britain first strategy, perhaps they should pick a British company to assemble Helicopters when they get the keys to No10 ??
Why not have a UK company rebuilding ex US Army UH60’s?
Helicopters are capable of being zero hours refurbished I believe, so rebuild and upgrade in the UK and I bet we could build a perfectly capable fleet of 44 UH-60’s for half the price of 25 gold standard AW149’s.
I think you are correct about the Price… They lost the Apache order having been twice the price….
Yes. Under competitive tendering, the MoD should and generally does select the cheapest product/supplier that meets the Staff Requirement.
Which country it is made in is of second order (except for warships!) – but politicians will often play the jobs for Britain card, especially if a marginal constituency is a factor, but may have to do battle with HMT.
What the User prefers out of the various products on offer is not a consideration at all.
Also I think what many people forget is that for the wars that profoundly matter ( and here Iām talking about the existential wars ) one of the fundamental domains that matter relate to the military industrial complex..and generally the losers of existential wars loss because their military industrial complex failsā¦.in the end Ukraine is likely to falter because itās own military industrial complex is dwarfed by that of Russiasā¦and unfortunately..no matter the will of the politicians or people or the skill of its armies or its allies what will bury Ukraine will be the military industrial disparity.
Therefore any procurement needs to have a focus first and foremost on its strategic impact on the nationās military industrial complexā¦letās be very honest nations often send out their troops with kit that is not the very bestā¦.but what they gets relates very much to the health of the industry behind the military and even if one military has better equipment it will still fail against the side with the better outputā¦we in the west have forgotten this because we became obsessed with the short war paradigm..but most existential wars are not shortā¦.people quote the fall of Iraq..but forget that the west effectively attacked iraq via multiple routes for a decade before the second iraq war.
Yes, but need to consider that Ukraine benefits from western defence industry, albeit it is not under their control and the ‘well may run dry’ due to ‘compassion fatigue’ or overt opposition to supporting Ukraine (US Republicans).
Indeed, unfortunately no nation can solely base its defence no other nations good will..even nations with iron clad defensive treats can end up left in the shitā¦thatās what happened with Czechoslovakā¦had a mutual defence treaty with France and France just wentā¦.naa sorryā¦the Anglo Polish defence pact was not worth paper it was written onā¦..in reality the wests support to Ukraine is limited in both nature and time. Ukraine need to use the window provided.
Would those be to go with the Toryās Great British Nuclear and Great British Railways ?
Patriotism is after all the ālast refuge of a scoundrelā and they arenāt unique to either party.
Spot on š¬š§
He just hates the Italians – which btw also have an helicopters factory in Poland precisely for the AW-149 (with Hellfires!) for the Polish armed forces.
The š¬š§ could also get both types, keep at least two parties happy! Lol š
Besides costs, are there any large advantages in speed, range, troop carrying and lift capacity with all these bidders?
I actually really donāt care which of the 3 we buy or where they are from, but Iām not averse to the S70 from Poland.
IMHO what is way more important than this relatively small contract is we need more Merlinās and so do a lot of other Navyās. There is nothing out there that can beat it for Heavy Ship borne ASW, just look at the NMH90 for example.
My theory is that because we buy small quantities of equpment it must be qualitatively superior to the oppositions. Hence what many call ‘gold plating’.
The problem is Graham, this gold plated kit is invariably always late and over budget, look at the farse Ajax has descended into.
Gold plating, mixed with buy British get twisted so very far out of shape.
The buy British at any cost got us two pieces of equipment that Homer Simpson might well have designed, the Tornado F3 and the absolutely appalling dogs dinner L85A1….
People should have gone to prison for the latter, putting that utter crap into the hands of youngsters and sending them to war in the Gulf is the very definition of what’s wrong with our politically driven defense policy, with a stated aim of appeasing the military industrial complex, above any other considerations.
The tail wags the dog mate….
I agree there is a downside to making kit high quality and cutting edge. I explained why it is deemed important for small forces.
Not sure we have bought British at any cost – many examples of foreign and collaborative purchases across all three services. Fighty warships/subs – there is a buy British edict. Everything else – no such rule, unless there is a factory in a marginal seat that needs the work!
Afternoon Graham, “no such rule, unless there is a factory in a marginal seat that needs the work !”
Sums it all up really… We can all but wait and see what labours plans are for our armed forces mate….
It should be a relatively simple calculation. How much value goes to the UK vs a foreign buy. How much cheaper is the foreign buy and will that saving invested elsewhere deliver better value to the tax payer.
Really these sorts of assessments should be made public, so we know how the decision was decided on.
Instead it’s all hidden under national security and we have no idea what the deciding factor was, was it capability or value for money.
Most of our Industry can be viewed in this way, itās long been commercial policy to sell off as soon as we can make a nice packet for the City and shareholders.
With BH as the winner! In fact, why all the stages? Just buy what the military want.
Well absolutely mate, our position has long been made apparent…..
Are you mad let them have what they want, cut years out of the buying process and saving millions. That’s just not the way things are done.
It’s not mate, there’s no snouts in troughs included.
But first, there must be a trial and experimentation phase to ” inform future decisions “, then another one to “Foster a more complete understanding “, before a final phase that ” pivots towards a future stance” where about 5 airframes will be ordered……..
šš
To be far Daniele if the NHS staff got what they wanted a lot of the time it would not actually have been that goodā¦sometimes you need to sit down and trial it out to really see what is betterā¦.without that mentality or trial we would still be sticking everyone with an heart attack with streptokinase and crossing our fingers that they did not have a catastrophic bleed ( that was alway nasty when it happened) or already have two much damage to the heart wallā¦.honestly if the Drs and Nurses had our way 20 years ago we would have keep with thatā¦simple, cheap did the job ( mainly) ā¦..but the boffins made us trial and experiment with primary angio..which is expensive, takes a lot of skilled staff and is a right of fafā¦.but after a lot of trying it out boy did we realise it saved a whole bunch more peopleā¦.
infact Iāve spent a lot of time working to get news stuff with hyper conservative people who just want what they have seen working and when asked will always go with what they have seen beforeā¦even if there could be something betterā¦..itās human natureā¦.my go toā¦always test and compare before decidingā¦
Wasteland? Why?
Because governments of both colours love to waste money there….
“Westlands” was the name until a few years ago when it became wholly Leonardo…. “Wastelands” is a bit of humour as they are known to be rather expensive…. I know many people who work there in many positions top to bottom, some of what I get told does raise a few eyebrows at times.
Ah yes, our old friend the “Proven affordable off the shelf US solution”
Affordable until you get the first service invoice….. in US dollars that are now 20% more expensive than they used to be.
Seriously, do you want an aerospace industry or not?
I want an aerospace industry, one we can still invest in and is British, so BAE Systems and GCAP for example.
I am totally against pissing money against the wall, so Leonardo and the 149 for example.
Guaranteed, late, over budget and a maximum of 25 due to spiraling costs.
BH, proven, available and affordable and the RAF and Army want it.
Your argument is on the ropes quite frankly…..
So what. The RAF wanted the F15 and the Army wanted Leo2. The former would have wiped out BAE systems and there’d be no GCAP at all. The latter would be looking a bit silly given Germany’s stance on Ukraine.
You have no idea what the full lifecycle cost of BH would be unless you have a crystal ball as to the USD / GBP exchange rate in 20 years time, and if so what are you doing on this forum:-)
Poland are buying AW149 in numbers and they’re arguably our closest ally in Europe right now, and the most likely to go to war.
We will see won’t we, we all know AW149 will be selected no matter the cost or it’s capabilities, it’s a political done deal…..
The UH60 is a thoroughly understood and upgraded platform, I would counter your argument with the fact that our armed forces actually want BH and have for 20 years, are you suggesting they don’t understand the platform??
Then again, who cares what the military think I guess.
When did the RAF want F15??
The two seat F15B was briefly considered by the MOD alongside the Tomcat in the mid 1970’s, I don’t believe it was ever voiced as a preference by the RAF at the time.
We of course went for the cut price Tornado F2/3 instead, a lashed up wheezy, single role bomber interceptor that ran out of puff above 20,000ft, that was certainly a real ‘win’ for the RAF wasn’t it…..
Would the RAF have preferred F15/14, in the following 20 + years while the F3 was laboured over at huge expense to finally reach the lofty heights of ‘just about ok’ with AMRAAM and ASRAAM, well yes quite frankly….
Had the Army selected Leo 2, we would currently have a tank that had benefited from 20 years of rolling upgrades, paid for by the group of user countries and and not spending an absolute bloody fortune upgrading a bespoke handful of Chally 2’s into the Chally 3 cul-de-sac.
Ukraine probably wouldn’t have got our 14 tanks last year, well, hay ho, it’s 14 after all.
We are were we are, we hopefully have GCAP ongoing and that’s a great thing….
We are also aceing Warship and Submarine construction, so all good there.
UK Helicopters are dead and gone. You can put as many fancy Union flag wraps on the AW149 as you like, it’s no more British than Pavarotti….
It’s Italian, pure and simple.
I am pro buying British, but not at any price and especially not when politically forced procument ends up with junk like the Tornado F3 and the L85A1.
Remember reading many years ago the F14 had to much down time Engines been the problem ,otherwise the F14 fitted the bill According to an RAF pilot .He did say Rolls Royce Engines would of done the trick.But HMG at the time stuck with F2-F3 .F15 don’t know the story on that one .š
I think a version of the F15B was briefly considered, possibly a ‘K’ version set up as an interceptor with a navigator in the back seat.
It would have made one hell of a fighter!!
The RAF had to wait 30 years to get that performance in Thypoon….
No arguments there John ,RAF with F15s Wow we miss out š
Morning mate, when you consider a heavy hitter thoroughbred like the F15 and the lash up that the F2/3 was.
It’s a graphic example of what happens when the combined Political military industrial complex force a ludicrous decision.
It was utterly flawed as a programme and the serious shortcomings of this project would have been very clearly understood within minutes of someone actually suggesting the idea!
Thank god the RAF never had to use it in anger.
š
Iām suggesting that procurement decisions involve far more than a narrow technical analysis of the platform. Thatās why governments exist.
Our uniformed military particularly the army have shown they have little to no clue about while of life cost management or industrial strategy, and are pretty hopeless when it comes to negotiating with US Defence Primes. We get taken to the cleaners every time. Iām mean seriously a couple of billion for SF Chinooks. The prices being paid for P8 are eye watering. Not mentioning Ajax thatād be cheating.
We could be in a hot war with Russia in a year or two and giving up key national capabilities to be at the end of a very long support chain is not a terribly clever move IMHO
Fair enough, I think we see things differently,but it’s always very interesting to debate the optionsš
The USAF bought AW139 defeating Bell and UH-60…why?
Because it needs a smaller cheaper to run commercial helicopter that won’t be getting into combat….
Boeing blurb
“Boeingās MH-139A Grey Wolf is a multi-mission helicopter ā based on the proven commercial AW139 helicopter ā designed to protect intercontinental ballistic missiles and transport U.S. government officials and security forces. Produced in the United States, the MH-139A provides an off-the-shelf, readily available solution combining performance, operational flexibility and safety.”
So about as far from a troop transport as you can get….
15 passengers, troops should be a bit less but certainly a section can be transported like in UH 60.
And the mission includes air assault to protect the launch sites for ICBM’s.
I read it as more transport personnel from one site to the other, it’s a complex transport helicopter, perhaps with a nod to counter terrorism security missions if necessary.
The 139 is a modified civilian helicopter, in no way can it get into the shit and bullets in a hot LZ, the sort of thing BH used to do day in, day out in Afghanistan.
I’ll guarantee the troops would break it in a week….
Take the Merlin, because it was designed with the Maritime mission set in mind, when the design was modified as a troop transport (HC3), it was absolutely found wanting and far too fragile to sustain the harsh environment and regular battle damage, bullet damage grounded it repeatedly, while Chinook and Blackhawk were patched up and back in the fight, quite often the very same day …..
I’ve a few mates who did multiple tours in Afghanistan, non have anything good to say about the fragile HC3……
Chinook and Blackhawk, the perfect team, the very definition of K.I.S.S, keep it simple stupid!
Maybe I am missing the ironic comment John. Why must we have an Italian helicopter?
There is certainly a competition in progress, but it won’t be a fly-off type if one or more bidders don’t have at least a flying prototype ready when the MoD want to make their decision.
Evening Graham, just my slightly jaundiced option mate, but I am sure the supremely expensive AW149 will win…
A little prediction.
It will be late and so expensive, we will get 25 instead of the 40 odd needed.
I would go for 44 secondhand fully refurbished and upgraded UH60’s, work undertaken in the UK, with full UK based support too.
I’ll wager we could buy 44 at a half the cost of 25 149’s.
If the 149 wins ( we all know it will) , I just hope to christ we buy exactly the same spec as Poland and not set about integrating UK modifications at huge additional expense.
Let the Poles work out the kinks and perhaps build them too, they could be supported and upgraded in the UK.
In my service days we suffered from insufficient order quantity of replacement kit. Just over 1,000 Warriors (all variants) purchased when there were 2,500 FV430s to replace! Result – well over 1,000 FV430s soldier on into their 60th year and beyond (albeit with the Bulldog upgrade).
I am sure you are right about the AW149. Some UK mods are required always though.
Highlight, and copy this, for pasting later on down the line when posters are complaining the fleets cut yet again and numbers gone to the wall even further than done already.
Also to bear in mind H145s are being bought for the Cyprus & Brunei roles but they’ve said that won’t impact numbers of FMH.
My first thought Jim. Get hold of something that works.
Sad that of the three bidders, two in which the UK formerly had a significant financial stake, are now wholly owned by foreigners!! Time to re-acquire some equity.
The Tories not sell everything they can for a quick buck. U must be mad.
To be fair Labour was just as bad, Blair picked up the Thatcherite torch and simply carried on selling off anything that wasn’t bolted down, with an explosion off PPFI’s, creating a ticking time bomb of debt…
The entire debarkle regards the NMH started with labour, from 2006:
Britain Considers Privatizing Battlefield Support Helicopters, Then Recants
That idea was chucked out in 2007 and instead of buying new helos to replace the over 40 year Puma and Sea kings, the Gov decided to upgrade the Puma not in the Uk mind, nope they sent them to Romania for that and purchased a load of second hand Pumas from South Africa.
And took the 28 RAF Merlins to “replace” the 35 or so Sea King Commando HC4s in the RN, which were to be replaced by SABR – “Support Amphibious Battlefield Rotorcraft.”
Robbing Peter to pay Paul with another overall loss in numbers but save G Brown a few billion taken from from the future heli budget.
Blair would do anything to keep Europe happy ,selling off our big name companies Jaguar Land Rover etc ,come think of it he would of sold Royal yacht Britannia if he could got away with it .Putin came over for a visit Blair even show him round one our secret war Bunkers š
Isnāt JLR owned by TATA these days.
That it is mate ,BMW own Rolls Royce š
IMHO It doesn’t really matter where the holding company is domiciled as long as the operational side has local IP, local R&D, localised supply chain, etc.
I’d say Airbus UK and Leonardo UK (Selex / Westland) are pretty effectively localised
Morning SD67. Two problems. One is the question of pride and morale. It really does matter that for example,a nation still in the top ten in many fields, has a Police Force driving BMW’s or a Head of State being driven around in a car, essentially from Tata.
The second more important issue is control over operations and location. Much of Britain’s vital industrial infrastructure has been and continues to be shipped overseas. This is not good.
I wonder if the bods at MoD have done somethinking. Although this helicopter is for the Army and RAF mainly it will need to be compatible for the RN. So it will need a folding tail, folding main rotor, sea water proofing and fit into a hanger (e.g. hieght).
The last thing we need is a helicopter that cannot operate from a ship because someone did not check if they could fit inside a hanger.
Mate, if a Chinook can go up and down the carrierās lift. Plus be dragged around the hangar with the blades still in their normal position. A piddly UH60, AW149 or Airbus H175, will have no problems.
Of the three options, the UH60 is better suited, then the AW149 followed by the H175. The Blackhawk due to it much lower CofG and itās wider squat undercarriage. The AW149 and H175 are very similar configuration wise. Though the AW149 has a slightly wider stance than the H175. Both the Leonardo (AW189 version) and Airbus H175 aircraft have operated from oil/gas rigs and have been marinized. With the AW149 being operated by the Egyptians from their two LPDs.
The MH60 was designed for easy air transportation. Where it could fit inside a Herc without taking the aircraft apart. From memory you needed to take a few pins out of the rotor hub, to allow the blades to be folded back. Canāt remember if you had to take one of the tail rotor blades off. I donāt think you did. This meant that after rolling the aircraft out, relocating the blades and a refuel. The aircraft could be up and flying within 30 minutes of the Herc landing.
The RAF in particular want the Blackhawk. As like the Chinook it has commonality with the US Army. There is also a certain regiment who want the MH60. As they and a certain RAF Sqn operate very closely with the US 160th SOAR.
All excellent reasons to buy Blackhawks, firstly the RAF and Army actually want it!!!!
Refurbished or new, they have maximum commonality with our primary dance partner, can plug into a vast US spares inventory and can be air transported and deployed to sea when needed without issue.
As you point out, it already has a ready made SF version ready to order too, a definite bonus.
The AW149 looks a tad tall to me, I do wonder what it’s limitations would be on a pitching deck as it’s center of gravity is certainly higher than BH?
There s world of different between landing on an oil rig helipad, than the pitching deck of a warship at sea.
So buy BH and make it the Romeo model and absolutely minimum changes from the US Army version.
This. With bells on.
Too true Mate. The MOD should chat with the Australian army as to why Blackhawk is the logical choice.
It’s going to be interesting if RNZN chooses the Seahawk TK replace Seasprites even though they’ve got the NH90 (is that right?) in the Army airlift. Does NZ have any Chinook? I’d like to see an upgraded Wildcat in the offering, with longer range, sonar.
Hi Mate, I do think the RNZN should piggyback on the RAN Seahawk order . I hope they do they the same with the upcoming new RAN frigate programme.
P.S. no CH 47s in NZ
And don’t thd whistle! š
Maybe you should then explain the huge problems of stability that Merlin has. After all you have a visual xray CofG…
Just look at it with its 3 engines very high…
UH60 actually have problems landing – and not only on ships – precisely because low tail.
There’s a good reason Puma is only allowed to operate from Warships in an emergency, i.e in wartime.
A lot of the issues are to do with undercarriage contact area, that forms a triangle (unless you are a Chinook!). The Puma’s undercarriage triangle is pretty small, where the nose gear is fairly close to the two main wheels. When this is coupled with a high top weight and suspension that puts the aircraft higher off the deck. You get severe instability, especially at start up and shut down. At start up, if you watch a Puma, it wobbles until the main rotors get up to flight speed. As the rotors at flight speed balances the aircraft. If you have a look at an Airbus H225 Carracul and compare it to the Puma. The rear undercarriage is placed in wider spaced sponsons. But also the cabin has been lengthened. Thereby placing the nose undercarriage further away from the rear wheels. Making the surface contact triangle much bigger. Thereby allowing Carracul to operate off ships.
The Merlin does not have stability issues due to a fairly long surface contact triangle. With its nose wheel being a fair distance from the main wheels. The rear wheels are spaced wider than the cabin and the belly of the aircraft is not that high off the deck. This compensates for its taller cabin and the weight of the main rotor gearbox and the three engines. The main rotor gearbox is attached to the cabin’s top deck by electromechanical jacks. These are controlled by the flight computer. Which adjusts the jacks to compensate for out of balance forces at start up and shutdown. But also smooth out the aircraft in flight by compensating for blade juddering. Which is caused by the blades generating max and min lift as the rotate to and from the airflow.
This is the same with the Blackhawk. The cabin roof however, is fairly low compared to a Puma, which does lower the CofG. The undercarriage contact triangle is fairly long, with the base between the main wheels being wider than the cabin. This gives it a lot of stability when starting up or shutting down. The Blackhawk can like other helicopters land flat if required. However, it is a fairly slow process. A lot of the high angle pitch is for aerobraking. Which slows the aircraft down dramatically. Yes admittedly there have been quite a few accidents. Where the pilot misjudged the distance between the tail and the ground.
Hi DaveyB
Mate, when I was in the SAAF (a life time ago), we regularly operated a “navalised” Puma at Sea, and would you believe on occasion Super Frelons. There were restriction’s around sea states though. We also had a pair of J models kitted out for Artic conditions. They were onboarded to a polar research vessel in Antarctica over Summer.
Your comment re the aircrafts wobbling at start up brought back a few memories.
Howsit klonkie! The Super Frelon was a big bus!! ļ»æšļ»æ Hope you are well!
Hey Geoff, I’m well THX. Trust all is good in sunny Durbs!
All OK and hanging in here Klonkie.Just watched my mates finish the Dusi and got super jealous so hope to come out of retirement and do again next year with a young 61 year old novice. Also training for Tour Durban 42 km cycle race. Trying to fight off old age!
On subject I remember the Rhodesian Air Force used Alouettes as did, I think, the SAAF. They seemed to have been a very successful all rounder in the lighter weight category. I was trying to remember what Search and Rescue choppers the SAAF used in the 70’s. We were on a farm in the Berg during a recovery of a well known Durban Attorney who had died whilst climbing Rhino. Any suggestions-Puma? Cant find any info on Google
cheers Geoff -I hit 60 today, a leap year kid for my sins. Goon on you re the Durban Tour, must be hard going training in the summer humidity!
Most of the SAAF SAR work was carried out by Pumas .You may recall the Oceanos cruise ship sinking back in 1991. They winched all the pax and crew to safety. Couldn’t do that today!
Huge problems with Merlin stability? Don’t think so, has been operating from frigates for years. That’s what it was designed to do.
That is the point i am making, you can’t judge de CoG and stability just by eyeballing it in complex machine like an helicopter.
great analysis Davey B , thank you.
Yes you can fit a Chinook in QE hanger but without a folding rotor head it takes up a lot more space. Which is exactly why the ex RAF Merlinās now have folding Rotors.
Why would they be operating from ships though.
Because it maximises the flexibility and number of assets we can use for amphibious operations. One of the main reasons is that a Blackhawk for example, is about half the size of a Merlin or Chinook. Which means it can land in tighter spots or built up areas.
In the past we had the Jungly Sea King which is fairly compact, but really slow. We also have Pumas, but they can’t operate to/from ships, if the sea state is above a gnats fart. On land based Ops. Pumas, like Wildcat are used for dropping off small teams near to or behind enemy lines. It’s not something you would really want to do with a Merlin or Chinook.
Like you say we have wildcats though. So I doubt whether Sea state will be a factor in the decision. Would be extremely rare for them to be deployed on a Navy ship.
Wildcats can carry four troops, so not much use in the transport role, unless you are moving SF.
Army Wildcat is a helicopter looking for a job quite frankly.
Royal Marines are essentially special forces at this point. Either way, their role is Marine/Troop transport.
Actually, Army Wildcats role is recc. The transport role is minimal.
The RM are supported by 847 NAS, flying Wildcats, from a pool of 34 in use by 1 AAC, an Army formation, a paltry number to the 100 plus Lynx they replaced.
So 847 has a mere handful of helicopters, and they are army, so I’d not describe their role as Marine/Troop transport, as they are so few and recc orientated.
For transport of RM, you look to the CHF and 845 and 846 NAS with Merlin, they are the ones who transport RM on a daily basis.
The RM are not SF either, that is a higher tier. The RM now might well fit in the “Special Operations” role like the Rangers, Pathfinder Platoon, and Brigade Recc Troop. But not true SF.
What’s the role of these Wildcats onboard the carrier then? Curious more than anything seeing as they’re not the armed Royal Navy variant.
https://twitter.com/847NAS/status/1760284312337809792?t=FhDl-uJ7rqppbqbXizHOzA&s=19
Indeed. If they’re from 847 they won’t be beyond door GPMG.
Unsure. I’ve read of CHF RM embarked before on carriers for a sort of CSAR role.
Has said on other post DM do wonder if the USA Venom would of fitted the bill š¤
Youāve got to laugh, the NMH should have been selected by the 30th Sept 2022, now we hear its been officially put back to 2025, whatās so difficult about picking the damn thing , I mean the entire project to select the NMH began in March 2021. All I see here is this pathetic government passing the buck onto the next one, but and a big but whoever gets into power next, are going to have a defence review which no doubt will delay the selection even further, not only , but itās a given that the so called 44 Helos with see a cut in numbers, meanwhilst across the water the French have ordered 42 H145 helicopters which is on top of 169 H160M
Germany has ordered 82 H145m multi-role helicopters and is currently taken on strength 31 NH90 Sea Tigers
Spain ordered 36 Airbus H135s in 2020 and 8 Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk helicopters last Oct
Holland ordered 14 new Airbus H225M Caracal last year for special ops and is upgrading its NH90 Naval Combat Helicopters
Tiny Austria has inked a deal for 18 AW169M Helicopters
And what is the British government doing, why its kicking that can down the road (complete with pots holes) in which to let somebody else pick it up. (As they have already done with the CH47F) Yup happy to throw money at anybody who hates us, why we will even spend Ā£5 million in allowing the ISIS bint to appeal why sheās not allowed a council house in the UK, in which she will push out rug rats with her terrorist husband , (which pound to a penny will be overturned by the pro Islamist Labour party) but spend some actual money on the Military unlike the rest of NATO who have woken up to the fact that there is a huge threat a few thousand miles to the east.
What a f-ing disgrace, this government is and pound to a penny the first thing the next government does is award themselves an above inflation payrise, Well they do have form itās the first thing they do after each and every election. I used to subscribe to the view that the Government would wake up to the threats that the UK faces, but all Ive seen is SFA.
Hit the nail on the headļ»æšļ»æ
What we are doing is to pay people to sit around not decidingā¦.itās a serious cultural problem.
The issue with a hierarchical organisation with poor delegation of responsibility is that those who do the analysis are not permitted to decide, they can only recommend. It then goes up the chain to people further and further away from the problem who have a wider and wider remit and less and less time. They all want to make a mark and won’t allow important decisions to be taken without their input. This allows for wider perspectives to be included, but it also creates near paralysis. It gets even worse if it also needs a political okay. Whose desk is it sitting on this week?
Agree analysis paralysis and bureacracy are challenges. My view is that poor relationships are a major problem.
Interesting quote from New Statesman article on labour defence policy. 16 Jan 24.
‘The stunningly inefficient and wasteful procurement process needs to be reformed, not least to encourage more British manufacturing. That, sources say, is key to restoring the strained relationship between the Treasury and the MoD.’
Defence of the realm is not the principle business of the MOD. Financial control is. The kingdom may fall but if the mandarins in Whitehall can avoid putting their careers in harm by authorising a project which carries risk then they believe they have done a good job. They’re are happy instead to sit in their silos, not deciding things and filling up their days making policy changes which they have not been bothered to scope, cost or communicate effectively.
This parochial, navel-gazing culture hates and destroys anyone of talent who exhibits a bias for action or tries to introduce any sort of continuous improvement regime. You might find a way of improving things but you’ll never get the budget for it.
Yep Farouk, the sleep walking continues….
No shake up of anything whatsoever
A Man who speaks volumes šš¬š§
I wonder who be the eventual winner.
27 February 2024
IMH 2024: Lockheed Martin touts Black Hawk as bridge to next-gen rotorcraft
“Lockheed Martin is touting its S-70 Black Hawk medium-lift helicopter as a bridge to next-generation rotorcraft now being developed, with new technologies intended to take it out to 2070.
Speaking to Janes ahead of the IQPC International Military Helicopter (IMH) 2024 conference in London, Jay Macklin, business development director at Lockheed Martin’s Sikorsky subsidiary, said that, with a raft of extensive upgrades mapped out by both the company and the US Army, the Black Hawk will be the bridge through to Future Vertical Lift (FVL) and what comes after.
āThe Black Hawk is going to be around until 2070 and is going to be flying on the same battlefield as Future Vertical Lift (FVL). It has got to be able to operate in that FVL ecosystem, and I really think that the Black Hawk is going to bridge that gap to the next-generation rotorcraft,ā Macklin said ahead of the event running from 27 to 29 February.”
Going off the Topic guys been announce on the News that there will be no extra money for Defence in the Budget next week, but did we really expect anything š
More bloody piffle and delay. Blackhawk suits, its what the boys and girls want. Just buy it and save public money.
Another three years gone and Ā£157 million on talk.
Hopefully Lockheed’s bid doesn’t win the competition. We all know what “off the shelf” really means, getting locked into their systems at the expense of ours.
The big ticket items need to steal clear of US systems except for bespoke that cannot be made elsewhere, hopefully whoever wins majority of the parts are UK built.
One question is if this helicopter will have missiles like the Polish AW-149 with Hellfires, or the German army replacing the Tiger with simple helicopters and long range Spike missiles.
I suspect not.
Good point Alex.
The principal user of the NMH has to be the army, which has a gaping big gap where utility/air assault helicopters.are needed. An army helicopter needs to be armed, because it may need to put down suppressive fire when landing troops close to the action. A pintle-mounted gimpy in the doorway doesn’t really cut it, Black Hawk can carry a range of missiles tockets and a cannon, the AW149 gives the option to fit weapon pylons and a similar weapon loadout.
But with such a small buy of NMH and the RAF in the pilot’s seat, I can see the unarmed helicopter of the future hovering just over the horizon, where the Treasury bean-counters live.
Ref numbers, a US army division has 30 front-line Black Hawks, i.e. an establishment of 10 per brigade. If we take our 5 manoeuvre brigades, SF Dauphin replacements, some to support the Rangers and SFABs, plus squadron, attrition and war reserves and OCU, we would need about 140 NMH just to provide a basic establishment.
HMG’s grand vision looks to be 36-42 in total, to include the RAF’s own medium lift requirements, which gobbles up the bulk of them.
HMG has pioneered the art of talking big to the cameras and gullible public about our world-leading this and that, while cutting equipment and personnel numbers down to a token force far below our European peers.
Ah but I hear you cry, we will have 148 tanks!… and 3 Wedgetail AEW aircraft! … and 4 MCMV ships! .. and none of these useless Typhoon F2s and Hercules!…what could possibly go wrong on mobilisation?
We are going to be in for a serious military shock if we have to take the field with the miniscule numbers and equipments we are now reduced to.
Agreed š
The Americans are studying and going along the lines of a twin counter rotation rotor as seen on Russian helo types but also having a push propeller at the rear of the fuselage it’s the silkorrsky S-97 raider might as well buy of the shelf
Hi mate, not entirely sure which direction the US are going in now. The US have just deep sixed their entire FARA project including both helo designs, along with over $2 billion in development costs.
Apparently due to lessons about survivability learned in UKR-RUS war and not having both enough range/speed particularly in the Pacific theatre. It looks as though they are looking increasingly at drones as a replacement, so not sure how that impacts on helicopter design.
They’ve got the money and seem too come up with something worth looking into and then just drop it like a helo programme such as the Carmanchi where as ours just remain on the drawing board gathering dust we no longer build entirely in house
Yes, suppose you can make those sort of decisions with such a large Defence budget.
We often complain about how much our MOD seems to waste on poor procurement decisions, would be interesting to see how the US fairs in comparison – but yes they can afford it I know.
Janes said more Blackhawks and Chinooks for the time being.
Yes very possibly, but not as a replacement for the Kiowa scouts. Not entirely sure which/what drones they have in .ind for the FARA replacement, time will no doubt tell.
The FARA was intending to replace the Kiowa scout helicopter. However, the Ukraine War has shown that helicopters operating near to the front line are very vulnerable to MANPADS. The FARA was designed to have a high acceleration speed. Which would help it to avoid detection. But MANPADS like Starstreak react faster.
However, one caveat I would mention is that Russian helicopters, do not have the same level of defensive aids or countermeasures that Western ones do. MANPADS in general have a much easier time against Russian helicopters.
One of the lessons learned is that cheap drones can be just as effective as a manned helicopter for reconnaissance. More so when facing something as deadly as Starstreak!
All of that mate, and the other issue of range(Pacific theatre) has led the US to this decision.
Wasn’t really aware of the Russian lack of DA\CM on their rotor raft. Seems like their aircraft also might suffer from this issue!
In a peer/peer conflict you have to wonder how long drones will actually last and be able to provide intel in a heavy ECM environment – not sure how rapidly we could replace any gaps in satellite coverage either.
Seems to me that we would still need a mixture of manned/unmanned craft for the job.
I thought this was a ‘done deal’ for the Leonardo effort?
Today’s Forces Net 28th has an update showing the Leonardo helo going through its paces but also says there’s competition from Boeing, Airbus and lockied Martin
Just buy some Seahawks/Blackhawks off the shelf and be done with it
Daft question perhaps but why are we not piggy backing off the work the US are doing. Shared development cost.@lower risk. Surely a win win
V-280 is too complex and expensive.
I don’t think it’s too complex and it would certainly suit the Navy, but with a target price of $48m per, it’s probably too expensive for NMH.
I just know in ten years I’ll think back to this thread and have a wry chuckle at how cheap $48m per unit would have been compared to what we actually ended up paying.
Besides the financial implications, choosing a design that emphasises British Industry will help build and maintain such industrial capabilities that could become literally life saving during a time of war.
The sensible choice for a medium, support helicopter with combat capabilities is the Sikorsky Blackhawk. It’s the only combat-proven of the three candidates. It is already developed, has a host of systems that are proven, and a host of weapon system configurations for airlift and SOF. Don’t make this a difficult choice.
Strip away all the noise surrounding British industries involvement and maintaining such capabilities – nonsensical for such a small order with no future export opportunities, then the only real contender is Blackhawk.
We often talk about ‘gold plating’ versus OTS purchases, this is one of those decisions that should only be an OTS buy.
This contract sums up what is wrong with defence procurement.
Any of the contenders can perform the task, but the nation must fund endless “studies” on the politics of which one to buy.
HOW MANY YEARS UNTIL WE SEE A BUILT IN SERVICE HELICOPTOR? Its no buying kit or having it built or in what number though normally less than what we already have its the prolonger, dragged in service dates. Apart from MRAP’s and Archer and a some MAN trucks it takes 5 plus years for any thing.
MOD slows down procurement contracts deliberately, because it doesn’t have the budget to undertake more than a handful of new equipments at a time.
Hence the lT26 go-slow phase, the repeated delays in ordering the 14 Chinook ER and the 2 proposed additional Shadow R1s, the Chally 3 being delayed until 2030, because the AFV money is all committed to Ajax and Boxer, the slow, endless process of actually ordering the FSSS or the NMH, the latest delay to F-35s, where we expected to get 6 or 7 last year but the MOD didn’t bid for any of the latest lot, so we only get 3. And so on. Anybody dreaming about getting a batch of T32 frigates can forget it, there is just no budget, unless the RN is again allowed to put its hand in the other services’ cookie jar, which absolutely shouldn’t be allowed.
We simply cannot afford half of the replacement kit we need. That is the price for pretending that we are spending 2% of GDP on defence, when the actual figure, excluding the nuclear programme, civil service pensions, contributions to the intelligence budget. etc, etc, is actually 1.5-1.7%.
That is why defence needs an uplift to 2.5% over the nest few years, starting now, and a subsequent and speedy increase to 3%. If HMG continues to hide its head in the sand, we will have to decommission a lot more elderly kit because the budget is simply not there to replace it.
So really its smoke and mirrors and we can simply not afford what we know we need. The up take in defence spending will be dragged out as long as possible. Really sad state of affairs but many nations are in the same boat.