New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
NMH was briefly touched upon in Wednesday's Defence Select Committee meeting (time set at 09:16:24 below):
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2 ... n=09:16:24
Mark Poffley refuses to go into specifics but states quite firmly that "the requirement has changed"
Would be curious to know what exactly is meant by that.
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2 ... n=09:16:24
Mark Poffley refuses to go into specifics but states quite firmly that "the requirement has changed"
Would be curious to know what exactly is meant by that.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
The window of opportunity to fit the purchase in while there was a bit of headroom in the budget before 2030 has passed ie there is no money. The requirement is changed is polite way of saying that.Jensy wrote: ↑09 Jun 2023, 17:22 NMH was briefly touched upon in Wednesday's Defence Select Committee meeting (time set at 09:16:24 below):
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2 ... n=09:16:24
Mark Poffley refuses to go into specifics but states quite firmly that "the requirement has changed"
Would be curious to know what exactly is meant by that.
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
As I say in the previous page, I reckon that's the reality.tomuk wrote: ↑09 Jun 2023, 17:31The window of opportunity to fit the purchase in while there was a bit of headroom in the budget before 2030 has passed ie there is no money. The requirement is changed is polite way of saying that.Jensy wrote: ↑09 Jun 2023, 17:22 NMH was briefly touched upon in Wednesday's Defence Select Committee meeting (time set at 09:16:24 below):
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2 ... n=09:16:24
Mark Poffley refuses to go into specifics but states quite firmly that "the requirement has changed"
Would be curious to know what exactly is meant by that.
However his comments seemed to hint that the Russian-Ukrainian war had caused a rethink of battlefield rotary lift.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
So a closely civilian related utility helicopter won't do in time of war we need a flashy military tilt rotor?Jensy wrote: ↑09 Jun 2023, 17:39As I say in the previous page, I reckon that's the reality.tomuk wrote: ↑09 Jun 2023, 17:31The window of opportunity to fit the purchase in while there was a bit of headroom in the budget before 2030 has passed ie there is no money. The requirement is changed is polite way of saying that.Jensy wrote: ↑09 Jun 2023, 17:22 NMH was briefly touched upon in Wednesday's Defence Select Committee meeting (time set at 09:16:24 below):
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2 ... n=09:16:24
Mark Poffley refuses to go into specifics but states quite firmly that "the requirement has changed"
Would be curious to know what exactly is meant by that.
However his comments seemed to hint that the Russian-Ukrainian war had caused a rethink of battlefield rotary lift.
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Or something similarly 'exquisite' was what I took away from his comment, and the previous ones made by the former Chief of the Air Staff. A man who was pleading complete ignorance of a Puma replacement that's been running in one form or another since the 80s.
The thinking is not far away from what we've been talking about on the T83 thread.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
- mrclark303
- Donator
- Posts: 856
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
That's because the US isn't a possibility, they have no interest in operating British military equipment, so no military offset deal is viable or possible.Ron5 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2023, 14:59Do you think UK defense procurement is slow and unwieldy?mrclark303 wrote: ↑08 Jun 2023, 14:22I would agree that vague offsets don't work, but say for example a direct swap of Sky Saber and T31 for a fleet of Polish UH70's plus support.Ron5 wrote: ↑08 Jun 2023, 13:54God no. Offsets don't work and are a totally crappy idea.tomuk wrote: ↑06 Jun 2023, 03:33I think there needs to be a balance on the one hand I really can't support needlessly spaffing money away on wholly home grown bespoke equipment\programmes for the sake of 'UK jobs' etc but I'm also very much against spaffing money away on US made equipment FMS style where we get no benefit of the wages, taxes or profits generated by the purchase.mrclark303 wrote: ↑06 Jun 2023, 02:14Interesting take on it, now look a little further, the actual 'effect' on GDP from defence related UK procurement is massively less than the drain on the actual defence budget driven by that politically driven policy.mr.fred wrote: ↑05 Jun 2023, 18:15If the MoD budget is based on being a percentage of GDP and GDP goes up, what do you think will happen to the MoD budget?mrclark303 wrote: ↑05 Jun 2023, 15:32 I simply don't buy into the view of UK manufacturing draws expenditure back into UK coffers, (it might do), but those coffers are separate from the MOD budget, so your defence budget buys you less and less and the military continue to contract in an ever decreasing death spiral....
You actually support tail wagging the dog procurement?
There should be some offset whether that be directly as in the programme F35 style where BAE, Rolls and others are in the supply chain or on unrelated item ie we buy £1bn of armoured vehicles they buy £250m of missiles for example.
"We want offsets for buying 138 F-35"
"OK here's 5% worth of manufacturing for all built"
...
"Hey you've only bought 30, gimme back 4% manufacturing"
"Err, mumble, mumble, still our intent old boy. You can trust us"
Kinda like how Typhoon, Jaguar, Lynx, etc etc production was split based on initial expected volumes which vanished when pen had to be put to contracts.
A contract of equivalent value ( however that pans out kit wise) and legally binding with one of our closest and most important NATO allies.
The problem is?
One of the very best things about UK-US defense procurement is the total lack of any time working out bullshit offsets.
Now Poland has a number of UK procurement programmes underway, from missile systems, to Frigates, to Helicopters ... They also happen to have a Blackhawk production line...
I say again, the problem is?
- These users liked the author mrclark303 for the post:
- new guy
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Ignoring your totally stupid comment about the US not having any interest in British kit, offsetting wastes huge amounts of time and money negotiating things which end up being bullshit.
Now give back to the US all the umpty billions the UK has made building F-35 bits
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Maybe they should start a new procurement and call it Future Utility Helicopter Competition.Jensy wrote: ↑09 Jun 2023, 17:52Or something similarly 'exquisite' was what I took away from his comment, and the previous ones made by the former Chief of the Air Staff. A man who was pleading complete ignorance of a Puma replacement that's been running in one form or another since the 80s.
The thinking is not far away from what we've been talking about on the T83 thread.
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
M252, M777, M68 and Harrier suggest otherwise.mrclark303 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2023, 19:22 the US isn't a possibility, they have no interest in operating British military equipment,
Granted all are made under license, but still...
- mrclark303
- Donator
- Posts: 856
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Try and have a reasonable conversation with an an idiot and get and idiots answer .. should have known better Mr Grinch, or Ron, or whatever you identify as these days???Ron5 wrote: ↑10 Jun 2023, 14:11Ignoring your totally stupid comment about the US not having any interest in British kit, offsetting wastes huge amounts of time and money negotiating things which end up being bullshit.
Now give back to the US all the umpty billions the UK has made building F-35 bits
Do Grinches get separate toilets
- mrclark303
- Donator
- Posts: 856
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
I'm talking, moving forward,.mr.fred wrote: ↑10 Jun 2023, 17:38M252, M777, M68 and Harrier suggest otherwise.mrclark303 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2023, 19:22 the US isn't a possibility, they have no interest in operating British military equipment,
Granted all are made under license, but still...
More recently both A330 based tanker and Merlin, both accepted and subsequently cancelled through political
'not US' pressure....
If there's a US equivalent, they won't buy or even locally assemble a foreign design now.
The Lakota LUH is a rare exception....
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
There's a rather nice Italian (and a little French) surface combatant being built in Wisconsin right now. It's had a facelift, but not so much moreso than Kestrel had compared to Merlin. The Air Force also went Italian with their new security/utility helicopter. The US Army just selected BvS10 for artic use. B-52s are getting Rolls Royce turbines, and the next DDG might as well. A whole bunch of European diesels can be found in US DoD use. The T-7A has a lot of Swedish DNA. The list goes on. Lakota is not unique, it's in good company.mrclark303 wrote: ↑10 Jun 2023, 19:46I'm talking, moving forward,.mr.fred wrote: ↑10 Jun 2023, 17:38M252, M777, M68 and Harrier suggest otherwise.mrclark303 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2023, 19:22 the US isn't a possibility, they have no interest in operating British military equipment,
Granted all are made under license, but still...
More recently both A330 based tanker and Merlin, both accepted and subsequently cancelled through political
'not US' pressure....
If there's a US equivalent, they won't buy or even locally assemble a foreign design now.
The Lakota LUH is a rare exception....
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
I would call the changes to FREMM a more than a facelift a getting on for 30ft hull stretch and the topside are drastically changed not to mention the bow.Halidon wrote: ↑16 Jun 2023, 01:09There's a rather nice Italian (and a little French) surface combatant being built in Wisconsin right now. It's had a facelift, but not so much moreso than Kestrel had compared to Merlin. The Air Force also went Italian with their new security/utility helicopter. The US Army just selected BvS10 for artic use. B-52s are getting Rolls Royce turbines, and the next DDG might as well. A whole bunch of European diesels can be found in US DoD use. The T-7A has a lot of Swedish DNA. The list goes on. Lakota is not unique, it's in good company.mrclark303 wrote: ↑10 Jun 2023, 19:46I'm talking, moving forward,.mr.fred wrote: ↑10 Jun 2023, 17:38M252, M777, M68 and Harrier suggest otherwise.mrclark303 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2023, 19:22 the US isn't a possibility, they have no interest in operating British military equipment,
Granted all are made under license, but still...
More recently both A330 based tanker and Merlin, both accepted and subsequently cancelled through political
'not US' pressure....
If there's a US equivalent, they won't buy or even locally assemble a foreign design now.
The Lakota LUH is a rare exception....
On B52 Rolls will be building the engines in Indiana at Rolls Royce North America formerly Alllison
Kestrel was a disaster and cancelled and maybe not surprisingly the nine pre production aircraft are so similar to Merlin that 7 will be refurbished as SAR helicopter for Canada.
So what can we gather from all that well any purchase of foreign equipment is usually highly difficult to pull off and nearly all involve local licnse production and in a lot of cases substantial changes to meet US standards.
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
While the 600+ engines for the B-52's will be assembled in the US, the BR700 was already in service long before that decision.
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Just to reinforce the above comments how difficult to export military kit for US military the NDAA Congressional Act authorising the procurement of the new frigate based on the Italian FREMM, Constellation, included clauses explicitly stating the components to be manufactured in US, so tightly drawn the US Navy objected as some components had no equivalent standard manufactured in US.tomuk wrote: ↑16 Jun 2023, 02:21I would call the changes to FREMM a more than a facelift a getting on for 30ft hull stretch and the topside are drastically changed not to mention the bow.Halidon wrote: ↑16 Jun 2023, 01:09There's a rather nice Italian (and a little French) surface combatant being built in Wisconsin right now. It's had a facelift, but not so much moreso than Kestrel had compared to Merlin. The Air Force also went Italian with their new security/utility helicopter. The US Army just selected BvS10 for artic use. B-52s are getting Rolls Royce turbines, and the next DDG might as well. A whole bunch of European diesels can be found in US DoD use. The T-7A has a lot of Swedish DNA. The list goes on. Lakota is not unique, it's in good company.mrclark303 wrote: ↑10 Jun 2023, 19:46I'm talking, moving forward,.mr.fred wrote: ↑10 Jun 2023, 17:38M252, M777, M68 and Harrier suggest otherwise.mrclark303 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2023, 19:22 the US isn't a possibility, they have no interest in operating British military equipment,
Granted all are made under license, but still...
More recently both A330 based tanker and Merlin, both accepted and subsequently cancelled through political
'not US' pressure....
If there's a US equivalent, they won't buy or even locally assemble a foreign design now.
The Lakota LUH is a rare exception....
On B52 Rolls will be building the engines in Indiana at Rolls Royce North America formerly Alllison
Kestrel was a disaster and cancelled and maybe not surprisingly the nine pre production aircraft are so similar to Merlin that 7 will be refurbished as SAR helicopter for Canada.
So what can we gather from all that well any purchase of foreign equipment is usually highly difficult to pull off and nearly all involve local licnse production and in a lot of cases substantial changes to meet US standards.
PS The B52 engine, F130 to be built at RR North America is the BR725 developed and built at RR Dahlewitz, Germany.
- These users liked the author NickC for the post:
- mrclark303
- mrclark303
- Donator
- Posts: 856
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
I'm focusing on aviation, as in licenced manufacturing of airframes, so Lakota and??Halidon wrote: ↑16 Jun 2023, 01:09There's a rather nice Italian (and a little French) surface combatant being built in Wisconsin right now. It's had a facelift, but not so much moreso than Kestrel had compared to Merlin. The Air Force also went Italian with their new security/utility helicopter. The US Army just selected BvS10 for artic use. B-52s are getting Rolls Royce turbines, and the next DDG might as well. A whole bunch of European diesels can be found in US DoD use. The T-7A has a lot of Swedish DNA. The list goes on. Lakota is not unique, it's in good company.mrclark303 wrote: ↑10 Jun 2023, 19:46I'm talking, moving forward,.mr.fred wrote: ↑10 Jun 2023, 17:38M252, M777, M68 and Harrier suggest otherwise.mrclark303 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2023, 19:22 the US isn't a possibility, they have no interest in operating British military equipment,
Granted all are made under license, but still...
More recently both A330 based tanker and Merlin, both accepted and subsequently cancelled through political
'not US' pressure....
If there's a US equivalent, they won't buy or even locally assemble a foreign design now.
The Lakota LUH is a rare exception....
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Yes the former BMW Rolls factory that BMW and Rolls Royce set up as a JV in the early 90s when BMW went back into jet engine manufacturing as a form of diversification. BMW later sold their half to RR when they decided to concentrate on car manufacturing but their existing relationship was key in the messy sale of Rolls Royce Motors by Vickers to VW.
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
MH-139 -license builtmrclark303 wrote: ↑16 Jun 2023, 15:44
I'm focusing on aviation, as in licenced manufacturing of airframes, so Lakota and??
MH-65 - local assembly
HU-25 - imported
HC-144A - imported, licensed production was explored
HC-27J - imported, licensed production was planned at one time
C-146A - imported
U-28A -imported, heavily modified in the US
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Over at Lockheed Martin subsidiary Sikorsky, (which is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year), CEO Paul Lemmo revealed that the company could set up a UK final assembly line as a "very robust industrial package", should its Black Hawk helicopter be selected for the UK MoD’s New Medium Helicopter requirement to replace the aging Puma and other utility types for 44 helicopters. This he, said, depending on the model chosen, could even lead to British-built Black Hawks being exported from UK, with Lemmo saying it is “certainly possible”. Lemmo explained said that the company had been in discussion with some unnamed companies about a UK FAL to find "the most capable partners".
With the company already having a European S-70M production line in Mielec, Poland, Lemmo’s remarks seemed to represent a shift in the company’s strategy on bidding for NMH, with the previous assumption being that only limited completion work might be offered to the UK. However, whether it was completion work and installation of mission equipment, a final assembly line, or even the lure of UK-made Black Hawks for export, Lemmo cautioned that the company would only reveal its offer “once we have seen the tender”. The invitation to tender is understood to be scheduled for the September period.
Full article on Day Three of the Paris Air Show:
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/paris- ... day-three/
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Leonardo: Trying to keep calm or expressing it's own confidence?
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defe ... mpaign=RSS
Each contender has its arguments.
In the case of Blackhawk, the pitch is:
a) Deliver a military-first design with the latest gen of engines, avionics and integrations;
b) Align with the FVL path now (Modular Effects Launcher, avionics, etc) to enable a smoother transition to the next generation later.
H175M first choice for industrial benefits
AW149 politically the most high profile
UH-60 has the commonality with key allies, plus aligns us with them for replacement by FVL or whatever
My money, is as always, on AW149
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defe ... mpaign=RSS
Each contender has its arguments.
In the case of Blackhawk, the pitch is:
a) Deliver a military-first design with the latest gen of engines, avionics and integrations;
b) Align with the FVL path now (Modular Effects Launcher, avionics, etc) to enable a smoother transition to the next generation later.
H175M first choice for industrial benefits
AW149 politically the most high profile
UH-60 has the commonality with key allies, plus aligns us with them for replacement by FVL or whatever
My money, is as always, on AW149
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Wise words
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Sikorsky have been dumped out of FVL not sure how buying Blackhawk helps a FVL transition?
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
As we expected, looks like a cut in numbers is very likely.
I would guess that they replace the Puma's. If there's any money behind the sofa, maybe the Dauphin's and everything else carries on as is or replaced by leased airframes.
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/07/uk- ... rbus-exec/
I would guess that they replace the Puma's. If there's any money behind the sofa, maybe the Dauphin's and everything else carries on as is or replaced by leased airframes.
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/07/uk- ... rbus-exec/
- mrclark303
- Donator
- Posts: 856
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
As expected indeed..... Quite frankly if the requirement drops to 25, then it's simply not worth setting up UK production, we might as well just crack on and buy off the shelf, or just lease.Little J wrote: ↑16 Jul 2023, 20:06 As we expected, looks like a cut in numbers is very likely.
I would guess that they replace the Puma's. If there's any money behind the sofa, maybe the Dauphin's and everything else carries on as is or replaced by leased airframes.
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/07/uk- ... rbus-exec/
Setting up a production line for 25 aircraft would make them astronomically expensive, so if the government insists on UK assembly, then make the winning bidder secure significant export orders first, if they can't, then no deal.
We have to avoid Wildcat madness again!
Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)
Thing is, If you have a smaller force you need a more dispersed force and a heli enables that.
If anything we need not 35 but 70 NMH
If anything we need not 35 but 70 NMH