Dingo9, where the NFH stands out is the fact that all mission systems are integrated, which is a major advantage in a warfare scenario. E.g. Sweden have a highly modified TTH and added their mission systems afterwards. This has proven to be non effective unfortunately. The Germans are just unlucky with their IOC TTHs, but I have high hopes for their NFH program.
Maybe I am a bit biased with over 1000 hours in the machine, but trust me, it is a real delight to fly and very effective in a naval environment. The MH60 might be a true workhorse, but when viewed objectively, not comparable with a NH90. Plus, I have not seen the Danish operate their machine in a significant mission/exercise yet.
I am aware of some of the flaws of the machine, but it is too easy to focus on the defects. The maturity will come, as I experience some very professional engineers and crews working on that every day. Try to focus on her achievements and collaborate on the improvements. Yet again, I might be a little bit biased, sorry.
Ps. With regard to the operating costs per FH, it includes much more variables than just the flying part. For what I’ve read I cannot tell whether its comparing apples (NH90) to oranges (MH60), but I do know that my salary is just a small % of that.
