I guess the main thing that jumps out to me is how the implication, at least from this particular news source, is that ADF are so technically incompetent that they can’t maintain their aircraft while everyone else can(excepting of course the several other nations that have had enough of whatever is going on that they are replacing their NH90 fleets as well).
This is being directed at a service that seems to be able to operate and maintain CH-47F, which is not exactly easy and that has operated UH-60 previously, not to mention other types they have in service across all branches of Australia's military.
It’s curious to me that Italy appears to operate the largest NH90 fleet, without a lot of complaints. Could there be preferential treatment by the OEMs for their fleet? Or is it down to usage?
The European Security & Defense news site reported on 02 October of this year, on the occasion of the delivery of the 56th and final NH90 for Italian service:
“The first Italian NH90 was delivered in 2011, since which time the Italian fleet has logged more than 35,000 flight hours in Italy and on international operations.”
35,000 hours in 11 years. I feel like a fleet used this gently would be easier to maintain but maybe I’m missing something?
Again, if it’s working for others, great. But the tone of reporting, at least for this article that was originally posted(and past articles from the same source), seems to take great offense to the ADF position and experience regarding this aircraft and spends a lot of time attributing dark motives to those in charge, instead of considering a more straightforward explanation as to why they are choosing a different platform.
FltMech