Originally Posted by
Cyclic Hotline
At a time when Europe and NATO is under serious stress, the credibility and capability of many military platforms requires an objective review, as they present a serious detriment and exposure of the ability of Europe to defend itself. These shortfalls have been apparent for a significant time, with no remedy forthcoming. Lots of plans and talk, but no consequential outcomes.
https://en.defence-ua.com/news/norwa...05b-16016.html
Wow, that is a bold claim by Norway:
"The total cost of the project in 2001, including the helicopters and all associated expenses, was 5.75 billion Norwegian kroner roughly €0.5 billion, the initial claim amount. Now, the figure has risen to 33 billion NOK, or €2.83 billion. This sum combines the original NH90 procurement cost, operational expenses over the years, and the cost of purchasing new American HH-60W helicopters, amounting to an additional €1.09 billion."
How do they justify also claiming "operational expenses"? I could understand it if the helicopters were never able to fly and then the cost of upkeep of helicopters unable to be used could reasonably be claimed. I also can't see how the cost of an alternative type could be used as part of the total claim. Surely that cost would have been incurred had HH-60 been selected in the first place instead of NH-90. Perhaps the Norwegian strategy is from the negotiation rule book: Make an ambit claim and then settle out of court for a lower final compensation amount.
I had previously felt that perhaps some people in the Australian Army just developed a set against the NH-90 (MRH-90) but with so many countries doing similar in ditching the type, I have to reconsider. Still, was the main problem 'simply' a lack of adequate logistics support for the type? I think the type being tagged as an unsafe helicopter within some quarters in Australia was unfair and just aimed at forcing the desired outcome of getting rid of them for other reasons.