Surely it’s a complex logistic chain
After going through this thread I was disappointed in the evolution of the NH90, which was so promising it almost swept the field of competitions in the early 2000s
I was at the core of engineering in a company partnering with NHI in proposing the then new NH90 to a military customer. I have some views:
The aircraft:
1. The NH90 engines are a variant of the GE engine in the SH60B/R/S series. That can’t be a differentiator.
2. The rotor system is well proven and robust.
3. The cockpit avionics in the MH60R are controlled by Lockheed Owego and custom designed for the platform. (S-70s sold for equivalent purposes have Collins avionics that are widely used) The cockpit avionics in the NH90 are more complex with a multi-nation consortium providing them. Nevertheless, they are not so different that one would expect dramatically different maintenance requirements.
4. In the maritime versions many of the sensor systems have similar sources.
Logistics Support:
5. The nature of the multi-national consortium producing and supplying the NH90 fleet with associated reduction in accountability is surely a major contributing factor.
6. It has long been widely accepted within the aerospace industry that European companies delusionally believe they have superior logistics support, while the reality is that US companies generally are more responsive.
7. Heark back to the UK MODs decision to award the prime contract for the Merlin EH101 to Lockheed Martin which was due to poor responsiveness by Westlands and Augusta (now AgustaWestland).
I believe that consortia inherently diffuse responsibility. Single contractors are more motivated to respond to customer pressure.
European industry needs a reality check and effort to simplify and make much more responsive their supply chains.