Buy European, CEO Of Airbus Helicopters Urges Military Leaders

[Cyclic Hotline]

https://www.oann.com/buy-european-ceo-of/Buy European, CEO Of Airbus Helicopters Urges Military LeadersBy Tim Hepher

MARIGNANE, France (Reuters) – The head of Airbus Helicopters has urged Europe to back its domestic defence industry when launching major new military programmes, as a row simmers over U.S. arms imports.

The comments come weeks after six European NATO nations embarked on efforts to define future transport needs under the alliance’s Next Generation Rotorcraft Capability (NGRC) project.

They also coincide with a standoff over Berlin’s reluctance to buy into an upgrade of Airbus’s Tiger attack helicopter over operational problems and a row with Norway over its decision to axe its fleet of NH-90 military helicopters.

“When there is a European solution, I think it is very important – and I have no doubt that Germany is taking that approach – to prefer European equipment: that is what Germany has shown for several decades with the Tiger and NH-90,” Airbus Chief Executive Bruno Even told Reuters in a recent interview.

Airbus Helicopters is marking 30 years since it was born through a Franco-German merger prompted by the development of the original Tiger version, sponsored initially by France and Germany and later Spain.

“We are working closely with the German client to improve availability. We have seen results since a few months ago,” Even told Reuters.

Even said the door for Germany to join France and Spain in the Tiger Mk III upgrade remained open, but responded sharply to suggestions that Berlin could instead buy Boeing’s AH-64 Apache. “I don’t imagine it for one second,” he said.

‘STUFF THAT FLIES’

Janes reported in November that Germany had requested information on the U.S. Apache, shortly before deciding to order U.S. F-35 fighters for a limited separate role.

Germany, which has criticised the Tiger’s poor operational availability, has not said whether it will join Tiger Mk III but defence sources say it is off the table, at least for now.

Asked about criticism of purchases of U.S. equipment, German Defence Chief Eberhard Zorn last week hit out at big European arms projects, saying forces want “stuff that flies”.

“First of all, we need equipment to fill the gaps that we have had for years and that we know,” he told a thinktank.

European industry officials have however blamed Germany and others for over-ordering unnecessarily complex equipment to preserve skills in their defence plants, in contrast with off-the-shelf U.S. equipment that cannot be easily customised.

While it competes with Boeing and Leonardo on attack helicopters, Airbus agreed earlier this year to maintain H-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopters sold by Boeing to Germany.

Even did not rule out further cooperation with rivals in areas where, like heavy-lift helicopters, Europe does not have a deep enough market to justify its own separate programme.

But he laid down a marker that Airbus would fight for future replacements of core programmes like the NH-90.

Airbus has teamed up with Leonardo to research technology to be fed into the NGRC programme, backed by the European Union’s European Defence Fund.

Even meanwhile sought to defuse tensions with Norway over its decision to cancel the NH-90.

He said NHIndustries (NHI), the Airbus-led consortium responsible for building the helicopter, had not been given a chance to discuss Oslo’s move in detail beforehand.

But he added: “I remain positive and still hope we can have a dispassionate and constructive debate, because I think NHI is able to offer solutions that meet the client’s needs.”



(Reporting by Tim Hepher in Marignane, Sabine Siebold in Berlin; Editing by Jan Harvey)

https://c3.oann.com/wp-content/uploads/Reuters_Direct_Media/USOnlineReportBusinessNews/tagreuters.com2022binary_LYNXMPEI8L0W6-BASEIMAGE.jpg (https://www.oann.com/buy-european-ceo-of/file-photo-a-german-bundeswehr-armed-forces-nh-90-helicopter/)

[EESDL]

Snake Oil salesman
We did buy European and look where it has got us - many European countries might retort.
The nerve

[albatross]

Airbus helicopters, “You are AOG? Need parts? Backordered just 5-6 months. Bon Chance explaining that to your customers!”

[ericferret]

Airbus helicopters, “You are AOG? Need parts? Backordered just 5-6 months. Bon Chance explaining that to your customers!”

Leonardo and Sikorsky the same, a world wide problem.

[SASless]

Gee...golly....gosh.....imagine that.....Froggy saying buy French! Why ever would he say that you wonder?

[Rotorbee]

Gee...golly....gosh.....imagine that.....Froggy saying buy French! Why ever would he say that you wonder?

As if on your side of the pond that would not be the case. Common, "buy American" has always been THE thing. You are aware of the Buy American Act, are you? We do not have that. We actually believe in free market, without whispering "as long as it gives us an advantage".

But when the CEO of the largest helicopter manufacturer isn't pleased with the current situation with some governments, you call him names? In the US, there would be rallies for him. Senators would invite him to DC; "Save the US helicopter industry".

BTW, I do not know, how much of the Tiger and NH90 problems are actually problems caused by the customers itself, but I bet there are quite a few and if these governments were capable of admitting that, both helicopters would be quite different and much better. Many software and other projects fail, because the customer is just not capable of handling them. It is easier to blame the supplier. Especially the military isn't know for efficient procurement project management. I bet a lot of beer, that the cause for the spare parts problems lies in the contract the initial customer wanted. You don't want enough spares, you don't get them.

Additionally politics is interfering with their ideas. Ask the big defence manufactures how much money they could save, had they not to have facilities all over the place because every Senator wants to have something in their state.

I do not say, that Airbus is easy to deal with. But everybody knows, getting parts from them can be quite challenging, therefore one has to plan accordingly (Apparently Airbus does a much better job in the US). And still the B3e is selling like hot cake (for a helicopter that is) and people actually operate them AND make money.

Parts that lie on a shelf cost money. Neither the manufacturer nor the customers wants them to lie around. The customer wants the manufacturer to have them available all the time and the manufacturer wants the customer not to break things and plan ahead that they get the part when they need it. There is no common ground here that makes everybody happy.

[EESDL]

As if on your side of the pond that would not be the case. Common, "buy American" has always been THE thing. You are aware of the Buy American Act, are you? We do not have that. We actually believe in free market, without whispering "as long as it gives us an advantage".

But when the CEO of the largest helicopter manufacturer isn't pleased with the current situation with some governments, you call him names? In the US, there would be rallies for him. Senators would invite him to DC; "Save the US helicopter industry".

BTW, I do not know, how much of the Tiger and NH90 problems are actually problems caused by the customers itself, but I bet there are quite a few and if these governments were capable of admitting that, both helicopters would be quite different and much better. Many software and other projects fail, because the customer is just not capable of handling them. It is easier to blame the supplier. Especially the military isn't know for efficient procurement project management. I bet a lot of beer, that the cause for the spare parts problems lies in the contract the initial customer wanted. You don't want enough spares, you don't get them.

Additionally politics is interfering with their ideas. Ask the big defence manufactures how much money they could save, had they not to have facilities all over the place because every Senator wants to have something in their state.

I do not say, that Airbus is easy to deal with. But everybody knows, getting parts from them can be quite challenging, therefore one has to plan accordingly (Apparently Airbus does a much better job in the US). And still the B3e is selling like hot cake (for a helicopter that is) and people actually operate them AND make money.

Parts that lie on a shelf cost money. Neither the manufacturer nor the customers wants them to lie around. The customer wants the manufacturer to have them available all the time and the manufacturer wants the customer not to break things and plan ahead that they get the part when they need it. There is no common ground here that makes everybody happy.
and woe betide if you want a part or attention during the summertime! The French are famous for it - Gaelic Shoulder Shrug non-pas?
Dauphin MRGB made metal shortly after delivery, Oxford/Marseille could not initially quote - guess what - we shipped it to Grand Prairie and they slid it in amongst the Coastguard upgrade line - now you can probably understand why/how US coping better - it's an attitude thing and don't tar everyone with the same brush, merci beaucoup.

[Rotorbee]

and woe betide if you want a part or attention during the summertime! The French are famous for it - Gaelic Shoulder Shrug non-pas?

Dauphin MRGB made metal shortly after delivery, Oxford/Marseille could not initially quote - guess what - we shipped it to Grand Prairie and they slid it in amongst the Coastguard upgrade line - now you can probably understand why/how US coping better - it's an attitude thing and don't tar everyone with the same brush, merci beaucoup.

Wow, and Airbus let you do that? When we needed a few sets of rotor blades ASAP and Eurocopter (some time ago) couldn't deliver, they tried to forbid us to buy sets from other operators. We did it anyway. Things must have changed in the south of France.

Anyway, many many moons ago, when Eurocopter opened the new facilities in the US, the local boss gave an interview. He said, customer satisfaction in the US was his first concern (now figure that), therefore they would store as many spare parts necessary, to make US customers happy. Oh the jealousy. That mindset must have prevailed to the day. At that time Bell was the leader in customer satisfaction and it was much easier to deal with them.

But my bet still stands. The initial customers f****** it up themselves.

[Sir Korsky]

well as a recent convert to the Airbus fleet, I have to say they are good machines and they sell well for a reason.

[megan]

Leonardo and Sikorsky the same, a world wide problemFar too many decades ago to recall the needed part but we had a 76 sit in the hangar for six months awaiting said piece, only occasion it ever occurred. Luck of the draw.

[SASless]

While working for Agusta in Italy....during a visit with their AOG section....I noticed the clerk typing a response to an Operator in which the Clerk informed the Operator that the requested part was out of stock and that the next scheduled manufacturing run for that part was six months away.

That was back in the late 70's.

Part stockage is not an easy thing to do as some parts rarely get requested while others are always in need by someone.

Having parts on different aircraft models that are common to more than one aircraft makes it somewhat easier.

[megan]

the requested part was out of stock and that the next scheduled manufacturing run for that part was six months awayNow that you remind me SAS that was our problem.

[paco]

They might be good machines to fly but, having operated both, I would never again operate French machines. If you factor in the opportunity cost for the times when they can't fly the operating cost goes way up. We used to send our 355 gearboxes out to Canada, got them back within a week.

It reminds me of when we used to be urged to buy British - well, if the British made BMWs, then I'd buy one, not the cr*p the British Leyland pumped out.

[Marly Lite]

My Twopeneth:

Airbus & Leonardo makes lovely civil helicopters, well thought out. No idea whatsoever about military requirements. Just cos it’s painted green doesn’t make it a warfighter.

Boeing/Sikorsky. Able to design military in from the begining. Rugged.

I have no doubt the Puma replacement will be a european sham. Leonardo no doubt. Civvy heli painted green, fragile. No self defence, gun mounts cobbled on. Cockpit unfit NVG. Aircraft broken on first contact with troops.

I can see it coming…

[SASless]

Based upon MOD's proven ability effectively conduct an acquisition process....I would bet Marly is right in his forecast.

The British ego shall not allow them to buy Blackhawks and go with a proven design that would have commonality with NATO allies.

Even if they do go for Blackhawks....it will be a bastardized version hawked by AW supporters.....rather than. buy off the s shelf from Sikorsky.

All you have to do.is look to past procurements of the Chinook and Apache.

[Baldeep Inminj]

Based upon MOD's proven ability effectively conduct an acquisition process....I would bet Marly is right in his forecast.

The British ego shall not allow them to buy Blackhawks and go with a proven design that would have commonality with NATO allies.

Even if they do go for Blackhawks....it will be a bastardized version hawked by AW supporters.....rather than. buy off the s shelf from Sikorsky.

All you have to do.is look to past procurements of the Chinook and Apache.

My money is on H175 for NMH. MoD having a good experience in terms of cost and reliability of 135 and 145, and common helionix cockpit. Add in manufactured in North Wales and I think it has a great chance.

[Hot_LZ]

☝🏾Probably the worst option out of all the contenders, but again when has common sense ever prevailed with MOD procurement.

LZ

[EESDL]

My money is on H175 for NMH. MoD having a good experience in terms of cost and reliability of 135 and 145, and common helionix cockpit. Add in manufactured in North Wales and I think it has a great chance.
Ha - there must be two RAF Shawburys then - the one I know has at least half the machines in maintenance and 'non-compliant' simulators. Helionix great for O&G but not for integrating a plethora of mission equipment configurations. Ha, I remember the expensive look I was given when asked if I could change a set route ;-)

[DuckDodgers]

Ha - there must be two RAF Shawburys then - the one I know has at least half the machines in maintenance and 'non-compliant' simulators. Helionix great for O&G but not for integrating a plethora of mission equipment configurations. Ha, I remember the expensive look I was given when asked if I could change a set route ;-)

Superb article in the latest issue of Antares; to précis the end of term score card on U.K. MOD’s NMH programme, “don’t come back this term Airbus (and Bell)”.

https://indd.adobe.com/view/d9ec8a5f-eb91-4fdc-825a-395ff7631248

[FloaterNorthWest]

Ha - there must be two RAF Shawburys then - the one I know has at least half the machines in maintenance and 'non-compliant' simulators. Helionix great for O&G but not for integrating a plethora of mission equipment configurations. Ha, I remember the expensive look I was given when asked if I could change a set route ;-)

EESDL,

I think you are being fed duff gen. The aircraft availability at Shawbury is well above what is required and within contract.

The FTD are nothing to do with Airbus. They were built for Ascent by CAE.

You assume that the electronic architecture of the O&G H175 is the same as the H175M. I think you will be surprised at what the H175M will be capable of and how it will align with the current fleet.

FNW

[FloaterNorthWest]

Superb article in the latest issue of Antares; to précis the end of term score card on U.K. MOD’s NMH programme, “don’t come back this term Airbus (and Bell)”.

https://indd.adobe.com/view/d9ec8a5f-eb91-4fdc-825a-395ff7631248

Superb? Really?

Has he actually spoken with the contenders other than his mate at AceHawk?

[SASless]

BI....how did the 135 and 145 do in combat operations with the RAF?

[trim it out]

BI....how did the 135 and 145 do in combat operations with the RAF?
They're training aircraft, I know Telford is rough but it doesn't quite qualify for LFA9 combat operations.

[Baldeep Inminj]

BI....how did the 135 and 145 do in combat operations with the RAF?

They are only used for training. Perhaps a little research might help before posing your questions.

[Baldeep Inminj]

Ha - there must be two RAF Shawburys then - the one I know has at least half the machines in maintenance and 'non-compliant' simulators. Helionix great for O&G but not for integrating a plethora of mission equipment configurations. Ha, I remember the expensive look I was given when asked if I could change a set route ;-)

You are factually incorrect. Availability rates are above contract requirements and nowhere even close to half the aircraft are in maintenance.

What exactly is non-compliant about the simulators - this is news to me?

Are you an expert on the architecture of Helionix to say it won’t be able to integrate mission equipment configurations? Just asking because I have experts in my team, and it will.

[SASless]

BI....correct answer....just like the UH-72 Lakota for the US Army.

Which of course you knew too...correct?

Aircraft procured uses limited to training and liaison type flying do not have the ballistic tolerances and other military combat related standards.

So equating the 135 and 145 to being the same as Combat Spec aircraft is flat wrong.

The US Army and Navy have used civilian standard (meaning not suitable for combat use) aircraft for training but limit them to those duties as they are not fit for the more arduous conditions that they would encounter during actual combat operations.

[trim it out]

BI....correct answer....just like the UH-72 Lakota for the US Army.

Which of course you knew too...correct?

Aircraft procured uses limited to training and liaison type flying do not have the ballistic tolerances and other military combat related standards.

So equating the 135 and 145 to being the same as Combat Spec aircraft is flat wrong.

The US Army and Navy have used civilian standard (meaning not suitable for combat use) aircraft for training but limit them to those duties as they are not fit for the more arduous conditions that they would encounter during actual combat operations.
There is the HForce mod available from Airbus to provide some punch should a user choose to retrofit their cabs.

[SASless]

From the HForce webpage.....

It is modular and incremental, and can be fitted onto any military version of Airbus’ commercial helicopter range (H125M, H145M, H225M).

What is the difference between the civilian models of those aircraft and the military versions o them?

Am I right to understand you cannot install the HForce armament system of pure civilian models?

Did the RAF buy civilian models or the military model for their 135 and 145 fleets?

[trim it out]

From the HForce webpage.....



What is the difference between the civilian models of those aircraft and the military versions o them?

Am I right to understand you cannot install the HForce armament system of pure civilian models?

Did the RAF buy civilian models or the military model for their 135 and 145 fleets?
The MFTS helicopters are HT variants, not M, for obvious reasons.

[EESDL]

You are factually incorrect. Availability rates are above contract requirements and nowhere even close to half the aircraft are in maintenance.

What exactly is non-compliant about the simulators - this is news to me?

Are you an expert on the architecture of Helionix to say it won’t be able to integrate mission equipment configurations? Just asking because I have experts in my team, and it will.
Certainly not an expert on Helionix and enjoy using it in the H175 for O&G.
Just surprised that the H175M on display at FIA didn't have a mission system fitted if it was MOSA/Open Architecture etc
Yes - I know sim stuff and the Shawbury sims are being used for stuff they weren't designed for - endex
That will teach me to listen to a Shawbury engineer ;-)

[SASless]

The MFTS helicopters are HT variants, not M, for obvious reasons.

Were they M series....and thus able to have ready made systems hung on them....that would facilitate their use as Attack Trainers as well as allow them to be used as Fillers should hostilities ever break out where a full. mobilization would be required.

That was the argument against the Lakota being just an Civilian Helicopter in Army Green paint pretty much.

The promise was they were never be deployed to a combat theater for t hat reason.

The Army has purchased a dozen or so of the UH-72B's....with plans to buy up to 450+ of them.

The Fleet has accomplished just over One Million flight hours since being fielded in 2006.

[trim it out]

Were they M series....and thus able to have ready made systems hung on them....that would facilitate their use as Attack Trainers as well as allow them to be used as Fillers should hostilities ever break out where a full. mobilization would be required.
No, they weren't ever M series.

I think the war would be settled by other means before they choose to send crews of Ab Initios paired up with LFA9 QHIs East, in helicopters that belong to a civilian company...

[FloaterNorthWest]

No, they weren't ever M series.

I think the war would be settled by other means before they choose to send crews of Ab Initios paired up with LFA9 QHIs East, in helicopters that belong to a civilian company...

The helicopters are owned by the MOD.

[trim it out]

The helicopters are owned by the MOD.
I thought they were just on the military register for RTS purposes but not owned by the MOD, like the Draken 212/412s?

Apologies if wrong.

[Blackhawk9]

French President is coming to Australia for a visit soon and one of the items on the agenda is to push the Aust Govt to keep the MRH-90 that no one in the ADF wants and push French Defense Equip to us, which once again most operators in the ADF don't want.

[Baldeep Inminj]

I thought they were just on the military register for RTS purposes but not owned by the MOD, like the Draken 212/412s?

Apologies if wrong.

Bizarrely, the MOD owns them, but had no say in their selection. At the end of the contract the MoD will own a fleet of high hour and well worn aircraft that have little or no military worth. Yet another moronic decision made in MFTS.

[trim it out]

Bizarrely, the MOD owns them, but had no say in their selection. At the end of the contract the MoD will own a fleet of high hour and well worn aircraft that have little or no military worth. Yet another moronic decision made in MFTS.
Incredible. Thanks for the info.

[FloaterNorthWest]

Bizarrely, the MOD owns them, but had no say in their selection. At the end of the contract the MoD will own a fleet of high hour and well worn aircraft that have little or no military worth. Yet another moronic decision made in MFTS.

But they are maintained and modified under Part 145 so will be available to the civilian market. A lesson learnt from the Squirrels which had little valve on either market.

[SASless]

In the past we saw Bell 212's with 35-40,000 hours on them be sold for scrap value....bought and transported to the US and Canada....be rebuilt and put back to work doing utility and forest fire fighting.

There was a market for those aircraft....will there be one for the MoD owned aircraft being used on the RAF Flight Training program?

[EESDL]

Well that is a relief. For a moment there I thought we were looking to buy an aircraft that was specifically designed for O&G (I was on one of the roadshow aircraft) and hasn't even been purchased by its 'home' military, unlike every other aircraft from that stable. You speak in 'future' tense regards wiring which indicates to me that you are not particularly bothered if the FOC is made, despite the capability situation being desperate.
So which aircraft are the FTDs representing? Is it a case of Ascent saying that 'they'll do' because we don't want to spend money on representative sims? I guess that's what you get when profit is 'King' rather than standards.

[lowfat]

Historically both AW and eurocopter have reneged on work share of machines bought by the uk , the sar 189 and the puma update. so I wouldn't bet my mortgage on anything those European companies say.
Like wise the abortion of the super chinook with glass cockpit was amassive money pit.
Keep it simple go and buy the black hawk don't add any gizmos and have a working new helicopter fleet. Let the eyetalins and froggys sort out their new machines then look again in 15, 20 years time.. drops mike leaves chat.....

[keesje]

It seems European Manufacturers deliver a majority of civil helicopters, while Sikorsky & Bell are more focused on (US) defense requirements.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/780x520/89493_h160marmycfrenchdefenceministry_240905_871efcde30ece95 53f7c6b76a289adad0a6aa795.jpg
https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/airbus-prepares-to-seize-bigger-slice-of-military-helicopter-market/150316.article

But obviously Airbus and probably Leonardo are now refocusing a bit.