Buy European, CEO Of Airbus Helicopters Urges Military Leaders
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...a-395ff7631248
https://indd.adobe.com/view/d9ec8a5f...a-395ff7631248
Has he actually spoken with the contenders other than his mate at AceHawk?
BI....how did the 135 and 145 do in combat operations with the RAF?
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 ;-)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
It is modular and incremental, and can be fitted onto any military version of Airbus’ commercial helicopter range (H125M, H145M, H225M).
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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 ;-)
The MFTS helicopters are HT variants, not M, for obvious reasons.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
There was a market for those aircraft....will there be one for the MoD owned aircraft being used on the RAF Flight Training program?
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.
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.