If only the 1987-1997 AAAC Blackhawk Flying hours v Airframe numbers were available. You would probably find that the MRH out flew the Blackhawk. Is it the child or the parent?

A lot more than MRH , 88 to 94 the fleet all flew out their first 500 Hrly each and alot were on second so approx 30,000+ in first 6 years (88 initial delivery to 6 in service, 89-13 delivered 19 in service, 90-18 delivered 37 in service, 91- 2 delivered 39 in service), in 2011 the fleet flew 8300 hrs alone.

End of the MRH-90.
Australia Is Literally Burying Its Doomed NH90 Helicopter Fleet (thedrive.com)

Destroy the evidence so it doesn’t come back and bite you on the arse at a future date.

Should be putting an ex defence minister in the same grave.

Upgrade Program launched
 

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/p...ramme-launched

cheers

Airbus delivers first NH90 Standard 3 to Spain
 

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/p...0-to-spainThis second batch, which includes 23 NH90 helicopters, foresees the delivery of a total of 16 Standard 3 helicopters, ten of which will equip the Spanish Army Air Mobile Forces (FAMET), while six will go to the Air and Space Force. The Spanish Navy will receive seven navalised helicopters. Deliveries will be staggered from December 2024 to 2028.

The first NH90 for the Spanish Navy in tactical transport version (MSPT) is in the process of finalising its Type Certificate from the Spanish Airworthiness Authority and is already in Albacete awaiting its final delivery to the DGAM in the coming weeks. The Spanish Navy personnel, belonging to the 14th Squadron, have already started their training at the Albacete plant to begin operations with their first NH90.


cheers

And another one bites the dust. https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/b...-cost-minister

Belgium, to retire NH90 TTH fleet alleging high maintenance cost: minister

ByMiquel Ros
July 13, 2025, 12:33 (UTC +3)Defense https://www.aerotime.aero/images/202...on-800x500.jpg NH90 Caiman at the Paris Air ShowBelgium announced on July 10, 2025, its decision to retire from service its remaining four NH90 Tactical Transport Helicopters (TTH) from September 1, 2025.

In a rather scathing post on his X account, Belgian defense minister Theo Francken, attributed the decision to the high costs associated to the operation of this helicopter type. “Bad purchase. Extremely expensive to maintain. Replacements are coming in 2026.” he said.
While this decision concerns the four NH90 TTHs operated in land missions, the naval component of the Belgian Armed Forces will retain another four NH90, which are fitted for search and rescue and anti-submarine missions.

The NH90 is a medium-weight helicopter developed by NHIndustries (NHI), a pan-European consortium formed in the early 1990s by Eurocopter (a Franco-German venture which is now part of Airbus Helicopters), Italian helicopter maker Agusta (the precursor to Leonardo) and Dutch aerospace firm Stork Fokker Aerospace (now Fokker Aerostructures).

Once hailed as one of the flagship projects of the European aerospace defense industry, the NH-90 has been plagued by a series of problems which have led several operators to retire their fleets earlier than originally planned.

In particular, the NH-90 has been criticized for its high operational costs, which may range, depending on the sources consulted, between €12,000 and €20,000 per flight hour, as well as for being an aircraft which is difficult to maintain.

Prior to the Belgian decision, two prominent NH90 operators, Norway and Australia, had already announced their decision to withdraw their fleets from service, blaming operational unreliability and costs.

These complaints, however, have not deterred other countries from ordering more units of the type. France, for example, placed two consecutive orders, for 10 and 8 NH90 helicopters, respectively, in 2020 and 2023. These additional helicopters are intended for use by the French Army’s special forces and will be delivered between 2027 and 2029.

Vietnam is also reported to have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to acquire an undisclosed number of NH90 helicopters during a state visit to the country by French President Emmanuel Macron in May 2025.



input[data-keeper-lock-id="k-2zpxd93k9hh"]:hover ~ keeper-lock#k-2zpxd93k9hh {opacity: 1;}

………….

Yet another satisfied customer!
 

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

Other customers, even in relatively remote parts of the world considering logistics, seem to be doing relatively fine, so maybe there is some issues with these operators as well. Either operationally or even politically. Yes, it is an expensive and complicated piece of equipment that you cannot operate as if it’s a Huey or something.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/a...ss-tasman-sea/

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.

Could it be that the mission packages were never able to be implemented, and the massive overages on maintenance time vs. what was advertized. there were a huge amount (for Norway) pilots and engineers re-treaded from fixed wing to rotor, including some going to Allied Wings in Canada, and moving to new bases etc, for an aircraft that never really materialized. a LOT of wasted money for an airframe that never really reached operational capability, even in its Coast guard role...

Winnie, you make a good point. But defence forces shouldn't be reliant on "what was advertised", they should make sure that what was advertised becomes contractual conditions as well. That can include cost and time required for maintenance. I realise this makes a contract more difficult to negotiate but it prevents empty promises. Too many defence projects in Australia start with rose coloured glasses about the relationship with the prime contractor and then turn to custard probably with no robust contract to turn to.

Can you see a case for how Norwegians could also claim cost of an alternate replacement helicopter? I can't.

Something similar would be perfectly normal in a UK commercial contract, so I expect MoD has suitable words somewhere in Defence Contract Terms. It will in effect say that if the first contractor fails to perform the contracted duties the client may employ a second contractor and charge the extra costs to the first contractor.

Not easy to enforce, as the first contractor is unlikely to cooperate, very hard to value the work actually done and hell on skates to manage the second contractor who has no imperative to keep costs down. Completely useless when dealing with a monopoly contractor.

I suspect the Norwegians have decided to start their claim from the position that the machine was of no use whatever and so the entire cost of providing replacement NH90 capability now falls tothe account of the supplier. They can always walk back during hegotiations.

I would be surprised if contractors signed up to an agreement that might have an open ended liability like that. In an extreme case what would stop a Defence organisation from say failing a training helicopter supply contract on a minor point then replacing the capability with a heavy lift helicopter as a supposed 'training' capability replacement and claiming the cost as compensation.

I can understand claiming costs associated with any support infrastructure or training that was required for a 'failed' type that is no longer suitable for its replacement and also the costs associated with the original acquisition project management (which wouldn't be trivial) that now has to be repeated.

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.

The NH-90 offers both a GE T700 or Safran RTM 322 engine option. Is there any correlation between powerplant installation and overall reliability?

Not sure, but the Australian MRH-90 version had an early engine issue which is reported on Wikipedia as follows: "On 20 April 2010, a MRH-90 suffered a single engine failure near Adelaide, landing safely at RAAF Base Edinburgh, with NHIndustries personnel investigating the cause. On 18 May, the ADF announced that the MRH-90 fleet was grounded due to engine issues since the April incident. The cause of the failure was determined to be the compressor blade contacting the engine casing, leading to new preventative inspections; flights resumed in July 2010."

All the Australian MRH-90s used the (then) Rolls-Royce Turbomeca RTM322-01/9.

The New Zealand Defence Force NH90's are also fitted with RTM322 but those helicopters seem to be achieving satisfactory availability.

On the Wikipedia entry for the NH90, the only operator for which the General Electric (CT7-8F) engines are specifically mentioned is Spain.

Been out of the game for a long time but the launch customer for the GE T700 variant was Italy. Just as the British EH101s were RTM322 powered while the Italian ones were GE T700s. There was little to choose between the two engines so I would think most customers will have chosen based on price.

Having said that, during the development phase the airframer teams internally preferred GE because of its responsiveness as a company. At that time Rolls Royce in particular was thought to be a difficult supplier.