Originally Posted by Blackhawk9 (Post 11401622)

Thinking about this acquisition , the 47 ex ADF MRH-90's (NH-90) will be up for sale soon , they have been a failure here with tech and parts support from Europe being one of the problems, but buying these 47 would give the RAF spare airframes and with the parts supply and support being just across the channel , I think the RAF could keep 36 going no problem and with spare frames to cycle thru the fleet at O/H keep the hrs down , they already have the RR engine in them and are Eurocentric in fit out and systems, and alot more compatible with other European users (France, Spain, Italy, eyc) be cheaper than 149 or 175 and be a better airframe (though still not a BH)

Originally Posted by minigundiplomat (Post 11401721)

Yeahnah mate. You can keep them......

Originally Posted by Blackhawk9 (Post 11401622)

Thinking about this acquisition , the 47 ex ADF MRH-90's (NH-90) will be up for sale soon , they have been a failure here with tech and parts support from Europe being one of the problems, but buying these 47 would give the RAF spare airframes and with the parts supply and support being just across the channel , I think the RAF could keep 36 going no problem and with spare frames to cycle thru the fleet at O/H keep the hrs down , they already have the RR engine in them and are Eurocentric in fit out and systems, and alot more compatible with other European users (France, Spain, Italy, eyc) be cheaper than 149 or 175 and be a better airframe (though still not a BH)

Originally Posted by Hilife (Post 11401825)

Originally Posted by 212man (Post 11401839)

I think they take CS25/29 as baselines to ensure compatibility with operating in the civilian environment, but have a number of additional clauses to address battle damage, NBC etc

Originally Posted by SASless (Post 11401922)

Can anyone compare and contrast the two Standards.....DEFStan 00-970 and the UTTAS Standard?

Originally Posted by 212man (Post 11401412)

Other way round actually, the 189 is the civilian derivative of the 149. I know LH will use hype, as much as any contender, but they do seem adamant that they certified against DEFStan 00-970

ttps://www.gradcracker.com/hub/679/leonardo/blogs/4123/aw149-designed-to-survive-on-the-modern-battlefield-part-1

Originally Posted by pba_target (Post 11401964)

Based on my experiences in procurement, I don't trust anything that Leonardo say about any product until I've seen the results of truly independent testing in a representative environment.... Some elements of the company have given sterling service prior to being "absorbed" into the corporate culture, but the number of fast ones they've tried to pull (either through intent or through incompetence) significantly outweighs that. I'll also grant they're not alone in the defence industry in this.

Having said all of that, we all know what the NMH result will be, so here's hoping they have done an ok job this time around.

Originally Posted by JohnDixson (Post 11401975)

212.SAS/pba: I looked up the DEFStan document with the same intent as you all, but for instance in the structural/crashworthiness area, I did not find any specific target, must have, numbers. On the other hand, if one looks up Mil-Std-1290, it’s a short document, but the values in Table 1 and para. 4.2 are clear.
The ballistic tolerance requirements are harder to find. They were in the Material Need Document, which was repeated in the Request for Proposal, and again in the Spec for the aircraft, but I do not have copies of any of those any more.

Originally Posted by Hilife (Post 11402822)

The following links might shine a little light on some of the questions and from the horses mouth.

AW149: Designed to Survive on the Modern Battlefield

Part 1
https://uk.leonardo.com/en/news-and-...lefield-part-1

Part 2
https://uk.leonardo.com/en/news-and-...lefield-part-2

References DEFStan 00-970, MIL standard 1290A and ballistic vulnerability analysis for parts of the design thinking.

Good for a salesman's PowerPoint presentation, although it leaves plenty of unanswered questions.

Originally Posted by EESDL

latest rumour is that NMH pushed back another 2 years.

Originally Posted by sycamore (Post 11402855)

No mention of `ship compatabilty`,blade/tail fold etc...
..and I don`t like those little nosewheels to ,stand up to running landings/t/off in sandy,boggy rough terrain either...