Are wheels a new thing on military helicopters...?

Is NMH intended to operate from ship also?

I always thought you were a bit clueless when it came to military flying, but its nice of you to confirm it, and remove that element of doubt.

In the latter years in Afghanistan zero/zero DVE landings were a technique for the analogue aircraft (CH47D); the preferred method for digital aircraft was for a coupled afcs auto hover approach (CH47F). A more protracted approach but far safer on a balance of risk basis, the coalition lost more aircraft to environmental hazards than it did to enemy action.

Improving operational safety

Ammo,#364,irrespective of what the `notional` requirements are for the aircraft,in this case the Army, there will be times/events that require sea/coastal operations(depending who the `enemy `is/exercises),and may require operating from ships/carriers.The aircraft should have that compatible capability ,built in,as fuelling is usually pressure,stowage requires blade folding/tail folding,secure deck lashing points,possibly emergency flotation gear,etc,and when built should be properly corrosion proofed against sea-water.

Jointery, Global Reach, Littoral etc etc You can expect it to be on the back of a boat at some point.....

New Pumas!!
Pictured: RAF Puma helicopters replace Griffin models in Cyprus (msn.com)

About 15 years, 2000 hours, 5 deployments 👍

At least somebody understands…👍 And the more modern the AFCS are, the quicker the approaches can be. Clearly no one likes to be a sitting duck on final of a hot LZ….

can’t find the “egg on face” imoji…..

Cowboy wisdom says "It ain't bragging if you done it!".:ok:

NMH = No Money Helicopter

Defence Synergia Paper criticises the replacement plan
 

A defence website has published a paper criticising the plan, on a site called Defence Synergia.
Current situ - Gov expected shortly to announce another step in the selection process, presumably reducing the comp to either AW or Blackhawk.

To use the hackneyed old phrase, you honour the highest threat. If you're in the middle of nowhere, in a low threat environment, Red Illume, then I'm all for letting the Auto Trans Down complete the final approach and establish the hover before landing. However, a few counterpoints. An AFCS driven auto trans down remains a slow and highly predictable approach. It exposes the cab to the enemy, for longer, with no alteration or variation to the deceleration scheduling - and the enemy would quickly learn how the aircraft completes its decal profile (it has to be fixed and predictable to be certified…). Most D/AFCS I've seen/flown are derived from civil standards, and expect a civil style approach to be initiated, then coupled, or completed at the end of a Flight Plan - they are not the run in at low level / 140+Kts and flare hard into the 'gate' in terms of both pace and unpredictability. Having an Auto Trans Down also places the aircraft in any DVE for longer, robbing the crew of SA on threats and obstructions, and exposing the mechanicals to potentially more sand/dust/ erosion and damage. A combination of a nose gear aircraft and coupled approach will not get you on the ground as quickly at a 'hot LZ' as a machine with a tail wheel being flared hard to the ground, nor will be reliable (indeed, sensible) for multi ship tactical approaches, which is mostly what we do. In Afghan, NH90 crews were particularly concerned with their dust landing technique when in an opposed area as they had to rely heavily on their DAFCS lest they hit the tail rotor - not a problem for a Black Hawk or Chinook (well, the latter until about 26 degrees nose up….). I'd like to have the auto trans down/up in my golf bag for bad weather days in peacetime and benign areas on operations, but I'd rather have a DAFCS that stops drift/yaw at low speed/altitude in DVE, an active sensor and a 3-D Conformal Symbology suite on a display helmet to enable me as -3 or -4 to 'play' the flare to hit the ground ahead of Lead to keep us close on the LZ and minimise time in DVE. We rarely fly single ship insertions on Ops. If I were procuring an aircraft for a similar role to what the US Army uses the Lakota for, then I'd have no issues with 149 or H175M as their commercial DNA would likely either be irrelevant or, potentially, a useful facet. Having seen what we've expected the Puma force to do over the last 20 years, I'd be far more comfortable with our crews flying a UH-60 as the 'interim' platform until we work out our requirements to understand if we're going V-280 or the latest Franco-German lash up, the E-NGR, as the enduring Medium Lift platform (and Merlin replacement).

Last line reads:
"In short, choice of the AW149 is likely to become a large procurement failure"

“NH90 crews were particularly concerned with their dust landing technique when in an opposed area as they had to rely heavily on their DAFCS lest they hit the tail rotor - not a problem for a Black Hawk or Chinook (well, the latter until about 26 degrees nose up….).”

I would never have believed an aft blade strike on a chinook could happen, then I saw one one night back in the day when i worked on CH-47s with 3” of red dirt on each of the blade tips..

FltMech

It will be added to ze list

M.O.D procurement seems to have become a byword for failure.

Perhaps some lateral thinking is required.

LH are obviously going hard for NMH, but everything I read indicates that the AW149 is simply not fit for purpose where NMH is concerned. The Blackhawk seems to be the best contender of the available options in terms of lift, size, and proven battlefield capability, but it is not built in the UK. 'Social value' will undoubtedly play a significant part in the assessment criteria and scoring of the 3 likely bids.

What are the chances that LH decide to 'no-bid' rather than bidding and losing, and then partner with Sikorsky and offer to build the NMH Blackhawks at Yeovil? I appreciate it sounds rather far fetched, but it gets LH a slice of the pie, and gives Sikorsky the social value piece that they currently lack. I know there are multiple 'devil in the detail' issues with this, but if Airbus can partner with Boeing for NMH, why not LH and Sikorsky?