Kiwi's select NH-90 for RNZAF

[Aussie Digger]

New Zealand Picks NH Industries to Supply Air Force Helicopters

New Zealand has selected NH Industries to supply new NH90 helicopters to replace the New Zealand Air Force’s UH-1B Iroquois, Minister of Defence Mark Burton was quoted as announcing to several local news organizations.

The government plans to spend as much as NZ$550 million (US $389 million) to procure new helicopters, including the NH90 and a new light-utility helicopter to replace the current Sioux.

No decision has been made on the number of NH90s to be bought to replace the RNZAF’s fourteen Iroquois, which are nearing obsolescence. (ends)

Chief of the Air Force Welcomes Selection of NH90

The Chief of Air Force, Air Vice-Marshal John Hamilton has today welcomed a Government announcement that the NH90 will replace the Air Force’s fleet of Iroquois Helicopters.

“This is excellent news for the Air Force and those that depend on the helicopter support we provide,” says Air Vice-Marshal Hamilton.

“The NH90 will step us into the next generation of helicopter. It will provide huge performance gains over the Iroquois that will enable greater weights carried further and much improved night and poor weather capabilities,” he said.

While today’s decision is an important step there is still much work to be done with NH Industries to finalise costs, numbers of aircraft and delivery schedules.

“Alongside this, the Air Force will work to consider the implications on training, trades, and support structures. We must also continue to support the Iroquois fleet over the next few years until the NH 90s are accepted into service.”

Work also continues to progress the selection of a helicopter to replace the Sioux.

-ends-

Obtained from www.defence-aerospace.com (http://www.defence-aerospace.com)

This is very good news for Australia and also New Zealand. New Zealand as stated in the article is looking to replace 14 Iroquois helo's and previous reports indicate that they were looking at 10 new build helicopters. When combined with the recent Australian order for 12 additional troop lift helicopters, (and a potential and probable further Australian order for an additional 28 NH-90's) it will make it worthwhile for NH Industries to establish an assembly line downunder... Australian and New Zealand defence industries will be rubbing their hands with glee no doubt...

[daisy_cutter]

It seems to me that their budget allows for 7, at most 8 NH-90 considering the price the ADF paid. There were comments from the NZ defence that it was twice as capable as the Iroquois.

But yes it is good news, and means there will probably be Australian assembly.

[Aussie Digger]

Yes, but the ADF (as usual) has apparently changed the equipment fit, upwards since the MRH-90 was chosen and the deal struck an has thus increased the price of their platforms.

NZRAF will no doubt be satisfied with the baseline helo going on other recent NZ defence purchases (Seasprite and ANZACS for instance) and are likely to prove less expensive than Australia's.

Reports prior to this announcement indicated they were seeking up to 10 new helo's. 7 or 8 MH-90's will provide far more lift capacity than 14 Iroquois helo's though so I wouldn't be surprised if 8 were chosen. An announcement on final numbers etc will probably be made over the next few weeks. The Kiwi's tend to not muck around as much as Australia does with it's purchases...

[boylde]

Why dosent New Zealand retrofit the UH 1 Huey to the Huey 2 Twin engine and buy secound hand Blackhawks when Australia buys the NH 90

[Aussie Digger]

Cause a single NH-90 can carry the same number of troops as a Blackhawk and Iroquois combined in a single lift. The NH-90 can fly further than either, has greater "hot and high" performance and greater lift capacity than either Blackhawk or Iroquois...

On top of this the NH-90 is fully marinised and requires no additional preparation to operate off Amphibious Warfare ships. Both the Blackhawk and Iroquois require extensive preparation and maintenance in order to operate in such environments.

New Zealand also has a miniscule defence budget. It absolutely needs to maximise the capability it gets out of it's purchases. NH-90 provides very cost effective capability, at apparently quite a reasonable price.

I think it's the best choice for the RNZAF particularly given that this aircraft will also be operated by the Australian Army and significant logisitical savings can be made therein, ie: joint purchases of spare parts etc.

[hot222]

Buying, or better, investing money means that you go for a lot of years of operation (usually at least 25). While NH-90 is not yet a "combat proven" helicopter, it has the ability to be the worlds best utility/medium weight helicopter.

It's times that you should select quality over quantity, special when you have not a hostile neibourgh. Moreover when a friend nearby (Australia) has select European helicopters for its defence forces.

It looks like that Europe, at this time, is world's leader in helicopter industry. Specially after the selection of US101 (or EH101 Merlin) as the new helicopter of the President of USA.

Wise selection! ;)

[Combat Edge]

It seems that everyone has overlooked the point that Australian Govt is now relooking at the deal as Eurocopter, surprise surprise has upped the price on the aircraft, even though it has already been signed.

And our illustrious idiots in Parliament here in NZ have basically not even agreed on a price or number of aircraft, giving Pierre a blank cheque. With the way the exchange rate is going the price for the NH90 could vary by millions of dollars unless they get their act together.

Yes its a good aircraft but dealing with the French is frought with disaster, need I remind our Aussie members about the Mirage problems of yester year.

CE

[Aussie Digger]

Combatedge, the price of the NH-90 changed, because the Australian Army chose a higher specification equipment fit than that included in the original proposal, after agreeing to purchase the helicopter.

The Australian Government also changed it's mind and tried to purchase a mere 12 helicopters at the same price as that quoted for the much larger 40 helo's order, which the Eurocopter price was based upon. Obviously the price was going to change given this...

I think the NH-90 is the right choice for Australia and New Zealand, but I'm amazed at how complicated it seems to be to acquire a mere transport helicopter. I'm dreading the upcoming acquisition process for the JSF and Air warfare destroyers ($15 and $6 Billion programs respectively)...

[Boyle]

Cause a single NH-90 can carry the same number of troops as a Blackhawk and Iroquois combined in a single lift. The NH-90 can fly further than either, has greater "hot and high" performance and greater lift capacity than either Blackhawk or Iroquois...

On top of this the NH-90 is fully marinised and requires no additional preparation to operate off Amphibious Warfare ships. Both the Blackhawk and Iroquois require extensive preparation and maintenance in order to operate in such environments.

New Zealand also has a miniscule defence budget. It absolutely needs to maximise the capability it gets out of it's purchases. NH-90 provides very cost effective capability, at apparently quite a reasonable price.

I think it's the best choice for the RNZAF particularly given that this aircraft will also be operated by the Australian Army and significant logisitical savings can be made therein, ie: joint purchases of spare parts etc.

The Blackhawk carries 10 the NH 90 carries 19

[Aussie Digger]

You misread what I said boyle. I pointed out that a single NH-90 can lift the same seated troop load as a Blackhawk AND an Iroquois combined. According to Eurocopter the NH-90 can carry 18 soldiers in crashworthy seats. If they were removed it could carry over 20 soldiers (as is often done on "ops")...

[Boyle]

Cause a single NH-90 can carry the same number of troops as a Blackhawk and Iroquois combined in a single lift. The NH-90 can fly further than either, has greater "hot and high" performance and greater lift capacity than either Blackhawk or Iroquois...

On top of this the NH-90 is fully marinised and requires no additional preparation to operate off Amphibious Warfare ships. Both the Blackhawk and Iroquois require extensive preparation and maintenance in order to operate in such environments.

New Zealand also has a miniscule defence budget. It absolutely needs to maximise the capability it gets out of it's purchases. NH-90 provides very cost effective capability, at apparently quite a reasonable price.

I think it's the best choice for the RNZAF particularly given that this aircraft will also be operated by the Australian Army and significant logisitical savings can be made therein, ie: joint purchases of spare parts etc.

The Rnzaf for one operates 14 Uh 1 H not B and the H model carries 14 and the N model (Twin Huey) carries 15 so that with the blackhawk can carry a total of 24

[Aussie Digger]

You might want to check your figures there mate. The UH-1H can only carry 11 troops in the seating provided in the helicopter in addition to the crew. If you removed said seating you "might" squeeze in 14 troops but I'd HATE to be in there...

The Blackhawk also only has "seating for" 11 troops but can carry 16 with the seats removed, however given the RNZAF has never operated the Blackhawk and probably never will it's a bit irrelevant really. Figures obtained from: (http://www.transglobal-aerospace.co.uk/1-113-UTILITY-AND-CARGO-HELICOPTER-OPERATIONS/AA.html)

So I was a bit incorrect. A Blackhawk and an Iroquois combined could carry 22 soldiers in proper seating, whereas a single NH-90 can only carry 18 seated personnel. It's a bit hard to say how many "un-seated" personnel an NH-90 could carry though it's likely to be fairly high.

NH-90's are fitted with crash-worthy "armoured" individual (ie: bucket style) seats. Judging from the size of the one I saw at the Avalon Airshow in March you could probably fit around 30 people on the floor, they are almost as big as Chinooks...

You quite correctly point out that the RNZAF operates 14 UH-1H Iroquois aircraft, so a mere 8 NH-90's would be required to equal this lift capacity. 10 would provide a significant lift increase...

[Gremlin29]

Hate to disagree with you AD but some of your info is not totally correct. The UH-60 can actually seat 20 plus 2 pilots. It can sling load 10,000 pounds. In truth, the NH-90 and the UH-60 are very equivalent in terms of power, speed, useful load etc. The NH-90 does have a roomier interior but to me that's of minimal benefit since helicopters usually gross out before the cabin is filled anyway and besides, you can always carry more externally weight wise than you can internally due to airframe restrictions (mostly involving the CG). Personally, I see the NH-90 as a slightly different approach to filling the medium lift category. On a performance basis I don't see it being all that spectacular considering it more or lesses matches or very slightly exceeds the performance of the UH-60 which has been in operations service for nearly 30 years. It's a nice helicopter, it's just not "that" nice. :D

[nz enthusiast]

OK this information is according to an information pamphlit i got at the last air show at Whenuapai air base it states that the NZ UH-1H Iroquois helicopter can carry 9 passengers or 5 troops with full packs or 7 troops in light order. It also states this on the RNZAF website http://www.airforce.mil.nz/about/aircraft/iroquois.htm
According to the Australian army website there Black Hawk S70A-9 can carry 10 fully equipped soldiers.
And finally according to the eurocopter the manufacter of the NH90 helicopter states can carry up to 20 equipped troops (i don't know what there diffinition of equipped is).
I'm from New Zealand (i live in Auckland) and i want them to order at least 10 Nh90TTHs. I think people are saying that just because the new stuff is more capatable that less should be needed, i think this is absolute rubbish. You want to have a decent number of them incase a few get shot down or some get maintaince problems. I dont want to have 20 people in a heli get shot down and all 20 die, if a huey got shot down you would not even lose half that.

[Gremlin29]

As an afterthought I'd like to add a few other tidbits. First I'm not saying the NH-90 is a bad aircraft, it looks like a fine performer. I don't stay up to date on the political side of things either so whether the US is or is not/would be a stable and faithful supporter of whatever system(s) they sell to NZ does not enter into my points. That being said, although the NH-90 certainly appears to be capable of doing the job "as adverstised", from the risk management side of the house NZ is taking a fair bit of risk with a new airframe with an unproven track record, and a not entirely secure future in parts and support. With a mature airframe like the UH-60 you are getting ableit and older design, but the bloody chapters of the operators manual have been written, it's been produced in significant numbers all of which represent a pretty stable and secure future for support. Otherwise I think the NH-90 promises to be a fine aircraft.

nz enthusiast does have some good points. Carrying 20 versus 10 into combat looks penny wise and pound foolish to me. Flip side of that is during my time with the CAF I learned they didn't fly into hot LZ's and hence did not employ door guns. Seemed pretty crazy to this American, but that's the way they do it. And they do not utilize their helicopters as true maneuvering elements like we do in the states so their approach works for them. Not sure how NZ does things, but I suspect they aren't going to be mounting much of an aerial assault with 10 or 20 birds, that's barely a company sized element in my army so maybe the NH-90 will give them exactly what they need.

[nz enthusiast]

New Zealand does use doors guns on its hueys (when i went to the last airshow at Whenupai they had one set up that you could have a play with). I believe they use 12.7mm mostly. With the NH90 most sites claim it can have the 12.7 mm door gun also. Whether it can have a mini gun i do not know.

[Aussie Digger]

Well, I rode in Australia's S-70A9 Blackhawks for years and the only way I reckon you'd get 20 in them would be if they were sitting on top of each other... And 20 without ANY gear at that. When you start adding packs, webbing, weapons etc the amount of room starts decreasing dramatically... Even in Timor with ALL the seating removed the Blackhawks seemed capable of carrying no more than 15-16 soldiers in the back...


The NH-90 is a massive helo. As I stated above it is much larger than a Blackhawk and is closer to a Chinook in actual size... I doubt support for the aircraft will be a problem, it's already in service or been ordered by France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Finland the UAE, as well as Australia and New Zealand. There are confirmed orders for around 690 aircraft already and the platform seems likely to win more contracts over the coming years.

The RNZAF UH-1H's I have seen operate M-60 GPMG's as door guns, they did this as recently as the East Timor operations, though they may have upgraded by now. ADF helo's (Blackhawks, Chinooks, Iroquois, Seahawks, Sea Kings and Super Seasprites) carry 7.62mm MAG-58 door guns.

With only 2 regular infantry battalions, NZ tends to operate on a very small scale. 10 NH-90's should be adequate (just) to provide NZ with a company sized airlift capability and still have helo's for specwarops and general utility tasks...

[Gremlin29]

You can definatley jam 20 guys + gear in a Hawk. Wouldn't be fun to ride like that for more than 30 minutes but typical sortie times for the US Army are under 20 minutes. The real kicker and this is where all that niffty propaganda data (from ANY of the helicopter manufactureres) becomes useless is that helicopters quite unlike their fixed wing cousins have performance issues directly related to density altitude. Things like max power/payload are irrelevant without seeing the performance planning charts. Can you get 20 guys + gear + crew + full bag of gas off the ground given the time of take off forecast density altitude? That's the big question. The airframe limitation of 23,000 lbs max gross weight is a limitation on the frame. When you do peformance planning you are most likely to discover that maximum available torque (the function of power in helicopters) is not as high as maximum torque which is the physical limitation. Put another way, you can jam more junk in a helo than you will probably have power to lift off the ground and peform a real live mission.

I wont call the NH-90 massive either, it's >>><<< that much bigger than a UH-60 and nowhere near the size of a Hook. A Hook has 3 times the cabin volume.

At any rate like I said it looks nice enough, I just don't see it being "that" much better than the old tried and true UH-60. Besides I'm a Hawk pilot and I can't say enough about what a great ship it's been. :D

[hot222]

I'm seeing that there is a ...confusion. I'll try to clear things for you.

Blackhawk is an end '70s design. NH-90 is an end '90s.
Twin engine helicopter both, Hawks with T700-GE-701C and NHs with RTM 322. Of course RTM has superior performance (about +30% of 701Cs). It also has been elected for the WAH-64D (AHMk1). So from powerplant side, NHs are definetly much more powerful.

NHs incorporate a quad-channel fly-by-wire system, which is not available in any US helicopter (except the killed Commanche). Better rotor system for NH-90 and less drag from the retracting landing system. So NH-90 is superior from the side of performance/speed.

Now, about transportation abilities. The real fact is that Hawks can carry 16 person on crashworthy seats, when NHs can carry 24. A big advantage of NHs cabin is that has bigger height than Hawks. Hawks cabin has the same height as UH-1s. But the biggest advantage of NH-90s is that there is a bay door at the rear. With a total of three doors it can be unload of personnel at sagnificant less time than Blackhawks. That is a tactical advantage.

So, at the end NH-90 is superior in every aspect of Blackhawk. It's a logic result, cause these 2 helicopters has a 20-year difference at the date of birth!

I've seen Blackhawk in a competition with Cougar (military version of Super Puma) and Mil Mi-17. Blackhawk was looking that it couldn't even reach Cougar's capabilities (NH-90 replaces Cougar). Although Mi-17 was ...unmatched!

[Gremlin29]

I to see some confussion.

So from powerplant side, NHs are definetly much more powerful.

From a power plant side, power plants do not equate to power in helicopters.


NHs incorporate a quad-channel fly-by-wire system, which is not available in any US helicopter (except the killed Commanche). Better rotor system for NH-90 and less drag from the retracting landing system. So NH-90 is superior from the side of performance/speed.

You should do a bit of research on UH-60 flight control systems. Besides that, what precisely makes the rotor system on the NH-90 better? As far as speed goes, it's cruise speed is published on NHI's website at 132 knots while the UH-60's cruise speed is 140 knots. As a pilot I can tell you with confidence that 8 knots isn't going to be a mission breaker anyway.

Now, about transportation abilities. The real fact is that Hawks can carry 16 person on crashworthy seats, when NHs can carry 24. A big advantage of NHs cabin is that has bigger height than Hawks. Hawks cabin has the same height as UH-1s. But the biggest advantage of NH-90s is that there is a bay door at the rear. With a total of three doors it can be unload of personnel at sagnificant less time than Blackhawks. That is a tactical advantage.

The real fact is a Hawk can carry 20 plus 2. I know this because I am a Blackhawk pilot and did not get my info from global security or some other equally eroneous information clearing house. Cabin, yeah the NH-90 is taller and I would consider that to be a benefit. As for the rear door that could be of some benefit for unusual loads as well as easing the loading of litters. As for being a tactical advantange, it's laughable to think that it's all that advantageous. Besides, now you have the worst scenario of all time, non aviation professionals exiting a helicopter and heading right for the tail which is THE biggest danger zone on a helicopter.

Cougar? Are you kidding me?

[nz enthusiast]

You guys cant get it through your think skulls can you, the balckhawk carrys 10 fully equipped troops.

[Gremlin29]

nz enthusiast, I have logged thousands of hours in the UH-60 as Pilot In Command, and I'm also a maintenance test pilot. I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about. Just curious, what limitation do you think imposes a limit of 10 pax?

If anyone here can come up with a weight and balance for a mission ready, 20 pax + 3 crew NH-90 taking off from a PA of 7500 feet that needs OGE hover power I would be happy to compare the performance of both ships in that configuration. If you can't supply me that info, it's impossible to even compare the merits of either aircraft aside from aesthetics and the propaganda you choose to believe. :D

[Aussie Digger]

Well none of us are pilots so I doubt we'd have access to that sort of info, but oe thing I will note, is that the ADF is extremely familiar with Blackhawks, having been a Blackhawk operator for over 20 years has chosen the NH-90 over the UH-60M (and Merlin EH-101) in a direct competition.

Politics aside, it was the greater lift capability and greater performance of the NH-90 that allowed it to win the day or contract for that matter.

Btw, I saw an actual NH-90 and a CH-47D Chinook basically side by side at the Avalon airshow in March 05. There's not a great deal of difference in size between the 2. An S-70A9 Blackhawk was parked nearby too. It was plainly smaller than the NH-90.

Cheers.

[Gremlin29]

Come on AD, being the selected winner does not make any piece of equipment "better" than the competition and this has been well documented for a long time irrespective of country.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the NH-90 is a bad ship. I'm simply pointing out some of the facts that so many seem intent on misrepresenting. Perceived value has much to do with design selection, as does politics, mission requirements etc. Aside from a more voluminous cargo compartment the NH-90 has nearly identical performance capabilities as the UH-60L. Cruise speed, lift capability etc. No matter how you slice it, both ships are within a couple of hundred pounds of empty weight and max gross weight. Maybe it has bigger lungs for those hot humid days, I honestly don't know. Without seeing performance planning charts it's really hard for me to concede that it's "better" than the Hawk, only that it's different and has a few differences that could be a real benefit in certain situations. To me that means it all depends on how you want to view it, and how you have to use it.

[Aussie Digger]

It's a horses for courses situation in my opinion. Australia's Blackhawks have been absolutely superb during their service, so much so thatin fact the MRH-90's may end up supplementing them rather than replacing them...

The specwarries love the Blackhawk and have point blank refused to have it replaced by MRH-90. Now Australia will probably end up operating both types for many years to come...

For a country like NZ however which has to replace an obsolete fleet, I think NH-90 is just about perfect. It's larger (if only slightly) than UH-60M and can carry more soldiers in crashworthy seats. It's nowhere near as expensive as a true "large" helo like Merlins or Chinooks, yet sits between them and Blackhawks in uplift capacity.

It is also reputedly cheaper to operate than Blackhawk's though I only have a politician's "sayso" on that... :confused:

[Gremlin29]

I agree with everything you've just said AD, hope I wasn't sounding pissy. :)

[hot222]

Ok Gremlin give me some answer:

Are you flying 701C? Cause I do so. Apaches. Of course a helicopter with more power have, under same condition, more power available (PPC). Which is what a helicopter pilot is looking for. Aren't you? So British Longbow, which have a more powerfull engine, they don't have better performance from US Army's Longbows? Moreover consider that this power is going to a more advance rotor system (Agusta made). You refered to Naval NH-90 which is at Mission GW 132kts at ISA+15degC (means 30degC), and not to the tactical version which is 140kts.

Advanced controls on blackhawks? What exactly do you mean? Well NH-90 is worlds first non-mechanical flight controls helicopter.

Ok, if you say 20, your the PC! I have in mind for 16 seat for troopers and 2 door-gunners plus pilots which is 20. But can you carry anything else? Of course NH-90 has the space to carry more equipment. Ok when you are carrying the General, you only need leather seats and coffee!

About tail rotor. Please check schematics. It's far back enough. It is not lower than tailboom, which i think it's stands 2m from the ground. Shaq may have a problem with that, but not the average troop!

By the way, when we get our NH-90 (in a few months) I'll be able to provide you with more "official" data.

[Gremlin29]

Yes hot222 I am flying the Lima model.

Your missing the point regarding power. If you are comparing the same airframe with one having more power than the other, that's a no brainer. Comparing the horsepower of disimilar aircraft is a different matter and being a pilot you should know that much. As a pilot, how would you know the number of horsepower your utilizing? You don't, you can't and ultimately it doesn't matter. It's all a matter of what Mr. Torque sez, from the perspective of the dumb pilot sitting at the controls....unless your Apaches have a horsepower gauge! Just curious, but how exactly do you monitor your power in the Apache?

As for advanced controls, I was eluding to the the AFCS. The Blackhawk isn't just a direct input servo to push pull tube you know?

My 20 seat point was just that, a point. NH-90 claims to carry 20 (or is it 24?) troops. Is this a down rated number whereby they can actually carry more than that with less comfort/equipment? Is it really 30? All I was saying was that the UH-60L can positively be configured with 20 crash worthy seats, period. As I stated, it's moot anyway because most often you can not max gross your aircraft with an internal load.

By the way, the PPC you refer to earlier... are you referring to a performance planning card? Just remember they are guides, not bibles and since a pilots interpolation of the performance planning charts is open to....debate... the first thing you do in a mishap is throw your PPC in the post crash fire. :)

PS: When's the last time you flew on a perfect standard sea level day anyway?

[Aussie Digger]

I agree with everything you've just said AD, hope I wasn't sounding pissy. :)

No, you sounded just like someone passionate about, and genuinely happy with his equipment. Something all too rare in my experience...

[hot222]

If you check at your students' engine handout, you should find about the horsepower staff. Of course they refered as shp (shaft horsepower). You've been at Ft. Rucker, haven't you?

NH-90 and Blackhawk are very close at their Max gross weight (NH-90 is about 1000lbs heavier, I think). So, of course you can compare them.

I'm sure that Blackhawk has the AFCS, which from what I can i understand is a flight augmentation system, but not a fly-by-wire. Like Apache's DASE.

About seats, I can say positivelly NH-90 in few months, when we get ours. I've different arrangements from that shown in nh-90 site. I've one (schematic) with 24+2 crew chiefs. Will see. But with 20seats, it has a lot of space free to carry more equipment. Also it's back door can be use for static line jumps.

Performance planning should the main consinderation for every aviator. When I was flying Heuys, I had an experience that It stacked in my mind. I flew a transportation mission in the middle of the summer. I had a general on-boardand his staff. I sent general's staff to an airport nearby cause i found out that i had no enough available power to take of from the spot. So everything went ok. Next week, something about the same happened to friend of mine. He gave no shit for performance planning. He crashed, thanks God, no injuries. Yes, PP is important. It's going to wake you up if you something wrong during planning. At the air, sure, it will be to late.

And as an aviation wisdom says: Learn from the other's mistakes. You'll not live enough to make all by yourself!

[Gremlin29]

Fort Rucker? I am intimately familiar with Fort Rucker having lived there for 2 years. If you've spent some time there we can chat about the base, or typical landmarks just outside the main gate. But you still haven't answered my question, which was: How do you monitor power? SHP ratings are informational only by the way, and as I said since the pilot has no clue whatsoever as to how much horsepower he's using at ANY given time, the information is for all practical purposes useless.

Earlier in this thread you said:

Are you flying 701C? Cause I do so. Apaches.

And in the same paragraph:

Advanced controls on blackhawks? What exactly do you mean? Well NH-90 is worlds first non-mechanical flight controls helicopter.

Now you are saying that you are an Apache pilot and of course the Apache is fly by wire, but earlier you were saying the NH-90 is the first non-mechanical flight controls helicopter?

So you flew Hueys as well? My first AQC was in the UH-1H so I'm intimately familiar with that ship as well. Can you remember what instrument was used by the pilot to determine the amount of power being used? I wonder if you even know where the switches for force trim are, in the UH-1 of course.

[hot222]

Monitor the power? Torque percentage. Tell me, what means 100% of torque?

Apache of course has linkage between controls and servos. Digital Augementation and Stablilizaion Equipment (DASE) provides Stability, Control and Hover Augementation (SAS-CAS-HAS). Moreover in an event of linkage severange of blockage, pilots can severe the corresponting shear pin to engage BUCS (Back Up Control System, a DASE feature) This BUCS is all about fly-by-wire of the Apache. And of course, if something like this happened, LASAP!

UH-1s (H for me)
Yeap. Torquemeter. Limit 50 psi. Hehehe where the switches of force trim are? I'll answer that if you tell me, which 2 switch in the Heuy, if you turn them on, magnetic compass is unreliable?

But tell me please...what torque express?

About Rucker...from which entry you wanna start? Ozark, Daleville or Enterprise?

For more PM please.

[hot222]

During a demostration-competition (2001), Blackhawk Vs Cougar Vs Mi-17 it was obvious that in terms of power-speed-cargo...everything Mi-17 topped any request of the evaluators. I remember that at hover (summer) at 3000 ft with 15 men on board the russian pilot pull collective and Mi-17 started a climbed until (about 6000 ft) ATC stopped him, cause extra clearence required! Both Cougar and Blackhawk were vey close to their limits (Cougar had wide margins of power) when russian guy was keep saying "no problem sir" at any request. Blackhawk had analog gauges when Cougar has a full glass-cockpit. Mi-17 had the "russian-type" gauges, which no one could understand.

All pilots who flew all these aircrafts came out with that order:
1. Mil Mi-17
2. Cougar
3. Blackhawk.

I also except you Gremlin I manage to made mad Blackhawk's test pilot, when i told him that's like a big Huey.... :rolleyes:

Finally that competition cancelled and we bought NH-90s. My experience from Rucker is that no one really in US Army Aviation respects Blackhawks except from their pilots. Sorry, but I think you know that. Although I believe is a workhorse , may they had missed few spots to make it legend, as Huey...

[Gremlin29]

Monitor the power? Torque percentage. Tell me, what means 100% of torque?

That depends on the aircraft.

UH-1s (H for me)
Yeap. Torquemeter. Limit 50 psi. Hehehe where the switches of force trim are? I'll answer that if you tell me, which 2 switch in the Heuy, if you turn them on, magnetic compass is unreliable?


There's actually 3, the seachlight and pitot heat are two of them, do you remember what the 3rd is?

The torquemeter! Jeepers that was like pulling teeth! This instrument measures the torgue between the engine and transmission and is the sole means a pilot has of determining the amount of power being utilized....which is why I was confused that you would continue to argue over horsepower ratings.


My experience from Rucker is that no one really in US Army Aviation respects Blackhawks except from their pilots



Well I don't know too many pilots that are qualified to fly the UH-60 who are flying something different. I know hundreds of US Army pilots that are flying other types (including the Apache) that don't feel that way at all.

[hot222]

Ok you may be right. Landing light as well is the 3rd.

About Blackhawk reputation in US Army, you may have heard something like "Crash hawks"! :)

:cop But let finish with that. Return to the subject.

RNZAF made a great move to purchase NH-90s. It's an investement for the next 30 years.

[Gremlin29]

Okay fair enough. For the record, are you an Apache pilot and if so, for what country?

Also for the record, the Crash Hawk / Lawn Dart nicknames are ancient and stem from an improperly installed cyclic slew switch. The problem solved and corrected, the UH-60 has logged millions of hours TT and 100's of thousands of hours in combat. The most flown and safest AC in the Army inventory so the nick is just that, a nick....despite what all the non-rated posers have to say. :D

[hot222]

If you had make a small reasearch, the country who has Apaches and is going to get NH-90s is...GREECE! :rolleyes:

[Aussie Digger]

Or the Netherlands...

[Gremlin29]

Greece it is. As to my first question, are you actually an Apache pilot, or any sort of military pilot?

[EnigmaNZ]

Nice helicopter but... when natural disaster strikes in the Pacific, a C-130 with a UH-1 inside is often sent to help with inter island transport, what will happen with the UH-1's are replaced with the larger NH-90's. I prosume the UH-60 was designed low slung to be carried around in the C-130, perhaps we should have gone down this route for this reason, no doubt the NH-90 was choosen as it was also choosen by the ADF and we tend to follow their purchases. The MRV seems the most viable transport option, if it is not deployed elsewhere or laid up for maintainance. While as a medium transport I like the NH-90, with hindsight the UH-60 may be proved to be the better option. Another problem is they have to serve a large area, from the Burnham camp near Christchurch, to the SAS base in Auckland. A larger force of older tech and prosumarably cheaper UH-60's may be preferable to a lesser force of NH-90's, if we can only afford 8 and 2 are in for maintanance, a couple deployed overseas, that leaves very little here to carry out their transport, rescue and other roles. But then the NH-90 is marine compatible as supplied for use on the MRV, any UH-60 would need to be likewise, which increases the cost and lowers the numbers affordable, back to square 1.

[hot222]

Actually!

[WebMaster]

Actually!

:confused: :confused: :confused:


Greece it is. As to my first question, are you actually an Apache pilot, or any sort of military pilot?

[Aussie Digger]

I think what he's saying is "yes" webs...

[Gremlin29]

EnigmaNZ, those are some great commments. :) I'd likewise be interested to find out what the NH-90's deployability would be in various AC. It's demonstrative that the "best" of anything isn't always the best for a particular user, considering their needs and limitations.

[hot222]

Actually Greek Apache pilot! (-A model)

[hot222]

Nice helicopter but... when natural disaster strikes in the Pacific, a C-130 with a UH-1 inside is often sent to help with inter island transport, what will happen with the UH-1's are replaced with the larger NH-90's. I prosume the UH-60 was designed low slung to be carried around in the C-130, perhaps we should have gone down this route for this reason, no doubt the NH-90 was choosen as it was also choosen by the ADF and we tend to follow their purchases.

Is NZ going to replace all Hueys, or is going to keep a small number? Normally every goverment/general staff, when is going to purchase an aircraft, creates a list with the requirements that must be accomplished by the aircraft. This is a priority list. The higher the more important. Military or ...political! Normally that kind of mission is not in a high place for an Army.

[Aussie Digger]

I'd imagine the UH-1H fleet will be totally withdrawn. The US Army is no longer operating the UH-1H and has stopped supporting this aircraft type. As a result most users are now ridding themselves off this aircraft...

I haven't seen anything indicating that the NH-90 will fit in a C-130 and I wouldn't be surprised if they don't, they are a bloody huge aircraft... Despite the fact that they won't fit in a Herc though is hardly a reason not to choose them. A Blackhawk will only fit in after damn near disassembling the whole thing... With most Countries in the Asia-Pacific only a day or 2's steaming time from NZ, I hardly think it's the most critical issue here. The MRV will allow NZ to deploy a significant number of Helo's in a quick enough period of time. The Hercs can be used for more useful things such as deploying troops, vehicles material etc...

[pepsi]

I haven't seen anything indicating that the NH-90 will fit in a C-130 and I wouldn't be surprised if they don't, they are a bloody huge aircraft...

According to this they do : http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2004/Aug/310804.cfm

But yeah, im sure you probably have to spend a good amount of time taking it apart first..

PS i'm new here, ive been reading this forum for awhile, its really informative

[Jason_kiwi]

New Zealand will transport its NH90's on their new MRV. I THINK the MRV can carry about five of them. Can anybody confirm that?

[nz enthusiast]

Sadly not so many jason_kiwi, according to information on the governments defence website it can only carry two helicopters, principly a seasprite and a NH-90.
The NH-90 when disassembled should be able to fit in one or two C-130Hs. I wonder how the Nh-90 fits inside a A-400M? because since both options are european and designed by the same group of people they should be designed to work together.

[Jason_kiwi]

I thought it was 2 NH90's and one seaspite
.will NZ be purchasing A-400M's in 10 years time?
try this link, it says it can take 5 nh90's
http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/MRV.asp

[nz enthusiast]

Ok the site says it can carry 5 Nh-90s which i assume means that it can have 5 nh-90s stored its cargo hold but one NH-90 and one seasprite can use the maintiance and deck facilitys on board.
One do trust more with this sort of information the NZ government site or some Australian site.

[Jason_kiwi]

If the cargo deck can only take 5 NH90's how many LAV's can it take? about 5 aswell. I don't think the info is right on the sight at all. I think it can take aroung 15-20 LAV's

[nz enthusiast]

Remember Jason this vessel isn't actually that big, try matching up the dimensions of the LAV wit hthe MRV, i don't think that will be able to varry anymore than 5, at the stage it probably can't carry any extra helicopters than the 2 used on the deck.

[Jason_kiwi]

I am not sure about the deck. How many LAV's can it take? they said a balliton. How much is that?

[nz enthusiast]

From what the NZ government said its 250 troops including there vehicle and basic supplies. How many vehicles they need, i have no diea.

[Jason_kiwi]

I would say around 25, like at east timor.

[Aussie Digger]

From what the NZ government said its 250 troops including there vehicle and basic supplies. How many vehicles they need, i have no diea.

The MRV is being designed to lift a single NZ "company", not a full battalion. A standard rifle company is approx 120 strong. A standard battalion is around 600 strong.

Remember guys the MRV is NOT being designed as an amphibious assault vessel, (ie: capable of deploying troops in the face of significant resistance) but rather as a ship which can transport troops and deliver them to shore if they have to deploy to a Country without suitable docking facilities. From the looks of the MRV I'd say they could probably only operate 2 medium helos (such as NH-90). 10-12 LAV's would be required to provide to provide a full motorised capability for the rifle company. I'd say the MRV could carry this number of vehicles. It would be fairly useless if it couldn't...

[EnigmaNZ]

Can we keep PP and related talk in the naval section guys, under the thread dealing with PP please, we are getting info on PP spread all over the place.

[Jason_kiwi]

Here is some of the NZ projects from now-2010. They include the NH90 and 757.
rojects approved and in acquisition phase

Boeing 757 acquisition and modification
Medium range anti-armour weapon
Very Low Level Air Defence Cueing System
Light Operational Vehicle
Multi-role vessel
Offshore and inshore patrol vessels
Special operations equipment
P-3 mission systems upgrade
P-3 communications/navigation systems upgrades
New Defence headquarters building

Projects approved in principle by government

C-130 life extension
C-130 communications/navigation systems upgrades
Direct fire support weapon - area
NZDF helicopter capability
Ohakea consolidation
Army engineering equipment

Projects necessary to avoid the failure of policy

Joint command and control system
Improvised explosive device disposal

Projects necessary to provide a well-equipped land force

Land intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance equipment
Combat service support vehicles
Army tactical trunk communications
Army in-service weapon replacement
General service vehicle fleet replacement

Projects necessary to avoid significant risks to policy

ANZAC self-defence upgrade
NZDF torpedo replacement
C-130/P-3 self-protection
Anti-ship missiles
Joint communications modernisation

Projects that have benefit but are less critical to achieving policy objectives

High readiness infantry company
Short to medium range aerial surveillance
Remote mine detection
Army manoeuvre range
Indirect fire support weapon
Infrastructure projects

<LI>

<SPAN lang=EN-NZ style="mso-bidi-font-family: Times New Roman"><FONT face=Verdana><FONT size=1>Acquisition of new armoured vehicles, tactical communications, and light operational vehicles to replace the Landrovers will address the major immediate equipment deficiencies.

[nz enthusiast]

The government has already said they not approve all the projects on that list, and i believe they have already rejected some just as the anti shipping missile for the orions, and it doesn't seem they are to interested in some of the more 'deadly' weapons ones.

[driftder]

Hey good newsthen, we - Singpaore that is - are also buying the NH90. Maybe we can get a discount as the NH90 is quite expensive, since Australia and NZ is getting it. I understand that as the water clime differs from that in NZ, our anti-sub kit might not be the same. With this heli as a common platform in the different navies - US, Australia, NZ - training and spares should be easier.

[Jezza]

Australia should replace ALL Seahawks,Seakings,Seasprites and Blackhawks with the different varients of the NH-90 and have one chopper to do what the above choppers have been employed for. The savings could be put into extra Tigers.

[nz enthusiast]

I can't believe they still have seakings flying, they are so out of date. Its a relic of the cold war. In my view with Australia still runing seahawks and seakings, the NZ navy has a more modernly equiped navy rotary air arm.

[knightrider4]

We use them for heavy utility and as for out of date I wouldn't call a remanufatured SH2F cutting edge unless of course it's the SH2GA with ITAS and penguin missle.

[nz enthusiast]

This F model seasprites your reffering are now used for spare parts, and some bits have been sent back to the manufacture ages ago. The thing wrong with our G seasprites is that we haven't upgraded from the maverick yet. We actually have more seasprites on order and the number of mavericks we have in storage might not be enough to equip them all. SO we could be looking at a new missile (possibly).

[Aussie Digger]

I can't believe they still have seakings flying, they are so out of date. Its a relic of the cold war. In my view with Australia still runing seahawks and seakings, the NZ navy has a more modernly equiped navy rotary air arm.

NZethusiast, as to the capabilities of the RNZAF helo force, I'll direct you're attention to here: http://www.yaffa.com.au/defence/current/source.htm

This article is in the current Australian Defence Magazine where the NZ Under Secretary for defence (Acquisition) is interviewed by ADM. He talks abouts NZ's Super Seasprites and admits they only have them in-service because they deliberately chose a much lower level of capability with this aircraft then Australia chose for it's Super Seasprites.

The Sea King's will most likely be gone within the next few years, but the Sea Hawks are still more advanced than RNZAF's Super Seasprites in and are about to undergo a mid life upgrade improving their capability still further. In addition the first RAN Seahawk to get it's full EWSP kit has just been finished and the other 15 will follow-on shortly...

[nz enthusiast]

ok so it says this
"The Seasprite's a good example. There was a helicopter that we both decided we were going to buy, but we had different configurational requirements. In the end we had separate contracts, but they were negotiated about the same time, and we all knew each other's position. Australia went one way, we went the other way. We decided on a lower level of capability, and that gave us an advantage in timing for the supply of that aircraft."
Ok so Australias seapsrite maybe better, but your seakings are just damn old. Accoring to your navys website they aren't even armed with air to surface missiles it says: http://www.navy.gov.au/aircraft/seaking.htm
Weapon Systems
Two Mk46 Torpedo or
Two Mk11 Depth Charges
One 7.62 machine gun
Your seahawks can stay because they still have life, and are still nominee for the best in the world but Seakings, seakings, now they need replacing.

[Aussie Digger]

The Sea Kings ARE old I'll grant you that, but they're no longer used by the RAN for anti-submarine or Anti-surface warfare duties. These are currently conducted by the RAN's 16 strong fleet of Sea Hawks and will be also done by our 11 strong fleet of Sea Sprites, when they are finally operational (ie: by the end of 2005).

The Sea Kings are now only used for utility tasks (ie: heavy lifting) and are due to be replaced from around 2008. The decision will be made in the 2006/07 time frame, but I personally bet we'll see a decision for additional MRH-90's to replace the Sea Kings soon...