Kiwi's select NH-90 for RNZAF

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
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.â€

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

-ends-

Obtained from 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

New Member
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.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
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

New Member
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
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
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

New Member
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

New Member
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
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
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

New Member
Aussie Digger said:
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
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
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

New Member
Aussie Digger said:
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
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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

New Member
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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 Member
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.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #17
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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

New Member
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top