NH90 "Flawed"
 

Article in the NZ Herald about the new RNZAF NH90.

New NH-90 airforce choppers flawed - national | Stuff.co.nz

Haven't these been flown by the Germans and some others for a while now? Not sure the comment that the RNZAF is the first to use them is correct.

Also Im pretty sure you could fit one inside an Aussie C-17, hence not dependent on the AN124.

I sort of agree that a more mature frame would have been better for the Kiwis, but there is a fair amount of rubbish being spouted in this article, and also I presume the report.

See: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...-mrh-90-a.html

"Flawed" would be considered a gross understatement by many on the West Island.

Never mind the quality -look how shiney they are.
 

Boootiful...smell nice too.
Similar thing happened in the early days with Puma and snow too. Until PIPS (polyvaylent intake pickup system?) ( a clever system of spiral matter ejectors fitted pre intake) were added to get rid of all kinds of stuff - from memory particularly good in sand (quite useful over the last few years) SOP was to use all the time protected from birdstrike as well ! Eurocopter corporate knowledge surely has something up its sleeve, maybe it was in the accessories brochure!

NH90 is very similar to a GTi Puma in size and lift but is streets ahead, as one would expect, in the technology and thankfully, endurance departments. I bet the NZDF are chomping at the bit to go and play with their new toys, I only hope the NZ Govt has the cahonas to ensure the issues are swiftly and satisfactorily resolved. Solution may be to mod 2 or 3 for domestic use/SAR and use the others for hot/Pacific rim tasking but that may entail beach/ sand ops and inherent turbine issues that a PIPS type system fleet wide might mitigate against in the long run. What .. a Govt being long sighted..?

Did you forget to add the "</sarc>" tag at the end of your post, Hubstrasse?

I believe the RAF Merlin's have the same engines as the NH-90 and the in-built Inlet Particle Separator does the job without any 'screens' to mitigate the risk of engine damage.
I presume therefore that their aircraft in Afghanistan go through engines on a daily basis then?

Likewise there are many pictures of Merlins and Chinooks being fed into the back of a C17 so the NH-90 will fit no probs. I think the RNZAF need to realise that the Hercs days are numbered now that most military kit has out grown them (hence why A400M is on the way). If they wanted an aircraft that will slide into the back of their ancient Hercs then they should have gone with the UH-1Y; I cant think of many other readily available support helicopters that would.

What about cost-effectiveness?
 

The Herc's days are numbered? So what MLT will go where the C-17 cannot? And what SRT will go where the C-130/C-27 cannot?

You touch on a good point AP. Nations make a very big investment in military hardware and especially transportation platforms which should be optimised for in-service utilisation as long as is practicable and cost-effective to capitalise on the initial taxpayer funding. For decades now, armies have been merrily chasing new bits of hardware that are no longer deployable by C-130 instead of that aspect being fundamental to equipment design. The arms manufacturers are also guilty of deliberately ignoring this basic consideration.

The MRH90/NH90 is a high cost medium lift helicopter and not a utility type easily deployable by C-130. Compare the operating cost of MRH90 if known with say Huey II (about $5,000 per flying hour); also the cost of deployment by say C-17 compared with C-130 operating costs.

Taxpayers cannot provide a bottomless pit of funds to support ever more costly and questionable hardware acquisitions that are driving military operating costs off the clock. The operating costs for armed forces around the world are soaring with defence budgets being curtailed. It really amounts to a self-defeating exercise by defence planners worldwide.

And why buy a UH-1Y Venom (Super Huey) at maybe $20million when you can get a Huey II for $2million that will do pretty near the same job? The only saving grace for the Kiwis is they have not wasted as much money on the MRH90 as Australia.

While I don't disagree with you Bushranger, I don't think the Kiwis are going to be moving these helicopters far anyway. They can Air Self Deploy in the region and hire an RAAF C-17 to go anywhere else.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Herc is one of (if not the) most successful aircraft design in history however, when defending it (and a C17, C130 mixed fleet) recently I was surprised to be told by a Herc pilot that he felt it was rapidly becoming less and less useful as kit military kit got bigger and that it was time to ditch it in favour of something bigger like the A400M.

My point is you can hardly complain when your new, modern and quite large helicopter wont fit in the back of your old and small (relatively so in modern terms) AT.

And how Air Self Deployable would they be in the region? In NZ yes but I cant imagine they would get much further; Whangerei to Norfolk Island shows 500+ Nm which I would think is a bit of a stretch. It's a genuine question though as I have never flown long distance in the region, are there other possible Island hops to get you to Fiji, Timor, Vanautu and other previous 3 Sqn haunts?

AP
Norfolk Island is part of the Commonwealth of Australia, not part of NZ
so unlikely NZ would need to fly Helos to it.

New South Wales in fact! Spent my honeymoon there, 1970, lovely spot.

No but I believe it is normal to stop there when ferrying small aircraft to Australia, unless you are just planning to fly the 1000 odd Nm sea track direct from NZ to Oz for Exercises or maybe on to somewhere else like Timor?
Even Christchurch to Chatham Islands is 470ish Nm so you would probably struggle to 'Air Deploy' to all parts of NZ if it was blowing more than a light Easterley.

Really? I've had limited exposure to ADF MRH's and thought a ferry leg of this length would be possible with addition fuel tanks (external/internal). Don't know, but when talking payload/range with crew that was the impression.

AP
I thought that the 3 Sqn helos deployed to Timor via C130 Herc.

Unless someone knows more or some did and some didn't.

500N

They did deploy in Hercs but as previously discussed that isn't an option for the NH-90 which somewhat limits their usefulness in the region unless you hire an Antonov or beg/borrow/steal a C-17.

If you have talked with the crew re: range and endurance then you are in a better position than me, I was merely taking an educated guess from previous experience that it would be a chuffing long way. The NHI and AW websites give some very promising figures however in my experience the real world will be a long way from the manufacturers hype.

I don't want to come across like I am beating down on this helicopter in any way, I am not and I would genuinely like to see it do well as I believe (despite its rocky start) that it still has a lot of potential. What does seem ridiculous though is buying it to replace a helicopter that has served all over the pacific with no way of getting it to those same locations.

NH90 / MRH90
 

Having flown this type fairly extensively, I think it is fair to say that it is an awesome machine. It has an unfairly deserved reputation due to sensational press reporting and uninformed rumour spreading. Yes it has had some issues with engines, floors, windscreens, ramp, tyres, IRS but in the wider scheme of things they are not unusual issues for a new aircraft, and are all in the process of being rectified. Part of the problem is that people look for problems in this aircraft that they will gladly overlook in other aircraft. Blackhawk windscreens crack, nobody likes stiletto heels in their aircraft at airshows, the IRS is much more reliable than a S-70 AHRS, the engines now have additional FOD screens.
Let's give this aircraft a chance.

Equates to "I want a new toy NOW"

Yes, both S-70 models has extensive issues that needed to be worked through in the first 5-10 years of Australian service. Availability was alarmingly low for a while too. The crew's I spoke to were Navy (I was Army) and they seemed fairly happy with the progress of engineering fixes, and expressed general confidence in the type. The Army guys seemed quite the opposite, however. They seemed pessimistic about the helicopter ever being able to perform a tactical role due to a number of fundamental design flaws.
What are your thoughts on the range figures above? Talking Air Self Deploy, just crew, any additional fuel etc.

MRH90 Self Deployment Range
 

Useful payload - (MAUW - Basic W) around 2800 KG (with dispensations)
Max Internal Fuel - 2000Kg
Fuel Burn - 500Kg / hour
TAS still wind - around 140?
Range - around 490 nm with reserves.
Not much left for other payload.

However, show me another helicopter of this size and capability that can do better on INTERNAL FUEL? With external that will obviously add another 800KG (1.6 hours or 200ish nm).

It would appear the NZ govt is a glutton for punishment at the moment...

Reject Aussie choppers on Navy shopping list - National - NZ Herald News

Nice thread about self-deploying and AT etc. but perhaps you might consider that self deploying a helo by air is a bit limited if once you get to your remote island, and the infrastructure has been destroyed or wasn't there to start with.
With the large distances involved in the Pacific the RNZN has/is investing in a new fleet of helo-capable ships (I know I used the dirty "s" word on a thread with AT) such as HMNZS Canterbury (L421) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This should allow them to take stuff to an island and meaningfully help once there for a a reasonable period of time.