Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Kiwigov]

I am curious as to why the per-hour costs are reportedly so much higher for the NH-90 than the UH-60, given the NH-90 is a more modern design (not disputing the egress issues). Is it because NHI-produced spare parts are much more expensive for the lower-production NH-90? Regret I can't access the ASPI article (paywall) which probably answers these questions...

 

[ImJustDubzzz]

hahahah.... hahaha.... breathe Nighthawk breathe in through the nose out through the mouth.... breathe Bwhahahaha...

You do know that this government doesn't want to spend money like that, and wouldn't see a good deal like that even if it was dropped at their feet and with the words "very very good deal" and "Don't miss this opportunity" written all over it.

Haha, whilst what you said is true I will be hopeful and optimistic!

 

[KiwiRob]

Yes you can deplane by the ramp, but the tail rotor is a rather dangerous hazard. The USMC emplane /deplane their CH-53E via the tail ramp and they don't have the same problem because as you will see in the video below, the tail rotor is quite high. The video shows them emplaning a squad into the aircraft.

If you look at the video below of a RNZAF NH90 you can see that the lost point of the tail rotor arc is almost level with the top point of the ramp. You can train people to deplane the aircraft via the ramp at an angle away from the aircraft, but you never guarantee that everyone will do it 100% of the time. It only takes one soldier to walk / run into the tail rotor and you have an avoidable fatality and a u/s aircraft. The tail rotors aren't designed for the rapid dissection of the human anatomy and combat helmets etc. In peacetime that's bad enough, however in a combat situation that's the probable loss of a valuable asset.

It's approx. 2.5m from the tip of the tail rotor to the ground, so unless we're hiring failed NBA players our lads should be able to safely exit the rear ramp, and if they have a few brains be able to disperse to either side of it. To me it looks' more like an excuse rather than a real world issue.

Based on this video it appears safe enough to me.

 

[ngatimozart]

It's approx. 2.5m from the tip of the tail rotor to the ground, so unless we're hiring failed NBA players our lads should be able to safely exit the rear ramp, and if they have a few brains be able to disperse to either side of it. To me it looks' more like an excuse rather than a real world issue.

Based on this video it appears safe enough to me.

You are showing your ignorance of safety protocols around helicopters. There are set protocols and they are strictly observed. What might be safe for you, will definitely not be safe for a military aviation arm, but then you are just a civilian who has never served in a military and doesn't know or understand the requirements. All sorts of things can and do go wrong. People have walked into tail rotors on the battlefield, aircraft carriers, on exercises and on airfields. It happens. People have been sucked into aircraft engine intakes on carrier flight decks and on airfields, and they're fully trained deck or ground crew. There's video of happening on carrier flight decks, and the results aren't nice.

You've never exited a helicopter with a 70+lb combat pack, rifle, and everything else that you are required to carry, plus wearing a battle bowler and having people yelling at you. Or you've never had to enter or exit a helicopter head down and stooped. You have never served in a military and don't know what you are talking about. So stop being childish and grow up.

 

[Shanesworld]

Let me get this straight. People have been getting on and off Puma helicopters with a GPMG mounted on a swing arm in both doors for around half a century. But suddenly conducting such a task is now in the to hard category when using an NH90?

Yeah you got it straight. Puma was a generation older and yeah served in some hot places but did it cheaper and with higher availability.
But never said it was too hard with nh90, said it was a shit layout when the black hawk had shown how to do it correctly a generation before Hans and Francois had sat down to discuss how to do this military helicopter thing. The nh90 is hideously expensive and hugely hyped for the money it cost us. I would expect for that money the designers would have baked in basic military functions such as- "theres a dude close by about to dump a belt into your vulnerable helicopter as the passengers are being dropped off - heres how you kill him".
Imagine gothic serpent with nh90. That initially fast rope but couldn't fast rope and suppress at the same time and instead of loosing that initial ranger they loose a helicopter and the chalk right at the begining. Blackhawk came out of hard experience gained in vietnam, nh90 came out of a european committee. Which have a habit of costing way too much and delivering sfa.

It's approx. 2.5m from the tip of the tail rotor to the ground, so unless we're hiring failed NBA players our lads should be able to safely exit the rear ramp, and if they have a few brains be able to disperse to either side of it. To me it looks' more like an excuse rather than a real world issue.

Based on this video it appears safe enough to me.

Not how the crew wanted us to deplane. They said go that way and not that way out the back. So we go that way and not the other.

 

[KiwiRob]

You are showing your ignorance of safety protocols around helicopters. There are set protocols and they are strictly observed. What might be safe for you, will definitely not be safe for a military aviation arm, but then you are just a civilian who has never served in a military and doesn't know or understand the requirements. All sorts of things can and do go wrong. People have walked into tail rotors on the battlefield, aircraft carriers, on exercises and on airfields. It happens. People have been sucked into aircraft engine intakes on carrier flight decks and on airfields, and they're fully trained deck or ground crew. There's video of happening on carrier flight decks, and the results aren't nice.

You've never exited a helicopter with a 70+lb combat pack, rifle, and everything else that you are required to carry, plus wearing a battle bowler and having people yelling at you. Or you've never had to enter or exit a helicopter head down and stooped. You have never served in a military and don't know what you are talking about. So stop being childish and grow up.

There is nothing childish about my comment, I posted a video showing fully equipped soldiers exiting from the rear of an NH-90.

Here's another one, this time entering via the ramp with simulated casualties

And another one

Other countries appear to have no issues using the ramp for operations.

 

[RegR]

To be fair it's serial construction number 1206 ... and it is the first in the world to reach 2000 flying hours... it means the NH-90's are over worked and we don't have enough air frames to spread the work load out over the entire fleet. No something to be proud of really.

Doesn't mean they are being overworked it just means they are actually working, which is a good thing and not too many users can actually say that about NH90. The 757s have the opposite problem, because we do not fly them "regularly" like commercial versions we tend to get more issues as a result, and then age only adds to this.

If we fly them then we get our $$$ worth out of them and then have more justification come replacement time otherwise we will then end up holding onto them well past their LOT, again. Govt will say these are well maintained aircraft with good hours so then 30 years stretches out to 50 years. All RNZAF aircraft have allocated annual hours that are planned and budgeted for, increasing numbers does not necessarily change the hours budget but does add costs. We have a few LAVs as well but all that means is after all this time we still have the same LAVs, just with good mileage and that would be good if we were trying to sell them I guess, low mileage armoured vehicles, ooh wait...

 

[Wombat000]

There is nothing childish about my comment, I posted a video showing fully equipped soldiers exiting from the rear of an NH-90.

Here's another one, this time entering via the ramp with simulated casualties

It should be basic knowledge amongst all helicopter operators thru out the world, civi and military, that personnel movt around the tail boom and tail rotor is forbidden. Movt is constrained so no movt is allowed, even crew post/pre-flight is designed to specific aft areas, to avoid wandering further aft along the fuselage.

whilst type variants may feature a rear access ramp or door, (hence a ‘higher’ tail boom allowing activity under it), the actual activity under it is quite limited. essentially whilst not ‘turning & burning’.

I guess it’s theoretically possible to lead pax on a level tarmac or level pitch to enter/exit via a determined path during choreographed training activity, or under very supervised conditions.
but this is fraught with hazard to the pax themselves and the aircraft.

Uneven ground to aft will eat up any height advantage of a higher tail boom/rotor design. If that’s in a hot zone with already disorientated pax it’s a recipe for disaster to exit anywhere aft. Anything projecting higher (antennae, gun barrels, arms) will reduce safety margins to zero.
Uneven ground is even a hazard with the main rotor arc, and any movt under it, even to the 10-2.

An agency advocating a practice of normalising movt under the tail boom during any turning & burning is institutionally sanctioning a ‘trip hazard’, which just might bite them one day. I suggest the helicopter community would instinctively recoil at the practice.

 

[Shanesworld]

Doesn't mean they are being overworked it just means they are actually working, which is a good thing and not too many users can actually say that about NH90. The 757s have the opposite problem, because we do not fly them "regularly" like commercial versions we tend to get more issues as a result, and then age only adds to this.

If we fly them then we get our $$$ worth out of them and then have more justification come replacement time otherwise we will then end up holding onto them well past their LOT, again. Govt will say these are well maintained aircraft with good hours so then 30 years stretches out to 50 years. All RNZAF aircraft have allocated annual hours that are planned and budgeted for, increasing numbers does not necessarily change the hours budget but does add costs. We have a few LAVs as well but all that means is after all this time we still have the same LAVs, just with good mileage and that would be good if we were trying to sell them I guess, low mileage armoured vehicles, ooh wait...

Or if they were going thru an intensive strip and refurb at the moment for....... Reasons

 

[RegR]

It should be basic knowledge amongst all helicopter operators thru out the world, civi and military, that personnel movt around the tail boom and tail rotor is forbidden. Movt is constrained so no movt is allowed, even crew post/pre-flight is designed to specific aft areas, to avoid wandering further aft along the fuselage.

whilst type variants may feature a rear access ramp or door, (hence a ‘higher’ tail boom allowing activity under it), the actual activity under it is quite limited. essentially whilst not ‘turning & burning’.

I guess it’s theoretically possible to lead pax on a level tarmac or level pitch to enter/exit via a determined path during choreographed training activity, or under very supervised conditions.
but this is fraught with hazard to the pax themselves and the aircraft.

Uneven ground to aft will eat up any height advantage of a higher tail boom/rotor design. If that’s in a hot zone with already disorientated pax it’s a recipe for disaster to exit anywhere aft. Anything projecting higher (antennae, gun barrels, arms) will reduce safety margins to zero.
Uneven ground is even a hazard with the main rotor arc, and any movt under it, even to the 10-2.

An agency advocating a practice of normalising movt under the tail boom during any turning & burning is institutionally sanctioning a ‘trip hazard’, which just might bite them one day. I suggest the helicopter community would instinctively recoil at the practice.

I don't think anyone's arguing the hazards involved with tail rotors, that's seemingly obvious, any rotor for that matter, in fact helicopters in general! But as has been shown the rear ramp can and is used, same as using the side doors with weapons fitted, considerations, adjustments and compromises need to be made under controlled conditions. Adjust, adapt and overcome, nothing new to the military.

 

[Jellybeen]

hello all
Given that the aussies are going to divest themselves of the NH 90 ,what would the market for second hand machines? Would there be a business case for the navel version for use on our expected upgraded multirole ship or Canterbury for that matter

 

[ngatimozart]

hello all
Given that the aussies are going to divest themselves of the NH 90 ,what would the market for second hand machines? Would there be a business case for the navel version for use on our expected upgraded multirole ship or Canterbury for that matter

There would be a case for some Aussie MRH-90 being acquired specifically for use on Canterbury, the Enhanced Sealift Vessel, and on Aotearoa. They price would have to be right though and I wonder if the Aussies will have trouble offloading them. It will be interesting. The MOD, as usual, will have to make a business case backed by data and show VfM.

Equally, there is also a case for another medium maritime helicopter such as the MH-60S being acquired for the same role. Whilst it isn't part of a manufacturing line at the moment, LM - Sikorsky do have it as part of their S70i Blackhawk options. That option is a possibility. I would think that the AW101 Merlin would be another option as well to, but it wasn't favoured 20 years ago either.

However the current government is very loathe to spend money on defence, so we don't have any expectations.

 

[Todjaeger]

It's approx. 2.5m from the tip of the tail rotor to the ground, so unless we're hiring failed NBA players our lads should be able to safely exit the rear ramp, and if they have a few brains be able to disperse to either side of it. To me it looks' more like an excuse rather than a real world issue.

Based on this video it appears safe enough to me.

I would be quite interested to know how you managed to measure that and get a distance of 2.5 m, since that is the approximate tail rotor ground clearance for the AW-101 Merlin, which is ~1.3 m taller than an NH90 (6.62m vs. 5.31m). The best (i.e. greatest amount of tail rotor ground clearance)I have been able to work out is only perhaps 2.1m of ground clearance, and this would be if the helicopter is on level, even ground. This is based off the max height of ~5.31m with rotors spinning, and a tail rotor diameter of ~3.2m.

I would also hazard a guess that one did not really pay close attention to the content of the embedded Youtube videos, as they too suggest that the tail rotor clearance is a hazard. In the first video, at the 1:05 mark, troops can be seen disembarking from the NH90 via the rear ramp. It should be noted that the troops are streaming off the ramp and away from the NH90 on the side opposite where the tail rotor is

In the second video, there are several things worth noting. One of the first is that after the German Heer NH90 TTH had landed and stopped, the pilot does a brief walk along the side of the helicopter where the tail rotor is and at 3:43 he touches an exterior conduit which contains an antennae. That conduit is just about level with the pilot's forehead and is only a few cm below the bottom of the tail rotor arc When looking a portions of the video of the NH90 in flight, other features of the helicopter like the rearmost window on the port/left side, is also just about level with the bottom of of the tail rotor's arc, and at 2:51 the pilot appears to be standing higher than the top of that window. Also, at 4:26 when troops are exiting the NH90 via the rear ramp, a pair of troops position themselves directly beneath the tail boom and crouch down, whilst the rest of the troops disembark down and to the right rear of the ramp, again on the side opposite of the tail rotor. This once again strongly suggests that the tail rotor would present a hazard when spinning, particularly for troops kitted up in their battle rattle and/or at max height.

Not sure about German pilots in the Bundeswehr, but the max height of USMC personnel is 6ft 6in or ~1.98m. I doubt the German pilot would have been that tall. This once again reinforces the notion that the tail rotor presents a hazard while in motion which would limit the ability to use a rear ramp. This would be particularly true if the helicopter was not landing on a flat, level surface, or was doing a rapid landing where the tail of the helicopter was angled down instead of level.

 

[KiwiRob]

I would be quite interested to know how you managed to measure that and get a distance of 2.5 m, since that is the approximate tail rotor ground clearance for the AW-101 Merlin, which is ~1.3 m taller than an NH90 (6.62m vs. 5.31m). The best (i.e. greatest amount of tail rotor ground clearance)I have been able to work out is only perhaps 2.1m of ground clearance, and this would be if the helicopter is on level, even ground. This is based off the max height of ~5.31m with rotors spinning, and a tail rotor diameter of ~3.2m.

I would also hazard a guess that one did not really pay close attention to the content of the embedded Youtube videos, as they too suggest that the tail rotor clearance is a hazard. In the first video, at the 1:05 mark, troops can be seen disembarking from the NH90 via the rear ramp. It should be noted that the troops are streaming off the ramp and away from the NH90 on the side opposite where the tail rotor is

In the second video, there are several things worth noting. One of the first is that after the German Heer NH90 TTH had landed and stopped, the pilot does a brief walk along the side of the helicopter where the tail rotor is and at 3:43 he touches an exterior conduit which contains an antennae. That conduit is just about level with the pilot's forehead and is only a few cm below the bottom of the tail rotor arc When looking a portions of the video of the NH90 in flight, other features of the helicopter like the rearmost window on the port/left side, is also just about level with the bottom of of the tail rotor's arc, and at 2:51 the pilot appears to be standing higher than the top of that window. Also, at 4:26 when troops are exiting the NH90 via the rear ramp, a pair of troops position themselves directly beneath the tail boom and crouch down, whilst the rest of the troops disembark down and to the right rear of the ramp, again on the side opposite of the tail rotor. This once again strongly suggests that the tail rotor would present a hazard when spinning, particularly for troops kitted up in their battle rattle and/or at max height.

Not sure about German pilots in the Bundeswehr, but the max height of USMC personnel is 6ft 6in or ~1.98m. I doubt the German pilot would have been that tall. This once again reinforces the notion that the tail rotor presents a hazard while in motion which would limit the ability to use a rear ramp. This would be particularly true if the helicopter was not landing on a flat, level surface, or was doing a rapid landing where the tail of the helicopter was angled down instead of level.

The point is other countries use the loading ramp of the NH90 for exit and entry, that it's not standard procedure isn't obviously followed by other countries who operate these helicopters. Different countries different procedures. It would be fairly obvious that soldiers would keep well away from the tail rotor.

 

[Raven22]

It's approx. 2.5m from the tip of the tail rotor to the ground, so unless we're hiring failed NBA players our lads should be able to safely exit the rear ramp, and if they have a few brains be able to disperse to either side of it. To me it looks' more like an excuse rather than a real world issue.

Based on this video it appears safe enough to me.

Turns out that in combat helicopters don’t always land on perfectly flat ground. What works in controlled conditions on tarmac may not work in real world conditions where the variables can’t be controlled. Which reinforces the problem with the NH-90 - a good air mobility platform (when it is working), but a pretty terrible air assault platform.

 

[KiwiRob]

Turns out that in combat helicopters don’t always land on perfectly flat ground. What works in controlled conditions on tarmac may not work in real world conditions where the variables can’t be controlled. Which reinforces the problem with the NH-90 - a good air mobility platform (when it is working), but a pretty terrible air assault platform.

That's stating the obvious, on the other hand sometimes the tail may well be higher off the ground giving even more clearance. You use the best option to exit given the circumstances at hand.

 

[ADMk2]

There are photos on the internet showing a gun mounted in the window behind the sliding door, thereby leaving the door completely unobstructed. Is there any knowledge as to why this solution has not been adopted?
The fact that the images appear to be mfrs promo shots may have something to do with it.
Google Image Result for https://fullfatthings-keyaero.b-cdn.net/sites/keyaero/files/comment_forum/2014/08/02/nh%2090.jpg

Those are mock-ups. Production NH-90’s came with a fixed rear window, so no rear gun... There were design issues with the airframe that meant the gun couldn’t be implemented in that rear-window fashion and apparently arcs of fire issues from that location as well, and so had to be mounted in the middle of the sliding doors, presenting obvious egress issues for troops on-board.

NH Industries is now advertising a ‘special forces’ variant that they say apparently addresses this issue…

Meh. They’ve said a lot over the years…

 

[ADMk2]

I am curious as to why the per-hour costs are reportedly so much higher for the NH-90 than the UH-60, given the NH-90 is a more modern design (not disputing the egress issues). Is it because NHI-produced spare parts are much more expensive for the lower-production NH-90? Regret I can't access the ASPI article (paywall) which probably answers these questions...

It’s bigger, heavier and more powerful. Plus there is a world-wide fleet of approx 400 aircraft that at last count, had over 40 different variants of ‘NH-90’ aircraft whereas there are fleets of thousands of UH-60 aircraft built to a common standard…

NH-90 is a nightmare to support, and priced accordingly…

 

[John Fedup]

I would imagine Canada’s small CH-148 fleet (eventually 20 plus) and the only ones worldwide will be a similar nightmare. Support costs will be hidden for as long as possible by junior’s Liberals, the ones responsible for our helicopter problems, a sad story spanning 30 years and counting.

 

[kato]

It should be noted that the troops are streaming off the ramp and away from the NH90 on the side opposite where the tail rotor is

This is partly due to standardized operating procedure, aside from the mandated exclusion zone due to the rotor.

In the Bundeswehr a NH90 will if possible always approach and land such that it can be loaded, unloaded and serviced from the right side (pilot's perspective) through ramp and sidedoor. The fuel filler neck as well as the winch is also on the right side btw. In combat configurations the bottom third of the left side door is blocked by a ballistic armour plate (*), and if certain equipment (e.g. stretchers) is installed they similarly block the left side.
Also, as a note: The primary pilot on helicopters sits on the right, and thus has a better view towards that side for the approach and departure.

(*) typically not shown in public pictures.