|
Post by skywarrior on Mar 24, 2012 10:08:01 GMT 12
Buying these helicopters was a horrible mistake and the airforce knows it. They will obviously cost so much more to operate than the hueys and we only bought 8 frames. Who cares that they can carry more, we should be upsizing the airforce, not downsizing. Why didn't we replace them with american helicopters? Can they honestly say they couldn't buy 20 odd near new blackhawks, which are already operationally proven, for less than half the price? Personally I don't think they can.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 24, 2012 11:37:46 GMT 12
The blackhawk didn't meet the requirements the army specified.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but they were purchased to meet a user requirement.
|
|
|
Post by luke6745 on Mar 24, 2012 15:24:48 GMT 12
The blackhawk didn't meet the requirements the army specified. I'm not saying you are wrong, but they were purchased to meet a user requirement. What were the requirements that the Blackhawk couldn't meet?
|
|
|
Post by skywarrior on Mar 24, 2012 17:34:41 GMT 12
To me the blackhawk just seems more agricultural and much better suited for the NZ countryside. On top of that we could have got seahawks to replace the money hungry seasprites and they could have pretty much all been run by the same unit to save a bit of cash.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Mar 27, 2012 20:16:12 GMT 12
so have these flash new machines been still "out and about"
|
|
|
Post by Parrotfish on Mar 28, 2012 0:59:54 GMT 12
The blackhawk didn't meet the requirements the army specified. I'm not saying you are wrong, but they were purchased to meet a user requirement. What were the requirements that the Blackhawk couldn't meet? NH-90 offered: Greater utility by a rear facing door with a loading ramp More internal space in a smaller length (ease of deployment on HMNZS Canterbury) Higher rate of climb Composite construction offers greater corrosion resistance (an eye here to southern ocean and Antarctic service) NATO extreme weather rating (again, an eye here to southern ocean and Antarctic service) The Blackhawk to best fit the requirements set by NZ, though bigger, the H-92 Superhawk, did not exist as a military deign at the time of the evaluation. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Mar 28, 2012 7:32:19 GMT 12
To me the blackhawk just seems more agricultural and much better suited for the NZ countryside. On top of that we could have got seahawks to replace the money hungry seasprites and they could have pretty much all been run by the same unit to save a bit of cash. The Seasprites could always be replaced by the NH-90 NFH, brining commonality in pretty everything other than some specific systems. Hopefully by then NHI will have gotten its act together in terms of supporting its users, resulting in a lower operating costs compared to the SH-2Gs.
|
|
|
Post by skywarrior on Apr 1, 2012 20:51:43 GMT 12
After seeing the NH-90 display at Ohakea there is just no way this was the right replacement for the UH-1. Are they seriously going to take these everywhere the hueys go? And are they going to self deploy these to the islands? The thing costs at least eight times more to run and is just so modern I think we are going to be to afraid to do anything with it.
|
|
|
Post by Deane B on Apr 1, 2012 22:05:11 GMT 12
After seeing the NH-90 display at Ohakea there is just no way this was the right replacement for the UH-1. The NH-90 is not a replacement for the UH-1, they are a replacement for a capability! In other words you don't go out and source a helicopter that does the same as a helo you have had for 40 years! You ask what do you want to do with a helicopter in todays combat environment. Most of the answer was driven by the Army as a prime role is battlefield insertion of troops and the NH-90 delivers on this and everything else required of it. Everytime the RNZAF purchases something new, it seems everybody thinks they know better, without understanding the facts or the time and detail that goes into making those procurement decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 1, 2012 22:14:15 GMT 12
Well said Deane.
A lot of the things that the Iroquois did as a role have been taken over these days by civil operators as there are so many more helicopters about that do search, rescue, fire fighting, heavy lift, etc. The roles are going to change over time. They have to buy something that matches today's needs.
I was impressed with the NH90, to be honest. And the A109.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Apr 1, 2012 22:33:49 GMT 12
After seeing the NH-90 display at Ohakea there is just no way this was the right replacement for the UH-1. Are they seriously going to take these everywhere the hueys go? And are they going to self deploy these to the islands? The thing costs at least eight times more to run and is just so modern I think we are going to be to afraid to do anything with it. a, so what do you think we should have got ? b, most places but they are bigger so won't fit or be taken into places a smaller chopper would go. c self deploying to the islands is something they would have looked at when they decided to purchase them. I am not in the know as to wether they would do this or what the range would be with extra fuel, weight etc etc. d, 8 times a smore to run. where did you get that information from and have you detailed proof. Of course it will cost more to operate, but it is a way more capable machine.
|
|
|
Post by skywarrior on Apr 2, 2012 18:13:37 GMT 12
As I stated earlier I personally think we should have got blackhawks. They are proven in the field and are super reliable, but apparently they really wanted a ramp so ruled the UH-60 out. Guys who work on them told me they cost AT LEAST 8 times more to run. Yes it is more capable, but lets hope they use it to its fullest potential and deploy them more often. Only time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by nige on Apr 2, 2012 21:10:18 GMT 12
Finally seeing a NH-90 up and close on Sat was eye-opening, I knew they were big (compared to the UH-1) but I was amazed eg at the capacity inside and the glass cockpit (those rows of large display monitors - wish I had taken a photo of that)!
A mate of mine reckoned the NH-90 looked like a large helicopter gunship - imagine them bristling with guns and rocket pods (like the Hind etc)!
Heh I bet that ramp will come in handy for laying down suppressing fire when leaving a hot spot (or as another sniper position)!
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Apr 2, 2012 21:13:49 GMT 12
yep a nice big rotary cannon on that ramp would get rid of a few baddies.
|
|
|
Post by Parrotfish on Apr 2, 2012 23:19:08 GMT 12
but apparently they really wanted a ramp so ruled the UH-60 out. And all the rest of the benefits of the NH-90 over the Blackhawk.
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Apr 2, 2012 23:55:03 GMT 12
but apparently they really wanted a ramp so ruled the UH-60 out. And all the rest of the benefits of the NH-90 over the Blackhawk. Like spending so much time in the hangar due to a lack of support from the manufacturer, that airframe hours remain low for quite a number of years - saving on the cost of expensive maintenance work, fatigue remediation and the cost of fuel....
|
|
|
Post by fyl on Apr 3, 2012 9:56:24 GMT 12
Finally seeing a NH-90 up and close on Sat was eye-opening, I knew they were big (compared to the UH-1) but I was amazed eg at the capacity inside and the glass cockpit (those rows of large display monitors - wish I had taken a photo of that)! Apologies for the quality....bit dark...
|
|
|
Post by skywarrior on Apr 3, 2012 16:45:52 GMT 12
but apparently they really wanted a ramp so ruled the UH-60 out. And all the rest of the benefits of the NH-90 over the Blackhawk. Such as?
|
|
|
Post by Parrotfish on Apr 3, 2012 18:10:19 GMT 12
And all the rest of the benefits of the NH-90 over the Blackhawk. Such as? Just a simple four that were noted by the evaluation guys and met stated requirements: More internal space in a smaller length (ease of deployment on ships for deployment) Higher rate of climb Composite construction NATO extreme weather rating The Blackhawk to best fit the requirements set by NZ, though bigger, the H-92 Superhawk, did not exist as a military deign at the time of the evaluation.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Apr 3, 2012 18:23:37 GMT 12
And all the rest of the benefits of the NH-90 over the Blackhawk. Like spending so much time in the hangar due to a lack of support from the manufacturer, that airframe hours remain low for quite a number of years - saving on the cost of expensive maintenance work, fatigue remediation and the cost of fuel.... This is NZ and we bought a spare air frame to to assist with our spares so we don't have that same problem. Yes you seem to be having quite afew problems with yours, hopefully ours will be clean sailing. It's the bathtub effect
|
|