|
Post by beagle on Mar 10, 2010 20:14:48 GMT 12
have you seen the set of drawings for their paint scheme already.
|
|
|
Post by barf on Mar 11, 2010 10:30:02 GMT 12
I would expect that the manufacturers have already rectified most of these faults already. probably before the German report was released. Government agencies are always slow to make this sort thing public. If, as is suspected, that this report was based on the prototype airframe, that would make the report well out of date.
We could ditch the NH90 altogether, and build something ourselves that would be just as the ARMY would require. Heres a brief outline of the Army's ideal chopper.
It would be made entirely from 1/2 inch armoured steel plate, with no sharp edges.
Must have a 8 foot high cabin with built in chin up bars so the grunts could do PT while in transit. The seats would be strong enough to take a 250kg grunt with ADHD, fully equipped, jumping up and down on it.
The tail rotors would be made of foam rubber so the grunts would not have to worry about running in to it. Likewise the main rotors, which would only have an 8 foot span so the chopper would fit on an army truck.
Doors either side and a rear ramp, all equipped with guns. The door guns would be 20mm cannon's and there would be a "sun roof" so they could fire mortars and grenades from inside the cabin (another good reason for the rubber rotors). A turret mounted 60mm gun on the cabin roof and weapons pylons for helfire anti tank missiles. It would need to carry 50 armed troops as well as an underslung load of two, combat ready, LAV's.
Pilots would all be "Army personel" and have a minimum of two years secondary school education and less than four criminal convictions. Cockpit instrumentation would consist of a "ON-OFF" switch and a big red arrow that points towards the enemy. It would require a crew of Nine, One pilot, One in-flight PTI, Three door gunners, Three MP's to point the grunts in the direction of the enemy as they exit the helo. One Medic to treat any grunts that have tried to eat their ammunition. It would be available for use 24/7, 365 days a year, with no requirement for maintenance, EVER!. Must run on diesel or hexamine tablets.
Last but not least, it must be painted "GREEN"
Any ideas for improvement on this prototype?
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Mar 11, 2010 11:04:58 GMT 12
;D ;D I like your work Barf!!
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Mar 11, 2010 15:33:28 GMT 12
So do I, and being in the Army I totally agree and had a good chuckle. I think the scary thing is how close to the mark some of those requirements are. I know the Army always has trouble keeping really good quality staff and this makes high tech gear more of a challenge. It gets worse with regards to aviation Armies seem to have a cycle of treating aircraft like trucks then learning - the hard way, that you need to use a different culture. NZ Army is the worst I've seen in ABCA. If soldiers could think for themselves - we would have no soldiers - very old saying. How ever here's a reality check for everyone. I can recall watching AC-130 stuff a few years ago and it was very sobering stuff - far worse than what you see on you tube. A lot of Air Force people commented on how terrible it is to be on the ground these days and - who would want to be a grunt. Granted - a grunt's life is awful, but people also die horrible deaths in aircraft and ships. In essence military operations are cr@p sandwich all round, it doesn't matter what service you are. The ones that seem to be getting it in the neck these days are civvies! One thing Barf forgot though - an ample supply of moths to eat when rat packs empty and "Pron stash" the currency of the third world in case you get shot down.
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Mar 11, 2010 18:47:12 GMT 12
We could ditch the NH90 altogether, and build something ourselves that would be just as the ARMY would require. Heres a brief outline of the Army's ideal chopper. ........ Any ideas for improvement on this prototype? Darn we have a security problem. This was surposed to be secret At least you didn't manage to get a hold of the annex listing the requirements for the officers first class section. I really think the gold toilet seat is over the top Although the consultants support & reliability requirements are a great idea (the young fellow earned all of his fee) - mandatory 99.95% availability. Think of the money we will save by not having to employ any engineers. Perhaps we could also afford the heated cup holders from this saving
|
|
|
Post by barf on Mar 12, 2010 7:50:14 GMT 12
Have to agree with Hawkeye, the NZArmy is struggling with the introduction of high tech equipment due to the quality staff retention issue, but they are not alone in this, the Air Force is facing its own issues in this. As mankind invents ever more interesting and cunning ways to kill each other, it is important that we keep up with the technology rush and hopefully give our troops (be they green, blue or navy uniforms) some state of the art equipment. As much as I love the old Huey, she has become a bit of a dinosaur. Hopefully the NH90 should increase the survivability of both our grunts and aircrew.
Sorry "30sqnatc" but the officers toilet facilities have been deleted. It has been decreed that Officers do not defecate, they shall have a 'Batman' carry out these functions for them.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Mar 12, 2010 17:12:25 GMT 12
Does anyone know if we are getting the external tank option
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Mar 13, 2010 9:41:14 GMT 12
Can't you just cut some holes in various locations around the fuselage, and let the grunts lay down suppressing fire with their Steyrs?
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 13, 2010 12:34:15 GMT 12
Can't you just cut some holes in various locations around the fuselage, and let the grunts lay down suppressing fire with their Steyrs? FOD anyone?
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Mar 13, 2010 13:17:42 GMT 12
Can't you just cut some holes in various locations around the fuselage, and let the grunts lay down suppressing fire with their Steyrs? have an internal winch and let it out the back with a pile of them hanging off it connected to their web belts and let them rip.
|
|
|
Post by kiwiscanfly on Mar 13, 2010 23:33:15 GMT 12
so far i still belive that the NH90 was our best fit for the job
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Mar 14, 2010 13:47:54 GMT 12
Doesn't matter if it is or isn't. Its what we are going to get so we better be half full and make the most of it.
|
|
|
Post by kiwiscanfly on Mar 16, 2010 1:25:03 GMT 12
Well yes and no............ i can't think of any helo that would fill our needs better.......... and im sure it has been said previously but the German report would have been a long time ago and that the manufactures will have most likly fixed the problems by now........... mean it's not like a total design failure just that they found that a typical soldier is a bit more on the fat side of things then they expected.................. it's not like the whole tail-rotor needs re-designing.........it's not the Boeing 787
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Mar 16, 2010 19:48:37 GMT 12
yep just teething probs most likely, just a pity they werent able to wrangle another half dozen or so. But then again I suppose they would have to buy another complete one for parts then
|
|
|
Post by kiwiscanfly on Mar 17, 2010 0:17:41 GMT 12
another whole helo for parts.............. some one explain to me why they did this would it not have been better to buy parts seperatly and get an extra airframe for service?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 17, 2010 0:28:56 GMT 12
Because the price of individual spare parts are extortionate in the aviation world. If they bought one of every spare part needed it would probably be the cost of several complete airframes.
|
|
|
Post by SEAN on Mar 17, 2010 5:54:31 GMT 12
This was discussed sometime ago, on another NH90 related thread.... But here is the short story.
|
|
|
Post by the_flying_surfer on Mar 17, 2010 8:10:12 GMT 12
The question was asked which frame could have been purchased instead of the NH-90 that perhaps would have been better. I believe this would have been a simple decision to make - the UH-60M. Tried and proven! Why on earth are we buying a brand new aircraft!!!
We are too smaller country to complete full OT&E on new frames. Yes I know all aircraft have teething issues etc but something that has been flying for a couple of years operationally will have this sorted - and the fact it is based on a 1978 designed frame should help matters too. I know what the Oz navy pilots want - and it ain't the MRH-90!!
Having seen the NH-90 scream over the countryside low level, I looked and wondered why on earth we are buying a mini hercules with rotors?! The are a very large chopper. And how do we now employ such a large asset on the battlefield? Is is better tactically to send one NH-90 or 3 A-109's into a "hotter" zone? I would go for the latter with mutual support. Gone will be the days of 6 ship insertions etc.
2 Flights of A-109's could work too. Op Flight and Training Flight. One with basic frames, the other with SPS etc.
Many ways to skin a cat, just my 2 cents worth!
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 17, 2010 8:36:51 GMT 12
I was part of the trials that were conducted at Ohakea back in about 2002 to assess the troop carrying ability of various air frames.
Mock ups in ply wood were manufactured to represent the various different helicopters available, including the Blackhawk (not sure exactly which model, but I assume internal cabin dimensions are fairly common).
The Blackhawk was found to have insufficient cabin space to meet the specifications needed to be met for the project.
|
|
|
Post by barf on Mar 17, 2010 10:14:58 GMT 12
The RNZAF (as do many other Military services) do this all the time. As Dave (and the article) points out, it is a cheaper source of spares. When the RNZAF bought the 727's in the early Eighties, they got a third as a source of spares, cheaper by far. NZ7273 was flown into Woodbourne and stripped of all usable spares, the remaining bits were sold as scrap.
|
|