NHI NH-90 series including NFH-90 and MRH-90

[Rickshaw]

Still hoping for an eventual Osprey or Valour buy though.

Keep dreaming…it will be in the whiff verse for a long, loooong, looooooooong time.

In the meantime, you better get used to these:

Is the exhaust on that photoshopped?

[elmayerle]

In the meantime, you better get used to these:

Is the exhaust on that photoshopped?

Quite possibly not, it looks rather similar to the upturned exhaust installed on late-model Blackhawks and a similar installation trialed on the UH-1Y and AH-1Z.  The advantage is that you get reduced IR signature to ground fire without the weight and complexity of a more elaborate IR suppression system.  On the downside, you have to be real careful where you stop the blades on shutdown; the "Yankee" and "Zulu" didn't have that problem near as much as Sikorsky because they have a taller main rotor pylon.

[Rickshaw]

Oh, I'm aware of what the exhaust was, it just looks rather fake, that's all.

[GTX_Admin]

Is the exhaust on that photoshopped?

No:

[Rickshaw]

*SIGH* I think we're still talking at cross-purposes here.  I'm talking the exhaust in that picture, not that the exhaust trunking doesn't exist.   It just looks fake, as in it has been inexpertly photoshopped into the photo.  The colour/shading looks wrong to me.   Perhaps it was a proposal photo, made before the real exhaust had been created/fitted, to show what it would look like?

[GTX_Admin]

Perhaps you need to point out exactly what you mean, preferably with aid of an image. There is no photoshopping in the picture as far as I am aware.  The second image simply shows the exhaust to be the same. Moreover, if you look at other NH-90 (which is all the MRH-90 really is) photos, all those with upturned exhausts look the same.

For instance, here are some RNZAF NH-90s:

[Rickshaw]

Lets just leave it at that.  I feel I've made my point.  If you don't detect the difference in the quality of the image of the exhaust and the rest of the helicopter, I don't believe I'll convince you otherwise.

[GTX_Admin]

Lets just leave it at that.  I feel I've made my point.  If you don't detect the difference in the quality of the image of the exhaust and the rest of the helicopter, I don't believe I'll convince you otherwise.

I think you are seeing things that aren't there, despite the proof to the otherwise. Why would anyone bother to photoshop such a mundane thing?

[Weaver]

My initial reaction to the photo was exactly the same as Rickshaw's, but having lookied at the others, I now believe the "photoshopping" to be an optical illusion caused by some unusual features of the exhaust installation:

1. The exhaust is polished while the rest of the aircraft is cammo, so it's a completely different colour from everthing around it. It's sides also point downwards, reflecting the ground and colours that don't appear on the airframe, adding to the effect.

2. The aperture in the cowling around the exhaust is edged with a strip of unpainted metal with a line of rivets in it. This creates the illusion that the exhaust is "disconnected" from the rest of the image and has a pixellated edge.

3. Your brain wants to believe that the exhaust is oval, so the sharp cut-off at its trailing edge comes across as crude photshopping. However the exhaust isn't oval: it has an asymetric teardrop cross-section, so the sharp cut off at the trailing edge is correct.

4. The exhaust's internal section is not the same as it's external one, creating a thin, horizontal triangle at the rear corner. However this triangle isn't 100% flat, and in the pic, it's reflecting sunlight very strongly, creating a thin white line that again, appears to separate the exhaust from the image around it.

[Logan Hartke]

2. The aperture in the cowling around the exhaust is edged with a strip of unpainted metal with a line of rivits in it. This creates the illusion that the exhaust is "disconnected" from the rest of the image and has a pixellated edge.

This, especially.  It's not photoshopped.

Cheers,

Logan

[kitnut617]

To me, looking at all the photos, the shiny part isn't the exhaust pipe itself.  It looks like a fairing fitted around the exhaust pipe and shaped for some aerodynamic purpose.  Zooming in on the top view of the RNZAF NH-90, it would suggest that ---
If it was a test item, it would be a waste of time and resources to paint it, as it probably would get it's shaped refined until the final configuration.

[Volkodav]

The issue appears to be the way the flange at the base of the exhaust catches the light in the first photo.  Obviously a DSTO development to get enemy forces arguing as to whether they are being attacked by a real or a photo-shopped helo.

[Volkodav]

Onto the actual aircraft in question I have wondered why the ADF adopted them in the first place.  Don't get me wrong it is a fine machine, although still highly developmental when adopted, but rather the initial requirement seemed to be indicating a larger more capable machine than the MRH90 to supplement the in service Blackhawks, rather than replace them. 

I was under the impression that the ADF was after something like the Merlin or Cougar / Super Cougar to slot in between the Blackhawk and Chinook as well as possible eventually replace the Sea King.  A larger troop lift helo that could also be used off the RANs Amphibs and could carry larger loads than the Blackhawks.  The Blackhawks would eventually either be upgraded or replaced with new build latest model ones.

[Volkodav]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20131105_WB_N1026341_0017.jpg_-_Flickr_-_NZ_Defence_Force.jpg

Nice and squeezy, maybe the capacity is less when moving Melanesian troops and their gear.

[Rickshaw]

Still easier to get in and out of than the Blackhawk.  Never really liked the Blackhawk, particularly when it's carrying the long range tanks because counter-intuitively you have to go to the rear, to get around the tanks.  After years of working with Iroquois when it was drummed into me that you NEVER went near the tail rotor, doing that was hard.

The NH-90 has twice the range of the Blackhawk and is also slightly faster.

[Volkodav]

Loved the Blackhawk and the AW101 is faster and longer ranged than the MRH90 (just) . 

I just find it interesting that the original requirement was an Iroquois replacement that everyone assumed would just be additional Blackhawks, perhaps with marinisation of some sort to operate of the LPAs, that grew into a larger more capable troop lift helo and then a Blackhawk / Sea King replacement.

What I would honestly like to have seen happen would have been Merlin and Knighthawk (MH-60S Sierra) considering the LHDs being ordered and the SOF requirements for a smaller helicopter than the MRH90.  Then Merlin Knighthawk (Sierra) and Romeo for the ASW and other fleet roles. Dare I say it AH-64D/E instead of Tiger 

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Still easier to get in and out of than the Blackhawk.  Never really liked the Blackhawk, particularly when it's carrying the long range tanks because counter-intuitively you have to go to the rear, to get around the tanks.  After years of working with Iroquois when it was drummed into me that you NEVER went near the tail rotor, doing that was hard.

The NH-90 has twice the range of the Blackhawk and is also slightly faster.

Do you have something to back up that comment?  My own personal experience with the H-60 Blackhawk that was equipped with two fuel tanks had these mounted next to the rear bulkhead in the passenger compartment.  There is no walking around these things to get in or out of the aircraft so ingress/egress from the Blackhawk is no issue.  If you have to walk around the fuel tanks then the crew chief is an idiot.  Placing the fuel tanks further forward in the passenger compartment is going to ruin any balancing act that the aircraft is trying to maintain in order to fly safely. 

[Volkodav]

Still easier to get in and out of than the Blackhawk.  Never really liked the Blackhawk, particularly when it's carrying the long range tanks because counter-intuitively you have to go to the rear, to get around the tanks.  After years of working with Iroquois when it was drummed into me that you NEVER went near the tail rotor, doing that was hard.

The NH-90 has twice the range of the Blackhawk and is also slightly faster.

Do you have something to back up that comment?  My own personal experience with the H-60 Blackhawk that was equipped with two fuel tanks had these mounted next to the rear bulkhead in the passenger compartment.  There is no walking around these things to get in or out of the aircraft so ingress/egress from the Blackhawk is no issue.  If you have to walk around the fuel tanks then the crew chief is an idiot.  Placing the fuel tanks further forward in the passenger compartment is going to ruin any balancing act that the aircraft is trying to maintain in order to fly safely.

In the early days the ARA Blackhawks were flown with the external ferry tanks fitted pretty much all the time, it ended up causing fatigue issues as well as the ingress egress problems mentioned.

[Spey Phantom]

speaking of the NH90, i went to Leopoldsburg yesterday for the Belgian Army opendoor.
the Air Force sent one of theyre new NH90-TTH's for a CSAR/SpecOps demo 

more pics to follow soon...

[Rickshaw]

Still easier to get in and out of than the Blackhawk.  Never really liked the Blackhawk, particularly when it's carrying the long range tanks because counter-intuitively you have to go to the rear, to get around the tanks.  After years of working with Iroquois when it was drummed into me that you NEVER went near the tail rotor, doing that was hard.

The NH-90 has twice the range of the Blackhawk and is also slightly faster.

Do you have something to back up that comment?  My own personal experience with the H-60 Blackhawk that was equipped with two fuel tanks had these mounted next to the rear bulkhead in the passenger compartment.  There is no walking around these things to get in or out of the aircraft so ingress/egress from the Blackhawk is no issue.  If you have to walk around the fuel tanks then the crew chief is an idiot.  Placing the fuel tanks further forward in the passenger compartment is going to ruin any balancing act that the aircraft is trying to maintain in order to fly safely.

I was referring to the external drop tanks carried on the stub wings, Jeff.   I've only ever heard them referred to as "long range tanks".  The set up of the tanks on the stub wings means when you egress from the cabin you must move around their back, towards the tail rotor.   While I know the Blackhawk's tail rotor is much higher than the UH-1's, I still disliked doing it.

Yes, the Australian Army used to fly exclusively with the external tanks mounted in the early days when they believed they could self-deploy over extended distances in the early days of the move to the Top End, just after they'd received the aircraft and were treating them simply as flying trucks.  They had to replace all the rotorheads and rotors after only IIRC 2 years service which cost a fortune.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Still easier to get in and out of than the Blackhawk.  Never really liked the Blackhawk, particularly when it's carrying the long range tanks because counter-intuitively you have to go to the rear, to get around the tanks.  After years of working with Iroquois when it was drummed into me that you NEVER went near the tail rotor, doing that was hard.

The NH-90 has twice the range of the Blackhawk and is also slightly faster.

Do you have something to back up that comment?  My own personal experience with the H-60 Blackhawk that was equipped with two fuel tanks had these mounted next to the rear bulkhead in the passenger compartment.  There is no walking around these things to get in or out of the aircraft so ingress/egress from the Blackhawk is no issue.  If you have to walk around the fuel tanks then the crew chief is an idiot.  Placing the fuel tanks further forward in the passenger compartment is going to ruin any balancing act that the aircraft is trying to maintain in order to fly safely.

In the early days the ARA Blackhawks were flown with the external ferry tanks fitted pretty much all the time, it ended up causing fatigue issues as well as the ingress egress problems mentioned.

  Okay, something was lost in reading and what went to my brain.  The term long range tanks is for me usually used to describe an auxiliary fuel tank such as those that are carried internally on a variety of aircraft including the Blackhawk.  The externally mounted fuel tanks with an aerodynamic shape are usually called "drop tanks," hence the confusion.  I would agree that in the case of the "drop tank" mounted on the ESSS that airframe fatigue issues could and would be a problem with the Blackhawk considering the quantity of fuel carried in each of those tanks and the option to carry four of them in some cases if you have the right model Blackhawk.  So now that this has been cleared up by your detailed explanation I am no longer confused :)   Certainly no option for a similar ESSS feature on the NH-90.

[Weaver]

The NH-90 has an all-composite fuselage, whereas the Blackhawk is all-alloy, IIRC. Maybe the through-life maintenance costs of the NH-90 were more attractive, particularly if they're expected to spend significant periods at sea.

[GTX_Admin]

I was under the impression that the ADF was after something like the Merlin or Cougar / Super Cougar to slot in between the Blackhawk and Chinook as well as possible eventually replace the Sea King.  A larger troop lift helo that could also be used off the RANs Amphibs and could carry larger loads than the Blackhawks.  The Blackhawks would eventually either be upgraded or replaced with new build latest model ones.

The AW-101 Merlin was rejected early on essentially because it was too large for what the ADF were seeking (for example, it is something like 3.5m longer than a MRH-90) and they already had the Chinook so adding the AW-101 would be too close to that capability.  It was also more expensive (little things like 3 engines vs two add up you know).  With respect to the MRH-90 (and I used to work on the project to deliver them many years ago now), it does offer in increase in performance over the rival UH-60M that was offered by Sikorsky for AIR 9000 Ph2.  For example:

UH-60M:  11 seated troops or 6 medical stretchers
MRH-90:  20 seated troops or 12 medical stretchers

Also remember that at the time of selection, the MRH-90 was at the start of its life cycle whereas the UH-60 had essentially been in service for decades.  Therefore , one of the things considered was that the MRH-90s would have far greater development potential.

[GTX_Admin]

Dare I say it AH-64D/E instead of Tiger 

Dare I repeat what has been said before:  At the time the decision was made Australia could acquire twice as many Tigers as AH-64s. The Australian dollar was running at around 0.5USD and the price offered by Eurocopter was most attractive. Moreover, just as with the MRH-90 selection, at the time it was also at the start of its development life and thus offered far more growth/development potential than its rivals (AH-64 and AH-1).  Now one can argue with the benefit of hindsight that perhaps things wouldn't work out, but I can assure you that at the time, the Tiger deal was far the better choice.

[GTX_Admin]

The NH-90 has an all-composite fuselage, whereas the Blackhawk is all-alloy, IIRC. Maybe the through-life maintenance costs of the NH-90 were more attractive, particularly if they're expected to spend significant periods at sea.

To a degree yes - although, the MRH-90 also has far more in the way of avionics that need support (for instance, the MRH-90 actually has more software lines than the ARH Tiger)!