Why Is The NH90 So Successful? | Key Aero

Skip to main content Cookies are required to watch videos and view magazine page-turners. Close Why is the NH90 so successful?

Primary tabs

• View

1. Home
2. Forums
3. Modern Military Aviation

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 630

Send private message

By: H_K - 29th March 2009 at 21:23

Honest question from a fan of European helicopters:

The NH90's order book seems to be a smashing success, with about 530 firm orders plus many more commitments, yet it's inferior on paper to all its competitors - S-92, EH101 and EC-725. Particularly in terms of payload/range ability and cabin size. Additionally, the NH90 doesn't even seem to be much cheaper despite its smaller size, and it has been significantly delayed in reaching operational service.

So letting aside for a moment the NH90's naval users (who do benefit from the NH90's smaller size), why haven't more countries who need a tactical transport helo gone for the S-92/EH101/EC-725? I'm thinking in particular of the Scandinavians, Spanish, Saudis and Omanis:

- If they're price conscious, the EC-725 is a better choice - If they want a SAR/CSAR helicopter, then the NH-90 is the worst possible option - If they want a troop transport with rear ramp, the S-92 and EH101 are at least equally good in terms of value for money

Original post

Pagination

• 1
• 2
• › Next
• » Last

Member for

20 years 7 months

Posts: 4,472

By: Nicolas10 - 29th March 2009 at 21:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Because it rocks

New

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 630

Send private message

By: H_K - 29th March 2009 at 23:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I was hoping for something more substantial. For example:

- Do the NH90's fly-by-wire flight control system and reduced RCS fuselage provide real operational advantages, and are they worth the extra cost?

- Is the NH90's composite airframe an advantage or a disadvantage versus the simpler, more rugged EC-725?

- How come the NH90 has such a high empty weight (6T for TTH without mission equipment), when composites are supposed to be lightweight? (The EC-725, which has a similar cabin area/volume, weights only 5.3T)

New

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 630

Send private message

By: H_K - 30th March 2009 at 00:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

As an aside, my question about why composite airframes end up being so "heavy" is valid for other aircraft. I've always wondered why the A400M, for example, saw such huge weight growth compared to the original specifications in the 1990s... I'm wondering whether the benefits of composites have been "oversold".

New

Member for

20 years 7 months

Posts: 4,472

By: Nicolas10 - 30th March 2009 at 00:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The answer is likely that it's more maintainable (and hence probably more cost efficient in the long run) thanks to it's rugged and modern airframe, and integrated maintenance and diagnostic system.

New

Member for

20 years 9 months

Posts: 1,190

Send private message

By: hawkdriver05 - 30th March 2009 at 02:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Its a VERY good helicopter.

New

Member for

25 years 11 months

Posts: 5,396

Send private message

By: djcross - 30th March 2009 at 04:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

As an aside, my question about why composite airframes end up being so "heavy" is valid for other aircraft. I've always wondered why the A400M, for example, saw such huge weight growth compared to the original specifications in the 1990s... I'm wondering whether the benefits of composites have been "oversold".

Composite structure never meets the stated weight reduction due to penetrations and point loads.

Real airframes have holes in structure to route wire bundles, hydraulic, fuel and environmental control plumbing. Loads have to be carried around the penetration through the use of heavy doublers surrounding the penetration.

Likewise, a real airframe has to provide mounting points for actuators, pumps, valves, load centers, avionics racks and dozens of other equipment. Those mounting locations are point loads that cause stress concentrations that the composite laminate cannot endure. The solution is to add more heavy doublers and fittings to spread the load over a wide area that the composite laminate can carry.

Special care has to be taken when designing features like composite floors where impacts will cause composite delaminations and ultimately cause structural failure. (This was also a problem when metallic honeycomb structure was first used in the 1940's and '50s as women's high heel shoes would pierce the floor).

New

Member for

22 years 1 month

Posts: 4,674

Send private message

By: Distiller - 30th March 2009 at 08:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Is it a success? Of course they will eventually sell a couple of hundreds in Euroland, but for example its late late late and nothing is left of the communality (30 or so different versions), it's also freaking expensive to buy, with to-date unknown life cycle costs. Its design is in the middle between a H-60 and a H-92 (no real air assault helicopter, but neither a real transport). And mil system integration is a bad joke (look at all the sensor bumps and ad-ons thank to the impossibility to integrate them into the plastic airframe). Super Puma versions are simply getting old; AW101 is even more expensive and an overspecialized ASW model (optimized for sea-level ops, empty weight of a Chinook with a third of the payload); and the H-92 has its own share of grave problems and also suffers from NIH syndrome in Europe. And your list should also include the Mi-17, because that is a really useful machine for most operators. And also the Mi-38, which is getting new attention these days and should also become a very capable machine.

New

Member for

17 years 8 months

Posts: 3,442

By: J-20 Hotdog - 30th March 2009 at 09:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Is it a success? Of course they will eventually sell a couple of hundreds in Euroland, but for example its late late late and nothing is left of the communality (30 or so different versions), it's also freaking expensive to buy, with to-date unknown life cycle costs. Its design is in the middle between a H-60 and a H-92 (no real air assault helicopter, but neither a real transport). And mil system integration is a bad joke (look at all the sensor bumps and ad-ons thank to the impossibility to integrate them into the plastic airframe). Super Puma versions are simply getting old; AW101 is even more expensive and an overspecialized ASW model (optimized for sea-level ops, empty weight of a Chinook with a third of the payload); and the H-92 has its own share of grave problems and also suffers from NIH syndrome in Europe. And your list should also include the Mi-17, because that is a really useful machine for most operators. And also the Mi-38, which is getting new attention these days and should also become a very capable machine.

wow you just knocked pretty much every new Helicopter project except for the Mi-38!! one could say the Mi-17 is also getting old.

New

Member for

20 years 5 months

Posts: 521

Send private message

By: press - 30th March 2009 at 09:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

one could say the Mi-17 is also getting old.

I think the Mi-17 is living it's second youth. They're getting new engines (VK-2500) the fuselage got a face lift, new rotors.

New

Member for

25 years 11 months

Posts: 657

Send private message

By: BME330 - 30th March 2009 at 09:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

It´s succesful between our politicians, we have to pay 24 € millions for each TTH with T-700 engines. Too much at least for me.

New

Member for

17 years 8 months

Posts: 3,442

By: J-20 Hotdog - 30th March 2009 at 09:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I think the Mi-17 is living it's second youth. They're getting new engines (VK-2500) the fuselage got a face lift, new rotors.

do you know if the Super Puma variants also saw new engines and rotors?

New

Member for

20 years 5 months

Posts: 521

Send private message

By: press - 30th March 2009 at 09:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

do you know if the Super Puma variants also saw new engines and rotors?

There`s a new variant of SPuma, EC-225, with five bladed main rotor head and Makila 2A engines.

New

Member for

22 years 1 month

Posts: 4,674

Send private message

By: Distiller - 30th March 2009 at 10:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

wow you just knocked pretty much every new Helicopter project except for the Mi-38!! one could say the Mi-17 is also getting old.

:D No, not really. It's all a question what you want to do with it. Looking at what is really needed these days, it's rugged transport in hot/high conditions with some self protection (ballistic mostly, EW and chaff/flares if you feel really rich). Mi-17 is pretty good at that, Mi-38 should be better (otherwise no reason to build it).

Politics aside I don't see why one would want a Super Puma or a S-92 over a Mil. And Obaronprom seems to get serious about spare availability now, so ...

If Sikorsky had designed a greater degree of commonality into their S-70/S-92 combo, it could have been a real good deal for a military customer (made perfect if they'd try to include the AH-64 in that). But sadly no.

New

Member for

20 years 6 months

Posts: 13,432

Send private message

By: swerve - 30th March 2009 at 11:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Is it a success? Of course they will eventually sell a couple of hundreds in Euroland,...

Ah. Australia, New Zealand & Oman are in Euroland, are they?

Over 500 ordered.

New

Member for

22 years 1 month

Posts: 4,674

Send private message

By: Distiller - 30th March 2009 at 14:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Quod erat demonstrandum.

http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=3993

First para.

New

Member for

18 years 4 months

Posts: 3,765

Send private message

By: Sintra - 30th March 2009 at 14:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Quod erat demonstrandum.

http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=3993

First para.

I hope you werent expecting the Pentagon to buy 22 NH90´s for the Afghan Army!

New

Member for

22 years 1 month

Posts: 4,674

Send private message

By: Distiller - 30th March 2009 at 15:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I hope you werent expecting the Pentagon to buy 22 NH90´s for the Afghan Army!

Iraq.

No, but what about Super Puma, for example? Or S-92? They'll have to train flight crews and ground crews anew anyway, after all those years. Of course they'd never get 22 of these for that money ...

New

Member for

18 years 4 months

Posts: 3,765

Send private message

By: Sintra - 30th March 2009 at 16:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Iraq.

Blimey, i have read the news at defense-aerospace.com, and they made the same mistake that i did!

The Pentagon is buying 22 additional Mi-17 helicopters from Russia’s Ulan Ude aviation plant to equip the Afghan Army Air Corps, which already operates the type. (US DoD photo)

No, but what about Super Puma, for example? Or S-92? They'll have to train flight crews and ground crews anew anyway, after all those years. Of course they'd never get 22 of these for that money ...

Money, and logistics. The Iraq Air Force has received a lot of second hand equipment coming from Eastern Europe, including refurbished Polish Mi-17. The Iraqis have already an established logistic system for the Mi-17.

New

Member for

17 years 2 months

Posts: 6,983

By: obligatory - 30th March 2009 at 17:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I'm not into helicopters per see except the cruel looking Mi-24, but i would assume maintenance must weigh heavily in the consideration.

New

Member for

18 years 1 month

Posts: 2,101

By: old shape - 30th March 2009 at 21:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

As an aside, my question about why composite airframes end up being so "heavy" is valid for other aircraft. I've always wondered why the A400M, for example, saw such huge weight growth compared to the original specifications in the 1990s... I'm wondering whether the benefits of composites have been "oversold".

Do a search on my name, referring to A400. You are so correct, no need to wonder. As for composite on the Helicopters, the weight savings have been seen, once you've got the Blades and a good Spine sorted out the problems have basically been solved because it is all basically rigid.

A large fixed wing aeroplane is however a totally different situation. A small fixed wing is fine (If you're prepared to live with the vast expense of CFRP...which I know for a fact is 10 fold the cost of ripping it out of Ally.). On large airframes, to take a leap from 2nd or 3rd class panels and U/c doors made of CFRP into 1st class primary structures such as Wing Spars/Skins is actually quite a massive technological leap. So far, both Airbus and Boeing have taken that leap and fell in the mud.

New

Pagination

• 1
• 2
• › Next
• » Last

Sign in to post a reply