After some initial problems, the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) has become the first air force user to have any of their NH90s reach 2,000 hours flight time, while also now being highly satisfied with their performance. The NH90 helicopter, operated by No 3 Squadron, at Ohakea Air Base on the North Island, enables the RNZAF to fulfill a wide range of operational commitments ranging from humanitarian aid and land warfare to close cooperation with Navy ships.

The RNZAF retired its fleet of UH-1H Iroquois in 2015 and now operates eight NH90s. It was looking for a very versatile helicopter and that is exactly what it found with the medium lif t TTH (Tactical Transport Helicopter) variant of the NH90.

This is the same variant as chosen by the Australian Defence Force, where it has been called the MRH-90 Taipan. Unfortunate serviceability and configuration experiences have led the ADF to plan abandoning their 46 Taipans and replacing them with new Black Hawks and Seahawks imported from the United States.

The RNZAF took delivery of the first two NH-90 helicopters on 18th January 2012. The helicopters were flown in by a Russian Antonov plane and moved to the new hangar facility at Ohakea. It welcomed the delivery of its eighth and last NH90 helicopter at Base Ohakea on 30th October 2014.

The aircraft purchased for the RNZAF are few in number, but their versatility enables them to handle a wide range of missions, from traditional military operations to support for different government agencies, including search and rescue as well as maritime operations. In the latter case this is with the NH90 embarked on the New Zealand Navy’s multi-role vessel, HMNZS Canterbury. This ship can transport up to 4 NH90s internally in its Hangar Deck.

Since introduction, RNZAF NH90s have been involved in a wide range of responses to challenges arising in our region and domestically. Examples of this include responding to a number of tropical cyclones in the South West Pacific and most recently to the volcanic eruption and tsunami in Tonga.

RNZAF NH90s have conducted several successful Search and Rescue missions in New Zealand and have responded to disasters such as the Kaikoura earthquake, Canterbury floods, Australian bushfires and White Island eruption.

This is an excerpt from APDR. To read the full story, click here.

APDR Newsletter


For Editorial Inquiries Contact:
Editor Kym Bergmann at kym.bergmann@venturamedia.net

For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Director of Sales Graham Joss at graham.joss@venturamedia.net

Previous articleFrom the Magazine: ARMY AVIATION TRANSITIONING FROM EUROPEAN TO U.S. HELICOPTERS
Next articleGLOBALDATA: Amid F-18 E/F Indian trials, strong prospects for Boeing to seal Indian Navy’s MRCBF deal

22 COMMENTS

  1. It’s great to see the RNZAF having success with the NH-90.
    So what do the RNZAF and the Aus Army do differently..? Different expectations, different standards, or something else..?

      • Ha! What rubbish – they’re not happy at all. Norway just gave theirs back, and the reliability and availability is poor compared to normal utility helicopters. It’s this BS line that Airbus keeps spruiking, hoping to have other nations look favourably on a platform that promises the world and delivers little in return unless you want to pay three times the sustainment funding than, say, a modern Black Hawk.

        • Yes, the Norwegians are unhappy – but that still leaves another 13 or so nations that don’t seem to have anything like the same level of difficulty. As we have reported consistently, the NZDF seems happy with theirs. With respect, I think the situation is more complex than Blackhawk-good MRH-bad. I assume that from your strange user name and email address you wish to conceal your identity.

          • OK. Allow me to expand: a small number of MRH/NFH users are unhappy, mainly because of maintenance and cost issues. The majority – 12 out of 15, or whatever the exact number is – are continuing to operate theirs. What does this tell us? Not very much beyond that two sentence summary. It certainly does not mean that somehow the MRH/NFH is a bad helicopter that deserves abuse, as some readers have been gleefully dishing out. I don’t particularly like the taste of ginger. Does that make ginger bad? To understand the situation needs more analysis of why some countries are having issues while others either are not, or they can live with the situation. The question for Australia becomes can we afford to buy a new class of helicopter each time Army decides they don’t like what they have?`The MRH fleet even on the estimates of Defence itself has another 20 years of life left in it.

            Btw I think Merlin is an excellent ASW helicopter.

    • It has more to do with AUKUS you have to blame the previous government in order to get new toys and make sure your new security pack is worth them signing the pack in the first place.
      Dont assume the Americans or Brits would want to bail us out if the red storm comes knocking

    • I have to wonder if this has more to do with technical capability and clarity of objectives within the ADF for helicopter use. It is an area of capability we seem to continually get wrong. The Seasprite purchase also failed.

      If MHR90s are so bad, why do other air forces still use them? How bad is their maintenance problem? Do we have statistics for the amount of maintenance hours per flying hour, and flying hours per failure? Do we know how those metrics compare to other air forces or other helicopters? In short, do we know if the problem is us, or the helicopter, or simply the risks of military helicopter flying?

      • These are all excellent questions – and I have repeatedly ask Defence the same thing. They refuse to say if they have any comparative data. Because our MRH fleet has been grounded more frequently and for much longer than any other, this means that the cost per flying hour looks extremely high – which is said to be the main reason why they are being unnecessarily retired 20 years ahead of schedule. If your fixed costs – personnel, facilities, training etc – are $300 million per year and you manage to fly for only a single hour, then the cost per flying hour is $300 million.

  2. The difference is the RNZAF will not have to utilise their aircraft in a combat environment.
    Look at history, every-time the NZDF committed to any sort action in a combat environment or hot peace keeping operation they had to borrow capability from Australia. (cockpit armour for C130’s , special forces equipment). In relation to other nations glad they don’t have a requirement to deplane troops and provide cover fire at the same time.

    • Maybe all other nations have smaller soldiers who can somehow get past the door mounted machine-gun – but not ours. In any case Eurocopter / Airbus repeatedly offered a window-mounted machine-gun to fix the problem, to no avail.

    • The RNZAF did borrow armour for the C130 but our aircraft deployed to Desert Storm etc. as did our Special Forces. NZ did use ADF Iroquois in Vietnam because we had only just started receiving our own between 1966 -70. However we used our own UH for all missions since with an unparalleled availability for missions. The difference you speak of is irrelevant to the availability of the NH90 or MRH90 anyway, we currently use them for very similar missions.

  3. Great comment KYM you have obviously never had the joy of wearing a ballistic vest, helmet , load bearing equipment and a patrol pack while trying to rapidly get out in a tactical environment. This is all after you have been squeezed into your seat for the last 60 mins or so.
    Then remembering that the Taipan has to slow its speed down before you reach the landing zone as it cannot flare like the blackhawk. That fix from Eurocopter ? how does that work when the sliding door when opened covers the forward window ? and surely you cannot mean the rear window ? So the crewman has to crawl over the troops to get to the gun?

    • Yes you are absolutely correct that I have zero experience exiting an MRH in those conditions. I have been in a French helicopter in Afghanistan – probably a Caracal from memory – with a fair bit of that equipment (minus the weapon, of course) and don’t recall the slightest problem getting in or out of it and it certainly had a door mounted machine-gun. But maybe it’s bigger? Anyway, you make a valid point and I shall check and get back to you about the proposal from Eurocopter / Airbus about their various proposals to come up with alternate solutions for locating the machine gun.

      But the other part of my commentary remains: why is it only Australia that has these ongoing problems? Yes, there were a raft of issues when the helicopters were being introduced into service – the floors needed strengthening and that sort of stuff – but that seemed routine. Everyone else seems to be ok with their door mounted machine guns so I keep coming back to trying to understand why only Australians are affected. Are our soldiers particularly clumsy?

  4. It has more to do with AUKUS you have to blame the previous government in order to get new toys and make sure your new security pack is worth them signing the pack in the first place.
    Dont assume the Americans or Brits would want to bail us out if the red storm comes knocking

  5. I think that a lot of Aussies the underestimate NZDF. Unlike the ADF the kiwis will push their equipment to its limits. Having a small Force they have to make sure the equipment they purchased is fit for purpose. The issue that we seem to have is short air time and lots of maintenance. Having served in the ADF for 30 years l have seen how the industrial laws have affected our capabilities by being too safety conscious and not taking the opportunity to test the equipment to its limits. Perhaps we need to take a leaf out of NZ book on how to maximize our equipment. Hence the reason why the NZDF purchase already existing items straight off the shelf and not try to modify to suit Australian content requirements.

  6. I think that a lot of Aussies underestimate NZDF. Unlike the ADF the kiwis will push their equipment to its limits. Having a small Force they have to make sure the equipment they purchased is fit for purpose. The issue that we seem to have is short air time and lots of maintenance. Having served in the ADF for 30 years l have seen how the industrial laws have affected our capabilities by being too safety conscious and not taking the opportunity to test the equipment to its limits. Perhaps we need to take a leaf out of NZ book on how to maximize our equipment. Hence the reason why the NZDF purchase already existing items straight off the shelf and not try to modify to suit Australian content requirements.

  7. Late on this conversation my apologies.
    I think there is a lot of reasons why we abandoned the Tipans some were patience.
    We need things in the current environment to work now !
    2nd Aukus puts pressure on Government to spend American.
    3rd commonality we are most likely going to exercise and contribute with the Americans.
    4th Familiarity the maintenance crews know black Hawks and sea hawks we know how to use them well and can cannabalise a lot of parts off our own and quick in a crisis from American stock.

  8. That could work, but sadly even though they cost a lot to buy and generally a great product.
    Defence feel they don’t want to put the effort in.
    It’s like a car you pour good money into .
    They have lost that loving feeling.
    Some other country will get a bargain from the Australian tax payer.!

  9. At the risk of labouring a point and not being very specific about which service in the ADI.
    We are duplicate we get rid of helicopters that are relatively new and have a lot of life left over a door issues and gun mounts.
    Yet we persist with the under gunned ANZAC frigate and pour good money into a ship class that is now much heavier than design .
    Australia should immediately build another 3 AWD Hobart class Destroyers it would probably cost 3billion per unit and could be operated within 10years and these ships could provide a very good deterant and even be beefed up to carry more VSL cells with LRASM .48 cell as opposed to the limited 8 cell Anzac now at full capacity even with the Quad configuration no match for One Chinese frigate.
    Just a thought.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here