Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Lucasnz]

Stuff is reporting a 200 million dollar blow out in the budget. Cabinet is considering options, including not buying spares.

Only 6 Training Helicopters are authorised to be purchased.

Full Article here...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3735059a6160,00.html

[usakiwi]

Interesting thing this. If you look at exchange rate movements the NZD has declined 13% against the Euro since the contract was signed. The decline has largely occured over the last 4 months. Now if you take the $400 to $560M cost quoted in the article for the project and factor in a 13% movement you get $55 to $76M of cost increase due to exchange rate movements.

Now assuming the $200M blowout report is accurate only 27% to 38% of the increase is due to exchange rates, the majority appears to due to early estimates not including specialized equipment. So either they didn’t plan correctly in the first place or their has been creep on the fit out of the helicopters. Given the legendary stinginess of the NZ govt on defense purchases I doubt they would have allowed too much creep.

So in addition to (the government or treasury I presume) failing to hedge their forex exposure the defense department inaccurately estimated the system cost to start off with.

Pretty poor show all round.

Quite disappointed in the end result as I was comfortable with a smaller number of NH’s if we had a sizeable number of EC635’s to take on training/liaison/Spec war/light trans/basic recon/basic fire support roles. Could see many situations where a 10 ton helicopter was over kill and 6 smaller helicopter I fear is not enough

[Whiskyjack]

Interesting I was under the impression that a TTH configured NH90 went for arounf EUR20m (I really can't remember where I saw this figure, but is stuck in my head) , which is around NZ$42m, so if you take the article figure of NZ$70m each then you are adding 66% to the base price in support costs!

[KH-12]

$70M for a helicopter is way too much, should maybe have gone with something else even thoughthe Aussies went with them (maybe the S-92) look what happened to the price of the Aussies Seasprites :( , Maybe we should have gone with more numbers of a slightly smaller aircraft (the AW149 soon to be annouced would be an interesting aircraft option) , the $200 million does sound like abit of conjecture however, I did contact Murray McCully recently and asked him to probe around what was happening in this area, interesting what turned up :rolleyes:

[Whiskyjack]

$70M for a helicopter is way too much, should maybe have gone with something else even thoughthe Aussies went with them (maybe the S-92) look what happened to the price of the Aussies Seasprites :( , Maybe we should have gone with more numbers of a slightly smaller aircraft (the AW149 soon to be annouced would be an interesting aircraft option) , the $200 million does sound like abit of conjecture however, I did contact Murray McCully recently and asked him to probe around what was happening in this area, interesting what turned up :rolleyes:

Not sure that any other chopper in the class would be significantly cheaper.

I would prefer the NH90 over the AW149. Don't forget that there is still room for more LUHs in future years that will not require significant $$.

[Sea Toby]

I think with such a small order the support costs just don't spread out as much. New Zealand faces this problem with every small order. I assume the $200 million blow out consists of an order for 8 NH90s and 6 EC135s, although this is not confirmed. Hopefully, the government spends the extra $200 million instead of chopping the order down to 6 NH90s. That would be too much to bear.

And this government only has itself to blame. Australia in the past have purchased equipment with a New Zealand option included. In every case this government has refused these options, I suspect to the point Australia doesn't bother anymore.

[Whiskyjack]

I don't think the Numbers add up as reported.

70m * 8 = 560
10m * 6 = 60

So that is a total cost of 620m. All I can think of is that they are including GST into their 'blowout' figures.

Sea Toby, there was no NZ option as far as the NH90 goes as far as I'm aware.

FYI the NZ$70m price tag is the same as the Aussie cost (AUS$2b for 34)

[KH-12]

Not sure that any other chopper in the class would be significantly cheaper.

I would prefer the NH90 over the AW149. Don't forget that there is still room for more LUHs in future years that will not require significant $$.

I agree the NH90 stacks up to be one hell of an aircraft and is definately a good machine however at what point do you go for numbers rather than quality, the AW149 looks like it would be a good direct UH-1H replacement while the NH90 is a much larger and sophisicated proposition, the RNZAF may be too scared to fly them incase they lose one.

Will be interesting what the Utility helicopter will be as I think it will be very busy in the utility role as opposed to the training role.

[KH-12]

I don't think the Numbers add up as reported.

70m * 8 = 560
10m * 6 = 60

So that is a total cost of 620m. All I can think of is that they are including GST into their 'blowout' figures.

Sea Toby, there was no NZ option as far as the NH90 goes as far as I'm aware.

FYI the NZ$70m price tag is the same as the Aussie cost (AUS$2b for 34)

Interesting it says "Sources said" sounds like abit of a probe in the dark to be honest, I would suspect the release is more intended to flush out the reality of the situation rather than to quote hard facts.

[Sea Toby]

Australia bought one aircraft, not two different types. Maybe New Zealand has to buy more spare parts up front for two different types of helicopters.

$70 million x 34 aircraft is $2.380 billion, not $2.0 billion.

In the next decade New Zealand will be faced with acquiring several C-130s and P-3s replacements. They are going to cost much much more.

The $110 million lease over 10 years of 28 cream puff F-16s look better and better as time passes.

If Ms Clark wanted to save bundles of money, maybe she should have kept the air combat force and sold the transport and patrol aircraft instead.

[KH-12]

Australia bought one aircraft, not two different types. Maybe New Zealand has to buy more spare parts up front for two different types of helicopters.

$70 million x 34 aircraft is $2.380 billion, not $2.0 billion.

In the next decade New Zealand will be faced with acquiring several C-130s and P-3s replacements. They are going to cost much much more.

The $110 million lease over 10 years of 28 cream puff F-16s look better and better as time passes.

If Ms Clark wanted to save bundles of money, maybe she should have kept the air combat force and sold the transport and patrol aircraft instead.


The RNZAF is moving away from holding large quantities of spares for its A/C , they recently carried out a project that substantially reduced the C-130parts inventory instead relying on a US logistics company to supply at short notice those components that are not frequently used. If they go with the EC135/EC635 they could tap into the civilian logistics supply as that Aircraft is already operated in NZ.

[Whiskyjack]

Australia bought one aircraft, not two different types. Maybe New Zealand has to buy more spare parts up front for two different types of helicopters.

True but one type is a basic civillian type, so I do not see a lot of money comming into play for the LUH.

$70 million x 34 aircraft is $2.380 billion, not $2.0 billion.

I don't think you are converting it from the NZ$ to the AUS$. The AUS$ is at .83 which makes AUS$2b to be NZ$2.4b.

In the next decade New Zealand will be faced with acquiring several C-130s and P-3s replacements. They are going to cost much much more.

Yes they are, but we will have 10 years to come up with the money. The P3 don't need replacement until the 2020 mark given the recent structural upgrades. Similar with the C-130.


The $110 million lease over 10 years of 28 cream puff F-16s look better and better as time passes.


They would still have to have gone through an MLU and be maintained etc...
It would still have been cheaper tho I grant you.

[KH-12]

Here is an update from Phil Goff to the alegations of a "Budget Blowout", looks like there was a degree of truth there :eek : Looks like 8 is the confirmed number of airframes.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=15682&cid=15&cname=Politics

[rjmaz1]

This clearly demonstrates why it is so risky being one of the first countries to order a new aircraft. You have no accurate figure for aircraft cost or support costs.

Small countries that are making small orders should stay with weapon systems that are well developed and provide low risk with a firm total price.

An example is when Australia bought the new Tiger Helicopter, it wanted to customise it a bit and it ended up costing significantly more than what was originally quoted. If they knew the true cost Australia would have gone with a developed helicopter like the Apache. The Apache would have ended up costing the same as the Tiger but it is a far more capable helicopter and can provide alot more flexibility.

In new zealands case they should have bought new older model helicopters that have been in service for many years.

[stryker NZ]

This clearly demonstrates why it is so risky being one of the first countries to order a new aircraft. You have no accurate figure for aircraft cost or support costs.

Small countries that are making small orders should stay with weapon systems that are well developed and provide low risk with a firm total price.

An example is when Australia bought the new Tiger Helicopter, it wanted to customise it a bit and it ended up costing significantly more than what was originally quoted. If they knew the true cost Australia would have gone with a developed helicopter like the Apache. The Apache would have ended up costing the same as the Tiger but it is a far more capable helicopter and can provide alot more flexibility.

In new zealands case they should have bought new older model helicopters that have been in service for many years.

exactly New Zealand cant afford to buy new designs its just too risky if something goes wrong. we should go with something thats proven and reliable. I was talking to an airforce pilot recently and he said he dosnt care what type of helicopter they got as long as it was an improvement on what they have.

what about Russian Helicopters how do they stack up against others in price and preformance.

[KH-12]

what about Russian Helicopters how do they stack up against others in price and preformance.

Not sure they have anything new in that class, the H-92 was being touted at around the $US15M mark which works out quite abit cheaper than NH90 , plus it is a bigger aircraft, and I'm sure if we brought off Sikorsky then suddenly the US State department would clear the Skyhawk sale as well :rolleyes: I guess you have to weigh up that and getting access to European agricultural markets

The fact that the Aussies went with the NH90 did it for us.

[Whiskyjack]

Not sure they have anything new in that class, the H-92 was being touted at around the $US15M mark which works out quite abit cheaper than NH90 , plus it is a bigger aircraft, and I'm sure if we brought off Sikorsky then suddenly the US State department would clear the Skyhawk sale as well :rolleyes: I guess you have to weigh up that and getting access to European agricultural markets

The fact that the Aussies went with the NH90 did it for us.

Actually guys, the NH90, is listed at around the same price as a H-92.
The RNZAF will get the same model as the European countries, the only mod will be radio systems.

I would be interested to see what the price includes, as it may include 20 years worth of spare parts as well!

At the end of the day the NH90 is flying, is in the the process of being delivered, and going by its international sales, including Australia, is a safe option for the NZDF.

[KH-12]

Actually guys, the NH90, is listed at around the same price as a H-92.
The RNZAF will get the same model as the European countries, the only mod will be radio systems.

I would be interested to see what the price includes, as it may include 20 years worth of spare parts as well!

At the end of the day the NH90 is flying, is in the the process of being delivered, and going by its international sales, including Australia, is a safe option for the NZDF.

OK , I thought the NH90 was more expensive of the 2 aircraft, I guess the lack of C-130 compatibility would have put paid to the H-92 anyway, and I presume the MRV Hangar and associated aspects were designed around the NH90 and would be problematic with a larger helicopter. I think you would want lifetime support for the prices quoted:smokie

[mug]

Here is an update from Phil Goff to the alegations of a "Budget Blowout", looks like there was a degree of truth there :eek : Looks like 8 is the confirmed number of airframes.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=15682&cid=15&cname=Politics

Similar article here (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10391868). I'm thinking that 6 looks highly likely. A far cry from 8-12 or whatever the original numbers were.

[KH-12]

Similar article here (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10391868). I'm thinking that 6 looks highly likely. A far cry from 8-12 or whatever the original numbers were.

I read the articles that 8 was the number for the NH90 and maybe 6 for the LUH, for more than $750M you would hope this was the case, I think the RNZAF are saying that 8 is the absolute minimum in order to fulfill their obligations adequately.

[Whiskyjack]

I read the articles that 8 was the number for the NH90 and maybe 6 for the LUH, for more than $750M you would hope this was the case, I think the RNZAF are saying that 8 is the absolute minimum in order to fulfill their obligations adequately.

If they want to be able to deploy 4, then they will need 8. I think all this dancing around the numbers is more to do with negotiation. Let NHI think that you may have to go with less and get a better price for 8.

[KH-12]

If they want to be able to deploy 4, then they will need 8. I think all this dancing around the numbers is more to do with negotiation. Let NHI think that you may have to go with less and get a better price for 8.


We just got access back for our butter exports so maybe NHI got the price they were after ;) (Interesting that Phil Goff is also trade minister :rolleyes: )

I wonder if the RNZAF propose to conduct ab initio helicopter training on the new LUH or if they subcontract that phase out to a civilian R22 operator, would probably be a cheaper option, then transition to the 2 engine LUH post solo.

[icelord]

exactly New Zealand cant afford to buy new designs its just too risky if something goes wrong. we should go with something thats proven and reliable. I was talking to an airforce pilot recently and he said he dosnt care what type of helicopter they got as long as it was an improvement on what they have.

what about Russian Helicopters how do they stack up against others in price and preformance.

With NZ, they don't have a big enough budget for any form of cost blowout, where as Aus and many Euro countries can afford it and to have it fixed so other purchasers know what they are getting into.
Look at how we always manage to cop some form of blowout, if NZ got this much, they'd just submit to buying a few dinghys :sniper with a machine gun as its navy and a bird with a pistol as its Air force. :hul
For some reason, the western world will continue to never buy a russian anything, i think caviar and Vodka even come from Poland. With the russians, besides reliability and lack of spare parts, theres that whole East Vs West thing still goin.

[Markus40]

Without blowing my own trumpet for tooo long, didnt i say so before?????!!!!




Australia bought one aircraft, not two different types. Maybe New Zealand has to buy more spare parts up front for two different types of helicopters.

$70 million x 34 aircraft is $2.380 billion, not $2.0 billion.

In the next decade New Zealand will be faced with acquiring several C-130s and P-3s replacements. They are going to cost much much more.

The $110 million lease over 10 years of 28 cream puff F-16s look better and better as time passes.

If Ms Clark wanted to save bundles of money, maybe she should have kept the air combat force and sold the transport and patrol aircraft instead.

[Markus40]

I dont think Phil Goff would be shooting his mouth off when he does say in the " National Business Review" that the Defense Forces will get their 8 NH90s as specified. I think he means what he says and i wouldnt doubt him.

8 is operating at the very minimum levels for our service requirements and i would assume in years to come that there might be a few more purchased either off Australia or directly out of the long term Defense budget over the next 10 years. Will see.

I personally think the government has a good deal and a good helo as a result and will cover all our requirements in the forces. The extra $200 Million for parts and the fall in the NZ Dollar is fact of life and really to be honest for the length of time the government has had out of the Iroqouis and the years they operated them beyond their useful life extension, im sure the extra will make up for when the Iroqouis should have been replaced many years ago.

[Mr Brown]

I agree 8 could be seen as a number that may not stretch RNZAF personnel resources regarding the introduction of a helicopter that is rather more sophisticated than the one it is replacing. More could then be purchased in the medium term. Any way I would have thought NZ may look at a LUH that can perform all of the domestic civil assistance roles of UH-1H, plus training and even a little spec force support. This would allow NH-90 to be used for overseas ops.

[Sea Toby]

Its my opinion the only add on expensive NH90 helicopters will be replacement helicopters for those that have been lost. More than likely any future orders for add on helicopters beyond replacement helicopters may be more EC-135 utility or EC-635 gunships, helicopters that costs significantly less. Of course, this depends whether our assumptions are correct that the EC-135 training helicopters are the ones currently being acquired.

Looking ahead, the next biggest expense item on the LTDP will be the Anzac class frigate upgrades, an expense a few years off. New Zealand should have a period of up to ten years before replacements for the Orions and Hercules will have to be ordered, which will be more expensive than this helicopter order. It would be wise for the New Zealand Defence Forces to spread out their equipment acquisitions, so they don't become obsolescent all at the same time.

[NZLAV]

Well NZ pretty much replaced their army all at once:
105 NZLAV's IFV/APC
321 LOV's
24 Javelin anti armour
next the artillary and troop transport will be replaced.

7 new ships have been ordered in a small space of time. The frigates, orions and the hercs will probably be replaced together. I would say NZ will get 6-8 A400m's and 6-8 long range patrol. The RNZAF will be so much more capable when they replace the orions and hercs.

[Whiskyjack]

Well NZ pretty much replaced their army all at once:
105 NZLAV's IFV/APC
321 LOV's
24 Javelin anti armour
next the artillary and troop transport will be replaced.

7 new ships have been ordered in a small space of time. The frigates, orions and the hercs will probably be replaced together. I would say NZ will get 6-8 A400m's and 6-8 long range patrol. The RNZAF will be so much more capable when they replace the orions and hercs.

While I'm not an expert, the 135 is much smaller than the NH90, so should be capable of transportation in a Herc. I would imagine the mil version, the 635, would have to be transportable. The dimensions look about right for a C-13o, although I think some disassembly of the rotor head would be needed.
The Oriions and the Hercs, won't be replaced before 2018-2020, and will be a serious issue for the RNZAF as they will need to be replaced around the same time. IMO don't look for more than 3-4 P8s (if at all) they will be very expensive. Maybe some manned and some unmanned patrol aircraft.

I agree the A400 would be ideal as a replacement. Given that to get anywhere is a major logistical exercise for NZ, the more recourses here the better.

[KH-12]

While I'm not an expert, the 135 is much smaller than the NH90, so should be capable of transportation in a Herc. I would imagine the mil version, the 635, would have to be transportable. The dimensions look about right for a C-13o, although I think some disassembly of the rotor head would be needed.
The Oriions and the Hercs, won't be replaced before 2018-2020, and will be a serious issue for the RNZAF as they will need to be replaced around the same time. IMO don't look for more than 3-4 P8s (if at all) they will be very expensive. Maybe some manned and some unmanned patrol aircraft.

I agree the A400 would be ideal as a replacement. Given that to get anywhere is a major logistical exercise for NZ, the more recourses here the better.

I guess with a P8 you would hope that the sensors( AN/APS-137B(V)5) are a whole lot better than the P3 so that you can cover a much larger area of ocean more quickly, although the electro-optical systems are probably not that much more advanced than the latest P3K update. The radar should be a reasonable step-up from the Israeli Elta system going in the P3K's.

I would imagine that 4 P8's will cost around the 1 Billion dollar mark depending on systems config, luckily the airframe is a known commodity and there are some economies of scale already there.

I would imagine that the the Orions will be used at least until 2020 with the last aircraft from the latest update not coming online until 2010, likewise with the C-130 program. Would'nt be surprised if 2025 was a more realistic replacement date, by which time the airframes will be 60 years old :(

[Whiskyjack]

I guess with a P8 you would hope that the sensors( AN/APS-137B(V)5) are a whole lot better than the P3 so that you can cover a much larger area of ocean more quickly, although the electro-optical systems are probably not that much more advanced than the latest P3K update. The radar should be a reasonable step-up from the Israeli Elta system going in the P3K's.

I would imagine that 4 P8's will cost around the 1 Billion dollar mark depending on systems config, luckily the airframe is a known commodity and there are some economies of scale already there.

I would imagine that the the Orions will be used at least until 2020 with the last aircraft from the latest update not coming online until 2010, likewise with the C-130 program. Would'nt be surprised if 2025 was a more realistic replacement date, by which time the airframes will be 60 years old :(

The P8 will have a better availability, based on a commercial design and will fly much higher generally as well, less chance of corrosion damage.

You have to remember that by 2020 UAVs will be plugged into the operational grid of most western forces so not unrealistic for the NZDF.

I think we a wondering off topic tho.
:p:

[Sea Toby]

And by 2020-2025 the Hercules will cost as much as the P-8, the above figure for both in American dollars, not New Zealand dollars. Possibly another $4 billion in New Zealand dollars. I wouldn't even be surprised if Lockheed lenghtened and widened the aircraft by then, with a new C-140A aircraft.

Since the Anzacs were commissioned at the end of the past century, I suspect they should live until 2030-2035. By that time to replace them with the same warships Australia will acquire, it wouldn't surprise me they would cost a billion dollars each in New Zealand dollars.

Of course, this is really looking into a crystal ball. I wonder whether the New Zealand defence force spending will reflect the same percentage of GDP.

[stray_kiwi]

I wonder if the RNZAF propose to conduct ab initio helicopter training on the new LUH or if they subcontract that phase out to a civilian R22 operator, would probably be a cheaper option, then transition to the 2 engine LUH post solo.

The subcontracting scenario sounds like the most feasible (read: cheapest) idea. There are a couple of helicopter flight schools in the lower NI area that could handle the teaching load easily.

Has there been any further developments on the LUH purchase? I can't find anything anywhere.

[stray_kiwi]

The P8 will have a better availability, based on a commercial design and will fly much higher generally as well, less chance of corrosion damage.


I think that could be a problem. The way the RNZAF use the Orion for S&R they require a low speed, low to medium altitude, high loiter time aircraft. I doubt that turbofans are the way to go to if they want to maintain the flexibility of turboprops.

Sorry to wander OT but I wanted to give my 5c before they get taken out of circulation ;)

[KH-12]

The subcontracting scenario sounds like the most feasible (read: cheapest) idea. There are a couple of helicopter flight schools in the lower NI area that could handle the teaching load easily.

Has there been any further developments on the LUH purchase? I can't find anything anywhere.

There has been talk of 6 aircraft being proposed for this role, most people are assuming it will be either the A109 or EC135, although I think that these aircraft will be very busy given the hourly operating cost of the NH90, can't imagine you would need more than a couple of airframes for the "training role" per se. Looks like 9 NH90 have been ordered rather than 8 as well. I think the real intention is to use them to complement the NH90 in operational tasks that don't require that size of aircraft , calling them training aircraft sounds like a bit of a rouse.

[Markus40]

Can anyone give me a straight answer as to why we couldnt purchase the LUH helo and operate them under a civil contractor? IE The Police Department. Instead of the Defence Forces. The LUH purchase would appear in my opinion to be irrelevant to the overall Defence Forces procurement programmes due to the non military nature of its intended operations, other than training.

It can be used for the Military if needed immediatly, but in the normal day to day training and light ops, why it couldnt operate within the Police Departments jurisdiction.

[KH-12]

Can anyone give me a straight answer as to why we couldnt purchase the LUH helo and operate them under a civil contractor? IE The Police Department. Instead of the Defence Forces. The LUH purchase would appear in my opinion to be irrelevant to the overall Defence Forces procurement programmes due to the non military nature of its intended operations, other than training.

It can be used for the Military if needed immediatly, but in the normal day to day training and light ops, why it couldnt operate within the Police Departments jurisdiction.

I believe that it will have a military role, in the early days the Sqioux was employed in an observation role by the Army but was abandoned as attrition took hold there is no reason why the the new aircraft could'nt fill this role also, I can also see a role for the LUH in co-operation with the SAS, alot of the training will also be advanced tactical operations such as low flying / Formation flying, probably NV also, not something you would nessessarily want to subcontract outside the Air Force, it is certainly not a core mission for the Police.

I believe that ab initio helicopter training should be contracted out to a civilian training organisation as operating costs should be cheaper, this will free up the LUH for advanced training and associated military / civil defence / SAR duties.

[Sea Toby]

Military doctrine and police doctrine are two different beasts, always have been and always will be. I am sure the air force does not wish to confuse its new pilots with civilian rules of engagement, and want no part of civilian training. I would rather have the Australian military train New Zealand pilots than use civilian instructors. Yes, the pilots will learn their flying skills, but the doctrine will be out of whack.

The air force will use the LUHs in operations besides training anyway, whenever the usage of a NH90 will be overkill. For example, you wouldn't use a truck to move a portable TV, you would use the back seat of a car. Then again, if the car is too small for your big screen TV, you'll use a truck.

[stray_kiwi]

Military doctrine and police doctrine are two different beasts, always have been and always will be. I am sure the air force does not wish to confuse its new pilots with civilian rules of engagement, and want no part of civilian training. I would rather have the Australian military train New Zealand pilots than use civilian instructors. Yes, the pilots will learn their flying skills, but the doctrine will be out of whack.


The RAF subcontract out their ab inito flight training to civilian commercial flying schools. I would assume that the flight syllabus could be tailored for the military, but as for the doctrine problem, I guess the RAF have a solution. Sorry, but as a civilian I don't really have a decent understanding of this issue.

[KH-12]

The RAF subcontract out their ab inito flight training to civilian commercial flying schools. I would assume that the flight syllabus could be tailored for the military, but as for the doctrine problem, I guess the RAF have a solution. Sorry, but as a civilian I don't really have a decent understanding of this issue.

Yes it is a reasonable thing to do , these pilots will have already done alot of hours in CT4E's and King Airs within the RNZAF flying training process, doctrine would not have a lot to do with just getting to grips with flying a rotary winged aircraft, the advanced training yes, the ab initio helicopter not really, its not like you are going to teach formation or tactical flying in the first 50hrs or so.

[Gibbo]

There has been talk of 6 aircraft being proposed for this role, most people are assuming it will be either the A109 or EC135, although I think that these aircraft will be very busy given the hourly operating cost of the NH90, can't imagine you would need more than a couple of airframes for the "training role" per se. Looks like 9 NH90 have been ordered rather than 8 as well. I think the real intention is to use them to complement the NH90 in operational tasks that don't require that size of aircraft , calling them training aircraft sounds like a bit of a rouse.

Hey firstly it's fantastic to see the RNZAF finally getting a decent piece of true military kit :) :) :)

With regard to the LUH - the word on the street seems to be 6 is the number, but I've seen absolutely nothing anywhere official that indicates what types are shortvlisted - EC635 would be my 'dream machine' but it's all spec for now. Anyone with an ear truly close to the ground heard what shortlisted?

Okay so here's my pick (he says as he reaches for the crystal ball)... as Defence Minister states "operational funding will be tight..." which means in a few years we'll find we have 'em but can't afford to fly 'em - so takes arm-twisting from Aussie before we dust 'em off for E. Timor or whereever.

They find that the 6 LUH purchased were simply too few and are working damned hard to keep up with op demands. New Govt then decides it needs more of the cheaper LUH & suddenly we're faced with an excellent opportunity to go for an armed LUH/LOH chopper based on LUH design (EC635 - grunt, grunt!)! Finally the NZ Army get the air cover they've been needing in the field! Oh well, dreams are free!

I know when they first started looking at Sioux replacement the plan was for a civvy operator to maintain (& own?) the fleet - like the 42Sqn B200 fleet, that was unlikely to be overseas deployable. The requirements have obviously changed but will the new LUH be overseas deployable!?! Wherever you take an NH-90 you'll need a LUH for the smaller tasks so let's hope.

Hey here's a thought - it's been clearly stated that NH-90 will be 'stowed on the vehicle deck' of the MRV - how on earth do they intend to roll them on/off with the ramp angles that they'll have to contend with - I guess on the back of a flat deck truck!?! Imagine trying to unload them if they need to use the LCM's - would you dip an NH-90 toes in salt water??? The 'hatches' in the MRV deck do not constitute a lift as I understand it nor are they likely to be used to lift an NH-90 up to the flight deck. Oh so many questions....damn 0 I can't wait till 2010 to see these babies arrive!!!;)

[stray_kiwi]

Hey firstly it's fantastic to see the RNZAF finally getting a decent piece of true military kit :) :) :)


Well, I guess you could qualify that by saying that by saying its been a long time coming. When the RNZAF got the A4's in 1971 they were a massive upgrade from the vampires and canberra's and certainly qualified as "a decent piece of true military kit". ;)

If you extend the same projection to the current situation the NH90 will be asked to serve NZ's needs for at least 40 years and probably a lot longer. That is what worries me.

[Mr Brown]

I bet that the ill informed media is going to have a field day with the possibility of the NH-90 and LUH contracts costs exceeding $1bn. They never seem to understand that introducing new equipment costs more than buying more examples of equipment already in service, there are training costs, spares and logistics costs. But then again if the current govt hadn't taken so long to make a decision we could have bought them when the Kiwi was stronger against the Euro.

Hopefully the current 9 NH-90s and rumoured 6 LUHs may represent an initial order, with possibility of more in future once the new machines are integrated into service.

[Gibbo]

Well, I guess you could qualify that by saying that by saying its been a long time coming. When the RNZAF got the A4's in 1971 they were a massive upgrade from the vampires and canberra's and certainly qualified as "a decent piece of true military kit". ;)

If you extend the same projection to the current situation the NH90 will be asked to serve NZ's needs for at least 40 years and probably a lot longer. That is what worries me.

Yep absolutely agree - it's been far too long coming! The RNZAF damn well deserve a decent chopper after all the mess the Govt's over the last 15-20 years have made! Yeah I'm concerned with the expectation that these babies will last 30-40 years - the only reason the Hueys lastest so long was they have no modern electronics & basic airframe! I'd give the NH-90 20 years before they've slogged the guts out of them (they'll be like our C-130's - highest houred in the world due to the small fleet size).

[KH-12]

Yep absolutely agree - it's been far too long coming! The RNZAF damn well deserve a decent chopper after all the mess the Govt's over the last 15-20 years have made! Yeah I'm concerned with the expectation that these babies will last 30-40 years - the only reason the Hueys lastest so long was they have no modern electronics & basic airframe! I'd give the NH-90 20 years before they've slogged the guts out of them (they'll be like our C-130's - highest houred in the world due to the small fleet size).

I think with the long development cycles in todays aircraft there is an expectation that equipment will last for a reasonable period of time as long as they can still do the job required of them, look at the B52 for example or the KC-135's. With the composite airframe the fatigue life should be less of an issue and as long as avionics etc can be upgraded then I don't see why they should'nt enjoy a service life comparable to the UH-1H. With the high operating costs of the NH90 versus the UH-1H I would hope that the LUH will take some of the load with regard to those tasks that don't require the big beast. I would'nt like to be the first pilot to put a dent in one :(

[KH-12]

Hey firstly it's fantastic to see the RNZAF finally getting a decent piece of true military kit :) :) :)

With regard to the LUH - the word on the street seems to be 6 is the number, but I've seen absolutely nothing anywhere official that indicates what types are shortvlisted - EC635 would be my 'dream machine' but it's all spec for now. Anyone with an ear truly close to the ground heard what shortlisted?

Okay so here's my pick (he says as he reaches for the crystal ball)... as Defence Minister states "operational funding will be tight..." which means in a few years we'll find we have 'em but can't afford to fly 'em - so takes arm-twisting from Aussie before we dust 'em off for E. Timor or whereever.

They find that the 6 LUH purchased were simply too few and are working damned hard to keep up with op demands. New Govt then decides it needs more of the cheaper LUH & suddenly we're faced with an excellent opportunity to go for an armed LUH/LOH chopper based on LUH design (EC635 - grunt, grunt!)! Finally the NZ Army get the air cover they've been needing in the field! Oh well, dreams are free!

I know when they first started looking at Sioux replacement the plan was for a civvy operator to maintain (& own?) the fleet - like the 42Sqn B200 fleet, that was unlikely to be overseas deployable. The requirements have obviously changed but will the new LUH be overseas deployable!?! Wherever you take an NH-90 you'll need a LUH for the smaller tasks so let's hope.

Hey here's a thought - it's been clearly stated that NH-90 will be 'stowed on the vehicle deck' of the MRV - how on earth do they intend to roll them on/off with the ramp angles that they'll have to contend with - I guess on the back of a flat deck truck!?! Imagine trying to unload them if they need to use the LCM's - would you dip an NH-90 toes in salt water??? The 'hatches' in the MRV deck do not constitute a lift as I understand it nor are they likely to be used to lift an NH-90 up to the flight deck. Oh so many questions....damn 0 I can't wait till 2010 to see these babies arrive!!!;)

I think someone has mentioned that the MRV has an absolutely massive hangar immediately in front of the flight deck where the 4 NH90 and 1 Seasprite can be stowed, its abit like a tardis , small entrance way and big inside ;) , so you just roll them out onto the flight deck to launch.

[stray_kiwi]

I think with the long development cycles in todays aircraft there is an expectation that equipment will last for a reasonable period of time as long as they can still do the job required of them, look at the B52 for example or the KC-135's. With the composite airframe the fatigue life should be less of an issue and as long as avionics etc can be upgraded then I don't see why they should'nt enjoy a service life comparable to the UH-1H.

One of the great things about metal is that the fatigue rate is generally consistent across all stressed parts. The same is not necessarily true for composite construction. Thats not to say the airframes won't last as long as the UH-1H, some might well last a lot longer. Its just that we may find drastically different fatigue rates in different airframes.

[Gibbo]

I think someone has mentioned that the MRV has an absolutely massive hangar immediately in front of the flight deck where the 4 NH90 and 1 Seasprite can be stowed, its abit like a tardis , small entrance way and big inside ;) , so you just roll them out onto the flight deck to launch.

Can't find the link at the moment but there is a definite 'official' reference somewhere that the 4 x NH-90 are on the vehicle deck but in an area designated as 'aviation space'. There's a number of excellent photos around the www now of the MRV on sea trials & shots of the stern & superstructure seem to clearly show the hangar is limited in size. An email from Tenix in response to this question 18 months ago stated the hangar can store 2 x SeaSprites & NH-90 are 'down below'. Sea Toby states same in the 'Project Protector' thread...anyhow I'm getting off topic now!

Go the NH-90 - now let's just see what LUH is served up.

[Whiskyjack]

Can't find the link at the moment but there is a definite 'official' reference somewhere that the 4 x NH-90 are on the vehicle deck but in an area designated as 'aviation space'. There's a number of excellent photos around the www now of the MRV on sea trials & shots of the stern & superstructure seem to clearly show the hangar is limited in size. An email from Tenix in response to this question 18 months ago stated the hangar can store 2 x SeaSprites & NH-90 are 'down below'. Sea Toby states same in the 'Project Protector' thread...anyhow I'm getting off topic now!

Go the NH-90 - now let's just see what LUH is served up.

My understanding is that the NH90s are located on the same level as the Seasprite and access the flight deck through the Seasprite hanger. I guess that the deck could also ve used for vehicles if the NH90s were not being carried, hence the confusion?

[KH-12]

One of the great things about metal is that the fatigue rate is generally consistent across all stressed parts. The same is not necessarily true for composite construction. Thats not to say the airframes won't last as long as the UH-1H, some might well last a lot longer. Its just that we may find drastically different fatigue rates in different airframes.

My understanding of composite structures (CRP / GRP / Kevlar) is that they are fine up until the point when their structural limit is reached at which point there will be a catastrophic failure, so they don't have a fatigue life as such, flying a composite aircraft on a regular basis this is always on my mind when performing high G manuovres or flying in strong turbulance :(

[Sea Toby]

As I recall, there is information from both Tennix and the government that the hangar on the MRV and OPVs are the same as what is on the Anzacs. One helicopter can be stored in this hangar. However, I have read that there is space for the NH90s separate from the other vehicles. Whether it is on the vehicle deck are in front of the hangar is unknown. From the pictures available on the world wide web, the smokestack is besides the hangar, with the landing boats and cranes on each side of the hangar and smokestack. There could possibly be storage space in front of the hangar, but that space could be used for the berthing. I have asked for someone to scan and upload the deck plans for the MRV for clearification.

On the civilian sister ferries of the MRV, vehicles are stowed on the 3rd and 5th decks. Its very possible the NH90s could be stowed on the 5th deck in front of the hangar. I wish Tennix or the navy released deck plans, if that's too much of a secret, I wish either would release a cut-a-way view of the interior of the MRV. Since the helicopters are rated as 10 ton helicopters, I believe the 60 ton cranes can easily lift them through the hatches from the vehicle deck (3rd) to the helicopter deck (5th).

[stryker NZ]

ive seen the plans for the MRV the choppers arnt stored on the vehicle deck. on the plans they were stored directly in front of the hanger in a large storage area that pretty much stretches all the way to the front of the vessel.

p.s the plans are not on the internet i saw them at the naval base in Devenport

[KH-12]

ive seen the plans for the MRV the choppers arnt stored on the vehicle deck. on the plans they were stored directly in front of the hanger in a large storage area that pretty much stretches all the way to the front of the vessel.

p.s the plans are not on the internet i saw them at the naval base in Devenport

So if the Sprite is in the Hangar you would have to move it to the back of the flight deck then bring each of the NH90 out in sequence through the Sprite Hangar and fly them off the forward landing spot.

[Sea Toby]

Or all of the aircraft would take off one at a time as they are readied on the flight deck aft, including the Seasprite. Yes, the MRV is going to be a special vessel, useful throughout the South Pacific region. From patrol duties in the Southern Ocean to disaster relief operations worldwide. While she is not the largest amphibious ship around, she can move 250 men, their equipment and supplies, as well as any other MRV.

[stryker NZ]

So if the Sprite is in the Hangar you would have to move it to the back of the flight deck then bring each of the NH90 out in sequence through the Sprite Hangar and fly them off the forward landing spot.

exactly theres a door that seperates the hanger and the NH-90 storage area and to get them out they go through the hanger

[Sea Toby]

I can't wait for the SeaSprite and the Huey helicopters operate off the MRV. We'll see that show before the NH90s arrive. Since the Hueys are smaller, I wonder whether they can squeeze another one or two onboard? But that show won't be the same show when the NH90s arrive.

I can't wait to see pictures of the Canterbury filled up with Army equipment on the vehicle deck either. I would pay for a DVD seeing the Army drive on and off the ramps! What an interesting hour that would be.

[Whiskyjack]

I can't wait for the SeaSprite and the Huey helicopters operate off the MRV. We'll see that show before the NH90s arrive. Since the Hueys are smaller, I wonder whether they can squeeze another one or two onboard? But that show won't be the same show when the NH90s arrive.

I can't wait to see pictures of the Canterbury filled up with Army equipment on the vehicle deck either. I would pay for a DVD seeing the Army drive on and off the ramps! What an interesting hour that would be.

Thats a good point Sea Toby, my guess is that 6 Huey's would fit into the space of 4 NH90s. It is actually possible that ADF NH90s might fly off the Canterbury before NZDF NH90s do!

[KH-12]

Thats a good point Sea Toby, my guess is that 6 Huey's would fit into the space of 4 NH90s. It is actually possible that ADF NH90s might fly off the Canterbury before NZDF NH90s do!

I see Australia is scheduled to receive their first aircraft in 2007, seems a shame we have to wait until 2010, hopefully the LUH is onboard a bit sooner, the A109 would be quite a nice choice, its speed would match that of the NH90 more closely than the EC135, if employed in a light escort role :cool:

[Markus40]

Im pretty sceptical guys about the NZ Huey operating off a MRV prior to the NH90s coming into service. Unless of course they were stored and flew to a LZ or base elsewhere for operations. The reason being is that the Huey have a skid landing, and in a rough sea state might cause considerable damage to the deck of the MRV and the Huey(s). I really dont think this would be practable. Especially if they had to be tied down to the deck.

[Sea Toby]

The US Navy operates Hueys on its LHDs and LHAs. Simply add 4 wheels and 2 axles to the bottom skids, and the helicopters can be rolled around. I believe Bell and Augusta offers a kit. Its not expensive.

I found this diagram of a sister civilian ferry at the Bornholm ferries web site of the Hammerodde. While its not an exact diagram of the Canterbury, it does shine some light where the NH90 helicopter space is.

In my eyes there appears to be enough space for helicopter storage just forward of the hangar, amidships and aft of the central lift on the fifth deck. The hangar on the Canterbury is the funnel area. Whether there is a lift on the MRV I haven't a clue.

http://www.bornholmferries.dk/skibene/ho/92we.aspx?_m=6

[dave_kiwi]

Hmmm

At last something I am qualified to comment on

When I worked in 3 Sqn some 20 years ago, we used to attach "pump" up wheels to the skids of the Huey's. Simple hydraulic pumps allowed us to raise the skids off the ground, and then the Huey's could be towed / wheeled around as required. (Wheels fitted near or on the C of G). We could either use a tractor or man handle the Huey ...

As for landing on the decks of RNZN ships - I believ the Huey's have "operated" off the Endeavour -- though I am not sure if this is still current practise

[dave_kiwi]

This may be of interest:

http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/MRV.asp

Third paragraph down:

The hangar to house the ships SEASPRITE Helicopter was also left open and shows the workshops off to one side and the forward doors through which 5 MRH-90 transport helicopters can be stored.

One would assume that the model maker would have access or have been provided the necessary information to build an accurate model

[stray_kiwi]

My understanding of composite structures (CRP / GRP / Kevlar) is that they are fine up until the point when their structural limit is reached at which point there will be a catastrophic failure, so they don't have a fatigue life as such, flying a composite aircraft on a regular basis this is always on my mind when performing high G manuovres or flying in strong turbulance :(

Thats the main reason why I will not fly composite aircraft.
I hope that the public can be persuaded that these aircraft will require replacement much sooner than 40 years.

[KH-12]

Im pretty sceptical guys about the NZ Huey operating off a MRV prior to the NH90s coming into service. Unless of course they were stored and flew to a LZ or base elsewhere for operations. The reason being is that the Huey have a skid landing, and in a rough sea state might cause considerable damage to the deck of the MRV and the Huey(s). I really dont think this would be practable. Especially if they had to be tied down to the deck.

The US Marines also operate their Cobras of ships and they employ skid landing gear also, and I believe the Italians have also flown Huey derivatives off their ships for many years.

[KH-12]

Thats the main reason why I will not fly composite aircraft.
I hope that the public can be persuaded that these aircraft will require replacement much sooner than 40 years.

I really can't see these aircraft being replaced much sooner, the US Army is looking to keep its AH-64's in service for a similar period of time, as long as they can be updated and still perform their mission why replace. If you don't want your composite structure to break don't exceed the airframe limits, its as simple as that (there is normally a reasonable safety margin anyway), at least with composites you can see when they are broken its not some insidious process as with metal alloys. I feel much safer flying in a composite aircraft than a metal one that has done 30,000 pressurization cycles.:fly

[Whiskyjack]

While I agree the UH-1 is not going to be the ideal chopper to fly off the MRV, it will be the only chopper available, with the exception of the Seasprites, for four years 2007-2011 (while the first NH90 arrives 2010 I can't see it on board operationally before 2011, maybe even 2012!

The other main issue to consider is that the UH-1 is not going to provide the lift needed off the MRV, 2 UH-1s off the back will carry 10 fully equipped troops! And underslung load will not be flash either.

So while I am sure the UH-1 will be transported and used on the MRV, realistically for 4-5 years the aviation lift capability from the MRV will be minimal at best IMHO.

Another thing I was wondering and this probably belongs in the Protector thread, but can the MRV carry Chinooks? While they may fit in the main hanger can they pass through the Seasprite hanger?

[KH-12]

While I agree the UH-1 is not going to be the ideal chopper to fly off the MRV, it will be the only chopper available, with the exception of the Seasprites, for four years 2007-2011 (while the first NH90 arrives 2010 I can't see it on board operationally before 2011, maybe even 2012!

The other main issue to consider is that the UH-1 is not going to provide the lift needed off the MRV, 2 UH-1s off the back will carry 10 fully equipped troops! And underslung load will not be flash either.

So while I am sure the UH-1 will be transported and used on the MRV, realistically for 4-5 years the aviation lift capability from the MRV will be minimal at best IMHO.

Another thing I was wondering and this probably belongs in the Protector thread, but can the MRV carry Chinooks? While they may fit in the main hanger can they pass through the Seasprite hanger?

Interesting you should raise the Chinook issue I was wondering whether we might have been better off getting say 3 Chinooks and another aircraft of say AW139 size, with the Chinooks providing the heavy lift. I would think the height might be an issue in terms of stowage through the Hangar entrance, The NH90 is 5.23m while the Chinook is 5.8m and I suspect there is'nt much clearance on the NH90.

[Whiskyjack]

Interesting you should raise the Chinook issue I was wondering whether we might have been better off getting say 3 Chinooks and another aircraft of say AW139 size, with the Chinooks providing the heavy lift. I would think the height might be an issue in terms of stowage through the Hangar entrance, The NH90 is 5.23m while the Chinook is 5.8m and I suspect there is'nt much clearance on the NH90.

I think when any country looks at defence purchases there is a critical mass, which a c country must meet before it is worth while. When it comes to the Chinook, I think 6 is around the number, 3 is not going to meet the critical mass.

[KH-12]

I think when any country looks at defence purchases there is a critical mass, which a c country must meet before it is worth while. When it comes to the Chinook, I think 6 is around the number, 3 is not going to meet the critical mass.

Yes 6 would be good but Australia managed with only 4 for a number of years and we have only 2 757's (probably a bad example :confused: ), 3 should still give you 2 aircraft available for deployment at any point in time.

The self-deployment capability of the NH90 has been hailed as amajor advantage by the defence minister in the last few days, saying that it can self-deploy to most of the major pacific islands. From what I can work out this would be accomplished by flying over water legs in excess of 4 hours duration and at the limit of its range (with additional fuel carried) with not alot of safety margin. Is this just a notional capability for selling to the public or is it likely to be a operational option that is used on a regular basis (or is it to cover up problems with getting it in the back of a C-130), would be keen to hear peoples perspective.

[KH-12]

The EADS press release is confirming the number of ordered airframes at 9,
http://www.eads.com/web/lang/en/1024/content/OF00000000400004/5/82/40820825.html

What exactly does 9 to provide 8 operational aircraft mean, is the 9th aircraft kept in a box at the back of Ohakea incase of an attrition loss, or does this just reflect the loss of an airframe due to routinue manitenance cycles ? :confused:

[Lucasnz]

The EADS press release is confirming the number of ordered airframes at 9,
http://www.eads.com/web/lang/en/1024/content/OF00000000400004/5/82/40820825.html

What exactly does 9 to provide 8 operational aircraft mean, is the 9th aircraft kept in a box at the back of Ohakea incase of an attrition loss, or does this just reflect the loss of an airframe due to routinue manitenance cycles ? :confused:

The recent wings Magazine did an article on the SH-2G where they said that at anytime they can deploy 3 out of 5 helicopter. That would allow for 1 in Deep Maintenance and 1 for training. Maybe they're looking at two operational flights of 4 aircraft (1 Deployed & 1 in training for deployment) and 1 aircraft in deep maint. My view on the matter anyway. At least we got a spare.

[Whiskyjack]

Yes 6 would be good but Australia managed with only 4 for a number of years and we have only 2 757's (probably a bad example :confused: ), 3 should still give you 2 aircraft available for deployment at any point in time.

The self-deployment capability of the NH90 has been hailed as amajor advantage by the defence minister in the last few days, saying that it can self-deploy to most of the major pacific islands. From what I can work out this would be accomplished by flying over water legs in excess of 4 hours duration and at the limit of its range (with additional fuel carried) with not alot of safety margin. Is this just a notional capability for selling to the public or is it likely to be a operational option that is used on a regular basis (or is it to cover up problems with getting it in the back of a C-130), would be keen to hear peoples perspective.

The problem IMO is that to the deployed force will have maintenance requirements, which will mean that at any one time only, for the sake of argument. 80% of deployed assets will be available. So to deploy 2 will mean 1.6 are available. While at home there will be a need for deep base level maintenance and training, both crew and operational training with the army and navy.

There is also basic economics of a force size.

Of course this depends on the type of mission where two or one may be perfectly acceptable to the mission requirements.

However in say a ET scenario where you are generating sorties to move considerable amounts of troops and equipment you would want more platforms available.

So IMHO if you are the NZDF and you were looking at the Ch-47 (given the NH90 is signed up this is hypothetical) then you would be looking at 6. The ability to deploy 3 with another 3 at home in maintenance and training.

[Whiskyjack]

The recent wings Magazine did an article on the SH-2G where they said that at anytime they can deploy 3 out of 5 helicopter. That would allow for 1 in Deep Maintenance and 1 for training. Maybe they're looking at two operational flights of 4 aircraft (1 Deployed & 1 in training for deployment) and 1 aircraft in deep maint. My view on the matter anyway. At least we got a spare.

amen to that!

[KH-12]

Have been having a look at the potential self deployment option for the NH90 through to the Pacific Islands looks like the most likely route would be via Raoul Island in the Kermadecs, would require a refuelling base there with a reasonable capacity, from there the next hop is to Tonga, one sector to the east is Niue and one sector to the west is Fiji. The other option via Norfolk Island takes alot longer. All quite long sectors of about 1000km. I presume with the additional long range tanks the payload is negligible.

Back in March a Mil 17 did the trip to Raoul in about 5 hours to pick up the met service people , quite a trek over open water.

[Markus40]

If Raoul Island didnt have an active volcano this would make a good base for a self deployment option. Its extremely doubtful based on the geology of the Island that the government would want to invest any base infrasture there. Niue is a far better option. BTW the range for the NH90 is 800km. The closest point departing NZ at a NNE direction is 1100 km.



Have been having a look at the potential self deployment option for the NH90 through to the Pacific Islands looks like the most likely route would be via Raoul Island in the Kermadecs, would require a refuelling base there with a reasonable capacity, from there the next hop is to Tonga, one sector to the east is Niue and one sector to the west is Fiji. The other option via Norfolk Island takes alot longer. All quite long sectors of about 1000km. I presume with the additional long range tanks the payload is negligible.

Back in March a Mil 17 did the trip to Raoul in about 5 hours to pick up the met service people , quite a trek over open water.

[Whiskyjack]

If Raoul Island didnt have an active volcano this would make a good base for a self deployment option. Its extremely doubtful based on the geology of the Island that the government would want to invest any base infrasture there. Niue is a far better option. BTW the range for the NH90 is 800km. The closest point departing NZ at a NNE direction is 1100 km.

yes I am a bit sceptical of this self deployment talk. Technically possible I am sure, but I can't see it as an operational reality from NZ. The vast percentage of deployments from NZ will be by ship. That doesn't mean that they can't deploy better within a theatre of ops though.

[Gibbo]

If Raoul Island didnt have an active volcano this would make a good base for a self deployment option. Its extremely doubtful based on the geology of the Island that the government would want to invest any base infrasture there. Niue is a far better option. BTW the range for the NH90 is 800km. The closest point departing NZ at a NNE direction is 1100 km.

NH-90 is slated at 1200km ferry range (additonal tanks, no payload)

http://www.nhindustries.com/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?arbo=3&noeu_id=10012&lang=EN

1100km NNE = is this Norfolk Island? Yeah 1100km still too afr if you can only push out to 12ookm. IMHO these babies will not self-deploy often - the MRV will do the lion's share of this, with a the odd C-130 deploy. I guess it depends on what is meant by the MRV will carry the 4 x NH-90's "on the vehicle deck". If it's not at flight-deck level then loading / unloading could be damned difficult, esp. via LCM.

Granted there will be occassions only 1-2 will be deployed but guess we just gotta wait & see! Groan - doesn't 2010 seem so far way!?!:(

[Whiskyjack]

NH-90 is slated at 1200km ferry range (additonal tanks, no payload)

http://www.nhindustries.com/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?arbo=3&noeu_id=10012&lang=EN

1100km NNE = is this Norfolk Island? Yeah 1100km still too afr if you can only push out to 12ookm. IMHO these babies will not self-deploy often - the MRV will do the lion's share of this, with a the odd C-130 deploy. I guess it depends on what is meant by the MRV will carry the 4 x NH-90's "on the vehicle deck". If it's not at flight-deck level then loading / unloading could be damned difficult, esp. via LCM.

Granted there will be occassions only 1-2 will be deployed but guess we just gotta wait & see! Groan - doesn't 2010 seem so far way!?!:(

I believe that the NH90s will have access to the flight deck from the same level.

Agree that 2010 is still a long time away and then think that the actual operational deployment date will probably be 2 years from that.

Still on the bright side Aussie and the Europeans will have been operating them for a while by that stage so it should make things smoother for the NZDF.

[KH-12]

If Raoul Island didnt have an active volcano this would make a good base for a self deployment option. Its extremely doubtful based on the geology of the Island that the government would want to invest any base infrasture there. Niue is a far better option. BTW the range for the NH90 is 800km. The closest point departing NZ at a NNE direction is 1100 km.

Raoul might be an active volcanoe (well semi) but we have full time DOC staff based there so would'nt be a problem to have a fuel supply and landing area does'nt have to be a huge investment (or manned) parts of the island are OK and a reasonable distance from the craters. Strategically it is in the right place as a refueling stop and fits inside the 1200km ferry range of the NH90 (1084km, am assuming the 1200km incorporates std reserve). This allows a one stop deployment to our region of interest. The alternate route is quite time consuming (via Norfolk), if the aircraft was required in region quickly and you did'nt want to disassemble to put in the back of a C130 or wait for the MRV deployment it is certainly an option.

[Gibbo]

Has anyone actually heard what's been officially shortlisted for LUH?

[Sea Toby]

All of us presumed with a NH90 order the LUH would be a Eurocopter EC-135, but there doesn't seem to be any link now. The LUH could be any light helicopter next year, although I would say the favorite is still the EC-135. There really isn't much difference in the light helicopter category in price, to me the bigget difference is appearance.

[KH-12]

All of us presumed with a NH90 order the LUH would be a Eurocopter EC-135, but there doesn't seem to be any link now. The LUH could be any light helicopter next year, although I would say the favorite is still the EC-135. There really isn't much difference in the light helicopter category in price, to me the bigget difference is appearance.


I think that the A109 LUH is still a distinct possibility, plus the fact that having a wheeled U/C it would be easier to move around on the MRV if deployed alongside the NH90, apparently Augusta/Westland are very keen to have a presence in the NZ market at the moment, this would be a nice entry opportunity. Both the EC135 or A109 would be good aircraft.

[Whiskyjack]

I think that the A109 LUH is still a distinct possibility, plus the fact that having a wheeled U/C it would be easier to move around on the MRV if deployed alongside the NH90, apparently Augusta/Westland are very keen to have a presence in the NZ market at the moment, this would be a nice entry opportunity. Both the EC135 or A109 would be good aircraft.

It would depend on whether the powers that be consider the the LUH as a deployable asset or a stay at home one.

I hope it is the former.

[KH-12]

It would depend on whether the powers that be consider the the LUH as a deployable asset or a stay at home one.

I hope it is the former.

Yes hopefully logic will prevail, Phil Goff actually sounds like a reasonable Defence Minister for a change, good on him for getting the 9 NH90 approved, I'm sure there was a degree of resistance at the final cost from other members of cabinet. The A109 LUH comes with a defensive measures outfit so would be nice adjunct to the NH90 in a deployed operation, as long as no one tells Helen it has offensive capabilities they should get it through OK ;) its all in the presentation.

[Whiskyjack]

Yes hopefully logic will prevail, Phil Goff actually sounds like a reasonable Defence Minister for a change, good on him for getting the 9 NH90 approved, I'm sure there was a degree of resistance at the final cost from other members of cabinet. The A109 LUH comes with a defensive measures outfit so would be nice adjunct to the NH90 in a deployed operation, as long as no one tells Helen it has offensive capabilities they should get it through OK ;) its all in the presentation.

I would see it more as an economic issue, if you are deployed in a ET situation and you have an outpost in the jungle that requires re-supply/medivac etc, do you use a large expensive to operate helo like a NH90 or a smaller LUH? Same with VIP etc.

It is a Helo that would allow for the NH90 to be tasked with a primary mission of transport of troops and equipment while being backed up by a cheaper to run LUH for general Liaison duties.

[Gibbo]

It would depend on whether the powers that be consider the the LUH as a deployable asset or a stay at home one.

I hope it is the former.

Yeah hope so too. Original plan (2002) was for a training chopper leased from & maintained by civvy contractor similar to 42Sqgn's B200's - guess that would have ruled out overseas deployments. However with the change to combined training/LU type that's probably not relevant anymore.

The LUH will hopefully also be deployable on new RNZN OPV's when necessary as the 5 SH-2G's won't cover RNZN Op's + maintenance & training requirements at peak operational periods.

Hey read in the latest Pacific Wings mag that Govt is looking at 4-6 Q200 for RNZAF to cover transport; SAR & inshore aerial maritime patrol - I guess not unlike the Aussie's 'CoastWatch' a/c. AirNZ apparently likely to get the maintenance work. :dance :dance :dance

>>> Actually I'm very dubious about the accuracy of this report. :confused: Surely the Govt's not about to suddenly announce a significant a/c purchase a week after being accused of mis-management of the NH-90 purchase price!?! There's certainly been no 'talk' of such a purchase although it does fit the bill for one of the projects WAY down the LTDP list - yet the Govt's said that the NH-90's are the 'last of the major LTDP purchases' (need Goff's statements clarified - what about all the stuff still on the list?)

Anyone else got any comment about this report? Who's got their ear to the ground?

[KH-12]

Yeah hope so too. Original plan (2002) was for a training chopper leased from & maintained by civvy contractor similar to 42Sqgn's B200's - guess that would have ruled out overseas deployments. However with the change to combined training/LU type that's probably not relevant anymore.

The LUH will hopefully also be deployable on new RNZN OPV's when necessary as the 5 SH-2G's won't cover RNZN Op's + maintenance & training requirements at peak operational periods.

Hey read in the latest Pacific Wings mag that Govt is looking at 4-6 Q200 for RNZAF to cover transport; SAR & inshore aerial maritime patrol - I guess not unlike the Aussie's 'CoastWatch' a/c. AirNZ apparently likely to get the maintenance work. :dance :dance :dance

>>> Actually I'm very dubious about the accuracy of this report. :confused: Surely the Govt's not about to suddenly announce a significant a/c purchase a week after being accused of mis-management of the NH-90 purchase price!?! There's certainly been no 'talk' of such a purchase although it does fit the bill for one of the projects WAY down the LTDP list - yet the Govt's said that the NH-90's are the 'last of the major LTDP purchases' (need Goff's statements clarified - what about all the stuff still on the list?)

Anyone else got any comment about this report? Who's got their ear to the ground?

I thought that the govt got away with the annoucement of the NH90 cost very lightly, the opposition did'nt really run with it with any conviction (Winstons mozzie bite has gotten more airtime ! :loony ), maybe by "major" they mean $500M or more ;) Interesting that none of the local media has picked up on the 9 NH90 versus 8 declared by the defence ministers press release. EADS are saying 9 and I guess they should know how many they have sold.

Yes the LUH should make a good backup for the PP fleet if they get the right one (and numbers) It is slated to be used for aircrew training for the Sprites and the NH90 so should be capable of operating in the same environment as well so I would think a wheeled aircraft is a strong possibility which would push more towards the A109 rather than the EC135. I don't think anyone would really bulk at a $100M purchase for this item after the NH90 price revelation.

[stryker NZ]

how many A109 or EC135 would 100 million get the airforce because if their still going to go with the original number there not going to be much use for them other than training

[KH-12]

how many A109 or EC135 would 100 million get the airforce because if their still going to go with the original number there not going to be much use for them other than training

A109 is about $NZ8M probably more if you get the full military LUH version so say $NZ10M so if you go with a similar logistics support ratio to the NH90 deal you end up with say 6 or 7 airframes. The EC135 is abit cheaper but not that much , you might get one more airframe in. I think with 7 airframes you would still get a decent utility function out of them, I can't imagine you would be training more than 4 or 5 new Helicopter pilots per year you should be easily able to achieve this with 2 dedicated airframes.

[KH-12]

Looks like the NH90's are getting new homes to be pampered in :

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0608/S00130.htm

Will be a shame if Whenuapai is ever let go as an airfield, would hope that it can be retained as a joint RNZAF/Civilian facility of some sort.

[Sea Toby]

Considering the size of New Zealand's Air Force, one base at Ohakea should be enough, except for possibly the SeaSprites. The SeaSprites should still be based near Auckland, but they don't require long runways or an airfield. One hangar and a small tarmac will do. Its best Whenuapai's real estate was sold to the highest bidder, the area appears ripe for residential development. To save some funds, I would suggest selling all of the land except for one hangar and a small tarmac that currently exists, no more of an intrusion into a residential area than a fire dept. station, hospital, or school.

In Hood County Texas, there is an exclusive lake resort community in a huge pecan grove with a small private airport. The mansions along the runway have garages for their cars, airplanes, and golf carts. Hee!

[KH-12]

Yeah that might be OK, the land is actually a swamp and not overly suited to intensive residential development anyway. Besides for purely selfish reasons I like to fly out of there on the odd occasion :) . I think it is prudent to maintain a 2nd major air facility next to your major population centre.

[Gibbo]

Considering the size of New Zealand's Air Force, one base at Ohakea should be enough, except for possibly the SeaSprites. The SeaSprites should still be based near Auckland, but they don't require long runways or an airfield. ...

It is planned to keep 6 Sqn SeaSprites in Auckland - I understand the 2 options are (1) retain a presence at Whenuapai if it retains any airfield use (b) relocate to Akl International Airport

I'm personally in favour of the second - it will stop any nagging by locals (including calls for no night-flying etc) who all moved near Whenuapai 50+ years after it was established & who ALL knew the AirForce where there. Plus as the Airport is already a dedicated aviation facility with established security elements etc it would simplify the whole damn thing!

[Markus40]

What DOC do at Raoul and the military might be able to acheive are very 2 different things. I really do think the Raoul Is option would be stretched using a NH90 unless they had drums of fuel available in the back for the return journey. It might be a good strategic spot for a expansion of a military base, but unlikely due to mother natures extreme conditions in the region.



Raoul might be an active volcano (well semi) but we have full time DOC staff based there so would'nt be a problem to have a fuel supply and landing area does'nt have to be a huge investment (or manned) parts of the island are OK and a reasonable distance from the craters. Strategically it is in the right place as a refueling stop and fits inside the 1200km ferry range of the NH90 (1084km, am assuming the 1200km incorporates std reserve). This allows a one stop deployment to our region of interest. The alternate route is quite time consuming (via Norfolk), if the aircraft was required in region quickly and you did'nt want to disassemble to put in the back of a C130 or wait for the MRV deployment it is certainly an option.

[Markus40]

It makes sense on the latter, as we need the numbers to back up the short fall in the NH90s already on order. Probably whats best is that some can be used on deployment and some at home for domestic duties for our police forces and regional and training duties.



It would depend on whether the powers that be consider the the LUH as a deployable asset or a stay at home one.

I hope it is the former.

[Markus40]

The NH90 is a big chopper to put on the back of a OPV. Especially in comparison with the SH2G and its capabilities would way out hance the NH90 and give the OPV a more kick ass capability alongside our ANZACS. And we arent even sure that we can put in a NH90 into the back of a OPV. So, my guess is that the government will be in the hunt for 2 more SH2Gs in the future and we share the 5 SH2Gs in the mean time around the ANZACs and other surface units.


Yeah hope so too. Original plan (2002) was for a training chopper leased from & maintained by civvy contractor similar to 42Sqgn's B200's - guess that would have ruled out overseas deployments. However with the change to combined training/LU type that's probably not relevant anymore.

The LUH will hopefully also be deployable on new RNZN OPV's when necessary as the 5 SH-2G's won't cover RNZN Op's + maintenance & training requirements at peak operational periods.

Hey read in the latest Pacific Wings mag that Govt is looking at 4-6 Q200 for RNZAF to cover transport; SAR & inshore aerial maritime patrol - I guess not unlike the Aussie's 'CoastWatch' a/c. AirNZ apparently likely to get the maintenance work. :dance :dance :dance

>>> Actually I'm very dubious about the accuracy of this report. :confused: Surely the Govt's not about to suddenly announce a significant a/c purchase a week after being accused of mis-management of the NH-90 purchase price!?! There's certainly been no 'talk' of such a purchase although it does fit the bill for one of the projects WAY down the LTDP list - yet the Govt's said that the NH-90's are the 'last of the major LTDP purchases' (need Goff's statements clarified - what about all the stuff still on the list?)

Anyone else got any comment about this report? Who's got their ear to the ground?

[Gibbo]

The NH90 is a big chopper to put on the back of a OPV. Especially in comparison with the SH2G and its capabilities would way out hance the NH90 and give the OPV a more kick ass capability alongside our ANZACS. And we arent even sure that we can put in a NH90 into the back of a OPV. So, my guess is that the government will be in the hunt for 2 more SH2Gs in the future and we share the 5 SH2Gs in the mean time around the ANZACs and other surface units.

Yeah can't really see a NH-90 on the OPV's, but one on the MRV will at least be possible if SH2G airframes unavailable. When NZ purhased the SH2G they originally ordered 4 with 2 options. One of those options was taken up not long after so - but I guess the '2nd option' has long since lapsed. I'd be happy with even 1 additional SH2G - although 2's better! Unfortunately I see any additional SH2G unlikely.

[NZLAV]

The current Huey's the RNZAF operate have 2x M60 machine guns and have trained-proffesional door gunners. The Hueys are being replaced in 2010 by 8 NH90's and 6+ Light helicopters. Will the new NH90's be armed with M60's or similar. It would take a RNZAF engineer 10 minutes to weld up a mount. I would love to see the NH90's with an MG so that they can cover dismounting soliders. Will the new NH90's be armed with an MG?

[stryker NZ]

you would hope so i wouldnt want to be a soldier jumping out of a chopper in hostile territory without at least some covering fire. Just a point of interest i heard from a Navy weapons engineer that the Airforce and Navy are gonna start putting snipers in the back of the helicopters for increased cover dont know how effective that would be but its something.

[Whiskyjack]

you would hope so i wouldnt want to be a soldier jumping out of a chopper in hostile territory without at least some covering fire. Just a point of interest i heard from a Navy weapons engineer that the Airforce and Navy are gonna start putting snipers in the back of the helicopters for increased cover dont know how effective that would be but its something.


The advertisments showing the MRH-90 for the ADF show mounted 7.62 GPMGs mounted so I am sure it is an option for the NZ birds.