Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ngatimozart]

My take on the tiered approach over the next decade +

The last whitetail supplemented with an ex reserve stock C-17A in good nick that has been through Blocks 13-17 upgrades maybe would be a very good start. Four C-130J's to follow in the medium role and later on a number of the impressive MV-22 which we will hopefully be in the design/construction stages of MRASS to replace the CY that we can deploy them on. The MV-22 makes a lot of sense in the NZ context IMO. It is a 21st century solution. Of course we would need a MRASS for it to really unleash its full potential.

I agree with the C17 idea, however the numbers of the C130J I think would have to be six, at least, just to have enough numbers so that we don't end up thrashing the airframes resulting with a repeat of the SH2G(NZ) Seasprite saga where maintenance was continuously delayed in order to meet taskings; resulting in very little preventative maintenance being performed and the aircraft eventually requiring expensive rectification measures in order to ensure the capability remained operational.

Regarding the MV22, either acquire it now, or don't bother because by the end of the next decade it will have a successor lined up and flying. Due to the limited numbers built, compared to the Chooks, we will end up with an orphan expensive platform to operate and sustain, especially given that we will operate it for around 40 years.

 

[Todjaeger]

Regarding the MV22, either acquire it now, or don't bother because by the end of the next decade it will have a successor lined up and flying. Due to the limited numbers built, compared to the Chooks, we will end up with an orphan expensive platform to operate and sustain, especially given that we will operate it for around 40 years.

I do have concerns about the viability of the V-22 in RNZAF service (and for that matter, ADF service), though much of this relates to costs to operate.

IIRC the flyaway price of a V-22 approaches (or might even exceed) that of a C-130J. I do not know about the maintenance and support/ongoing operations costs, but given how the wings need to rotate between vertical and horizontal flight, I would not be surprised if the costs were also comparable.

While so far only limited numbers of V-22 have been purchased, depending on how certain developments shake out, I could see EV-22, SV-22 and PV-22 types entering service in the future. The ability for a naval taskforce to have organic AEW and MPA is very important. These roles can be fulfilled to a degree by embarked naval helicopters, but the ability to have larger aircraft, with pressurized cabins and able to reach higher altitudes, could expand past what just naval helicopters can do. While such roles might not be for the NZDF, there is potential for other defence forces to be interested and expand the numbers of V-22 airframes ordered.

Unfortunately, I believe the cost vs. capabilities the V-22 provides is too great to justify a RNZAF purchase. I would rather a few more transport helicopters be purchased to augment/replace the NH-90's, whether these are additional NH-90's, or a follow-on design is not so important. While a medium/heavy lift helicopter would be good (something able to lift an M777 plus stock of ordnance and crew), I feel that with there only currently being eight (or is it seven now?) NH-90's in inventory, the NZDF needs to increase current quantity before adding additional models into service.

 

[t68]

Funny you should mention helicopter numbers Todjaeger. Whilst reading up on the NZ NH90 on the NZ MOD Major projects report of 2011, it had a section on a number of different types with advantages and disadvantage as well as extra helicopter's for defence

Sikorsky UH-60 Blackhawk 15*aircraft
*Nil advantages
Require 15 aircraft to deliver requirements
• High operating costs

Agusta-Westland EH-101 9 aircraft
• Exceeds all key operational requirements with the exception of the max external load capacity.
*Failed to meet the required external load capacity
High acquisition and operating costs

NH90*9 aircraft
Meets all key operational requirements
• Operating costs less than S/H-92
Acquisition costs higher than S/H-92

NH90*10 aircraft
• Meets all key operational requirements
• Operating costs less than S/H-92
• Optimum numbers for concurrent tasks
Acquisition costs higher than S/H-92

Sikorsky S/H-92 9 aircraft
• Meets all key operational requirements
• Lift capacity is greater than the NH90
• Military variant likely to be more expensive*
• Cabin design caused tactical concerns

Sikorsky S/H-92 10 aircraft
• Meets all key operational requirements
• Lift capacity is greater than the NH90
• Optimum numbers for concurrent*tasks
• Military variant likely to be more expensive*
• Cabin design caused tactical concerns

The NH90 and S/H-92 helicopters met all operational requirements and were considered comparable options in the project definition phase.

I have to say I was quite surprised that Merlin did not meet all the requirements(external lift 5500kg?NH90 4000kg) and they are short by two helicopter anyway*

 

[Todjaeger]

Funny you should mention helicopter numbers Todjaeger. Whilst reading up on the NZ NH90 on the NZ MOD Major projects report of 2011, it had a section on a number of different types with advantages and disadvantage as well as extra helicopter's for defence



I have to say I was quite surprised that Merlin did not meet all the requirements and they are short by two helicopter anyway*

Reading that, it does make me wonder about how the specifications were written and judged. It appears that the max external load of an NH90 is 4,200kg vs. a max external load of 5,500kg for a Merlin... I could understand if it involved 6 Merlins vs. 9 NH90's, but it appeared to measure 9 of each design... unless of course the actual operating cost per kg of external load was a factor, or something similar.

Either way, I still have concerns about the NZDF only having seven or eight (remember, one damaged in a lightning strike and the ninth was for ground training/spares) NH90's. Having so few in service means that between training, deployments, and maintenance, the NZDF could easily find itself without rotary lift if something occurs. Especially if there is an accident.

Or NZDF personnel could be deployed somewhere where they should have helicopter support (like in Tuvalu after Cyclone Pam) but do not, because having so few assets causes the decision makers to be hesitant to allow their deployment.

 

[John Fedup]

Funny you should mention helicopter numbers Todjaeger. Whilst reading up on the NZ NH90 on the NZ MOD Major projects report of 2011, it had a section on a number of different types with advantages and disadvantage as well as extra helicopter's for defence



I have to say I was quite surprised that Merlin did not meet all the requirements and they are short by two helicopter anyway*

The H-92 was a paper helicopter only when NZ ordered the NH90. The Canadian version (CH-148 Cyclone) still does not meet agreed upon specifications and only 6 of the 28 ordered have been delivered. The order was placed in 2004. The EH101 was preferred by the RCN. Politics prevented a EH101 purchase.

 

[ngatimozart]

I do have concerns about the viability of the V-22 in RNZAF service (and for that matter, ADF service), though much of this relates to costs to operate.

IIRC the flyaway price of a V-22 approaches (or might even exceed) that of a C-130J. I do not know about the maintenance and support/ongoing operations costs, but given how the wings need to rotate between vertical and horizontal flight, I would not be surprised if the costs were also comparable.

While so far only limited numbers of V-22 have been purchased, depending on how certain developments shake out, I could see EV-22, SV-22 and PV-22 types entering service in the future. The ability for a naval taskforce to have organic AEW and MPA is very important. These roles can be fulfilled to a degree by embarked naval helicopters, but the ability to have larger aircraft, with pressurized cabins and able to reach higher altitudes, could expand past what just naval helicopters can do. While such roles might not be for the NZDF, there is potential for other defence forces to be interested and expand the numbers of V-22 airframes ordered.

Unfortunately, I believe the cost vs. capabilities the V-22 provides is too great to justify a RNZAF purchase. I would rather a few more transport helicopters be purchased to augment/replace the NH-90's, whether these are additional NH-90's, or a follow-on design is not so important. While a medium/heavy lift helicopter would be good (something able to lift an M777 plus stock of ordnance and crew), I feel that with there only currently being eight (or is it seven now?) NH-90's in inventory, the NZDF needs to increase current quantity before adding additional models into service.

I did think about the acquisition cost and it is expensive plus the ongoing sustainment and to my mind they alone are very large obstacles to it being in NZ service. There are advantages to NZ of having the MV22 in service, because it could fill the roll of tactical airlifter as well as that of heavy lift rotary wing, plus the other rolls it fills. However I don't think that we can really justify an acquisition of it because of its expense, which is more the shame in my opinion.

It's eight NH90s in service. A nineth was acquired as a spares source - it was the only one delivered in a crate. I agree eight is not enough and it is my view that additional NH90s should be acquired and that these should be marinised. The NH90 is a medium helos, however I think that if the opportunity arose to acquire say three CH47F Chinooks for heavy lift, then it should be taken. We don't have the M777 howitzer, which doesn't preclude it's acquisition in the future. At present we use the M118 105mm howitzer which will have to be replaced at some stage. The NH90 is quite capable of lifting a M118 plus stock of ammo. From what I've heard through the grapevine, the aircraft is doing well in NZ service with the crews liking it.

Funny you should mention helicopter numbers Todjaeger. Whilst reading up on the NZ NH90 on the NZ MOD Major projects report of 2011, it had a section on a number of different types with advantages and disadvantage as well as extra helicopter's for defence

I have to say I was quite surprised that Merlin did not meet all the requirements and they are short by two helicopter anyway*

Yes, that was an interesting breakdown and I too thought that the Merlin would have a better external lifting capacity. Regarding numbers they only got the minimum number of aircraft that they could. The Clark Labour govt only really spent what it absolutely had to on NZDF. They were very ideologically driven with the PM (Clark), Foreign Minister (Goff), Defence Minister (Burton then replaced by Goff) and other senior ministers and party functionaries being left wing antiwar protesters from the 1960 - 70s period. Clark and Goff plus some others were on the streets protesting the arrival of the Skyhawks when they arrived in Auckland by USN Carrier and were offloaded onto the wharf. Clark had ironclad control on the party especially the parliamentary party.

Looking at the Canadian experience with the S92 I think that we may have escaped a bit of a drama. Having said that, I believe that the NH90 is the better platform for us in the long term, because it offers that bit more versatility than the S92. The airframe numbers, or lack of them, are the major issue in my opinion and that reflects NZ pollies attitude towards defence.

 

[ngatimozart]

Reading that, it does make me wonder about how the specifications were written and judged. It appears that the max external load of an NH90 is 4,200kg vs. a max external load of 5,500kg for a Merlin... I could understand if it involved 6 Merlins vs. 9 NH90's, but it appeared to measure 9 of each design... unless of course the actual operating cost per kg of external load was a factor, or something similar.

Either way, I still have concerns about the NZDF only having seven or eight (remember, one damaged in a lightning strike and the ninth was for ground training/spares) NH90's. Having so few in service means that between training, deployments, and maintenance, the NZDF could easily find itself without rotary lift if something occurs. Especially if there is an accident.

Or NZDF personnel could be deployed somewhere where they should have helicopter support (like in Tuvalu after Cyclone Pam) but do not, because having so few assets causes the decision makers to be hesitant to allow their deployment.

I believe the evaluation was by a combined RNZAF / NZ Army team and the Army was the customer. Regarding the lightning strike incident, they used the rotor and other parts needed off 09 to repair the damaged aircraft. It was only u/s for a few months. The replacement parts had been ordered as soon as the techies had determined what needed replacing.

 

[MrConservative]

Regarding the MV22, either acquire it now, or don't bother because by the end of the next decade it will have a successor lined up and flying. Due to the limited numbers built, compared to the Chooks, we will end up with an orphan expensive platform to operate and sustain, especially given that we will operate it for around 40 years.

The V-22 variants both current and future are going to be around for quite sometime in the operational sense until well past the end of this current white paper period. The V-22 variants like a lot of transformative miltech take awhile to mature and achieve rationality in their costs. The C-17, the F-35 all had difficult births but matured into cornerstone platforms not unlike the V-22.

Projecting out to a 10-15 year period the V-22 variants such as the MV-22 will be a mature platform. I disagree with the contention that they will be an orphan as global defence interest is building in the export sense and that the US forces are building up deployment of the type in the Pacific in sizable numbers - Japan is following and others possibly to follow also. It would be less of an orphan than the A400M of whom their will be just 4 in the region with the RMAF nor the eight SH-2G(I) we have.

The other point is that their is a need within the NZDF for a light tactical fixed wing (the 3rd tier) and a greater number of utility rotary assets in the inventory. Thus I am not buying into the 20 century solution of a few LTT"s here and a few MUH's over there, and the increased logistical and training tail and op-ex to sustain both of them. After seeing a MV-22 overhead in Naha earlier this year I knew that was where we should head in the medium to long-term. In the operational context of a maritime / littoral environment as there was in Okinawa or is in NZ and our SoPac backyard it made sense particularly with our emerging Conops hopefully centred around the cornerstone MRASS platform.

 

[ngatimozart]

The V-22 variants both current and future are going to be around for quite sometime in the operational sense until well past the end of this current white paper period. The V-22 variants like a lot of transformative miltech take awhile to mature and achieve rationality in their costs. The C-17, the F-35 all had difficult births but matured into cornerstone platforms not unlike the V-22.

I understand and acknowledge that. With the long gestational period and subsequent birthing pains it still hasn't achieved sales successes similar to the C17 or F35. I accept that the USMC and USN are finding and achieving good uses for it.

Projecting out to a 10-15 year period the V-22 variants such as the MV-22 will be a mature platform. I disagree with the contention that they will be an orphan as global defence interest is building in the export sense and that the US forces are building up deployment of the type in the Pacific in sizable numbers - Japan is following and others possibly to follow also. It would be less of an orphan than the A400M of whom their will be just 4 in the region with the RMAF nor the eight SH-2G(I) we have.

Yes they will find their way to the Pacific in increasing numbers, however if the NZG adheres to its DWP pattern then the next one will be in 2020 / 21 but, it would still take time for any such recommendation to make its way through the NZG procurement process before an acquisition order would be made. This year layoffs have occurred at the Bell plant manufacturing the Osprey and it is suggested that with the forecast of a possibility of only approximately 50 aircraft being ordered by international buyers, then the line could close down in the early 2020s. Again it comes back to money and a flyaway cost of around US$70 million per aircraft, plus high operating costs puts in in the very expensive league for NZDF with its very limited funding.

The other point is that their is a need within the NZDF for a light tactical fixed wing (the 3rd tier) and a greater number of utility rotary assets in the inventory. Thus I am not buying into the 20 century solution of a few LTT"s here and a few MUH's over there, and the increased logistical and training tail and op-ex to sustain both of them. After seeing a MV-22 overhead in Naha earlier this year I knew that was where we should head in the medium to long-term. In the operational context of a maritime / littoral environment as there was in Okinawa or is in NZ and our SoPac backyard it made sense particularly with our emerging Conops hopefully centred around the cornerstone MRASS platform.

The logic of this appeals to me and I can understand where you are taking this. If we use this proposition, then wouldn't it make a better argument and be more logical for the MV22 to be acquired during this DWP period as part of the FAMC Project? That way we have a platform with LTT capabilities AND the heavy rotary wing capability. The main stumbling block will be the cost and if we do acquire it, what other capabilities are we going to have to forgo for this? My next point is my orphan comment. Yes the A400 has the potential to be an orphan in this hemisphere, however the RAF, French Air Force and Luftwaffe are flying it, as well as the Malaysians, so we can access their knowledge etc., especially if they have a users group structure similar to the NH90 one. We have knowledge and experience of European spares culture so we would be aware of how to mitigate that issue. The other part of this would be how willing the NZG and NZDF would be to invest in 3D printing technology and using it? It is a cheaper option by quite a margin where it is able to be used.

Regarding the use of the MV22 on Canterbury, the flight deck would have to be modified to mitigate for the exhaust heat and safety protocols instigated for the downwash. For Canterbury's replacement, whilst a LHD would be nice, a LPD would be cheaper to acquire. For NZDF use, I would think that it would need a larger than usual hangar area, because we would want to place more aviation assets on the platform. For example, maybe two or more MV22, six or more NH90 and hopefully some armed helos. But again, whilst it looks nice on paper would there be sufficient funding made available in order to acquire a fit for purpose ship designed, built and fitted out properly without any cheapskate shortcuts?

 

[MrConservative]

I understand and acknowledge that. With the long gestational period and subsequent birthing pains it still hasn't achieved sales successes similar to the C17 or F35. I accept that the USMC and USN are finding and achieving good uses for it.

Again it comes back to money and a flyaway cost of around US$70 million per aircraft, plus high operating costs puts in in the very expensive league for NZDF with its very limited funding.

The logic of this appeals to me and I can understand where you are taking this. If we use this proposition, then wouldn't it make a better argument and be more logical for the MV22 to be acquired during this DWP period as part of the FAMC Project? That way we have a platform with LTT capabilities AND the heavy rotary wing capability. The main stumbling block will be the cost and if we do acquire it, what other capabilities are we going to have to forgo for this? My next point is my orphan comment. Yes the A400 has the potential to be an orphan in this hemisphere, however the RAF, French Air Force and Luftwaffe are flying it, as well as the Malaysians, so we can access their knowledge etc., especially if they have a users group structure similar to the NH90 one. We have knowledge and experience of European spares culture so we would be aware of how to mitigate that issue. The other part of this would be how willing the NZG and NZDF would be to invest in 3D printing technology and using it? It is a cheaper option by quite a margin where it is able to be used.

Regarding the use of the MV22 on Canterbury, the flight deck would have to be modified to mitigate for the exhaust heat and safety protocols instigated for the downwash. For Canterbury's replacement, whilst a LHD would be nice, a LPD would be cheaper to acquire. For NZDF use, I would think that it would need a larger than usual hangar area, because we would want to place more aviation assets on the platform. For example, maybe two or more MV22, six or more NH90 and hopefully some armed helos. But again, whilst it looks nice on paper would there be sufficient funding made available in order to acquire a fit for purpose ship designed, built and fitted out properly without any cheapskate shortcuts?

1. Firstly there was no indication given by me that MV-22's would be used on the CY. There was no regard given to it by me at all. I have been fairly consistent about that over the years.

2. No I would wait until the urgent priority capabilities are solved first. Strategic/Heavy, then Medium/Tactical. Then follow up with the bridging solution between LTT and MUH capability gaps.

3. LPD's are cheaper, but not that dramatically different. but are limited in their aviation capability with respect to a LHD design. Not just sea blindness but air blindness is just as a pronounced affliction in the NZ context and its wider area of capabilities. MV-22's fold up quite nicely by the way. If a LHD hanger takes a Chook height wise it should take a V-22. You do want us to have a hanger that can stow a Chook now NG? Stowed dimensions a similar.

4. A link to a journalistic suggestion that the V-22 variant line maybe closed in the 2020s? I have a counter suggestion that it may stay open. With further potential variants coming on that Todj touched on, massive R&D investment so far, maturing platforms, a reasonable order book so far, the knowledge that defence systems are increasingly conceptualized holistically and not through singular "silo" capabilities.

5. Chinooks are around US$6400 pfh (2013) and MV-22's are around US$9300 (2015) according to USGov figures. So yes more but the Chook cannot also pretend to be a CN235 when it wants to. Osprey's fly further & faster than chooks.

6. Scoring 5-6 MV-22's we would end up foregoing buying more NH-90s and a few light-medium tactical transport twins, and possibly the need for a Chinnock sized rotary. I have no problems rationalising on cost and conops grounds that very thing as we move to maturing our joint amphibious context and having a "graduated" spectrum solution with both rotary and fixed wing airlift. Can a graduated spectrum solution be found for less?

7. European spare parts culture? Yeap they have experienced it. You can understand why they are very keen on US solutions these days. The V-22 sus/spt model now being developed on the C-17 global model.

8. The biggest problem is not really the unwillingness to spend money - to be cheapskates - they (the NZGovt) have made headway. It is just that they are glacial in their decision making.

 

[RegR]

1. Firstly there was no indication given by me that MV-22's would be used on the CY. There was no regard given to it by me at all. I have been fairly consistent about that over the years.

2. No I would wait until the urgent priority capabilities are solved first. Strategic/Heavy, then Medium/Tactical. Then follow up with the bridging solution between LTT and MUH capability gaps.

3. LPD's are cheaper, but not that dramatically different. but oare limited in their aviation capability with respect to a LHD design. Not just sea blindness but air blindness is just as a pronounced affliction in the NZ context and its wider area of capabilities. MV-22's fold up quite nicely by the way. If a LHD hanger takes a Chook height wise it should take a V-22. You do want us to have a hanger that can stow a Chook now NG? Stowed dimensions a similar.

4. A link to a journalistic suggestion that the V-22 variant line maybe closed in the 2020s? I have a counter suggestion that it may stay open. With further potential variants coming on that Todj touched on, massive R&D investment so far, maturing platforms, a reasonable order book so far, the knowledge that defence systems are increasingly conceptualized holistically and not through singular "silo" capabilities.

5. Chinooks are around US$6400 pfh (2013) and MV-22's are around US$9300 (2015) according to USGov figures. So yes more but the Chook cannot also pretend to be a CN235 when it wants to. Osprey's fly further & faster than chooks.

6. Scoring 5-6 MV-22's we would end up foregoing buying more NH-90s and a few light-medium tactical transport twins, and possibly the need for a Chinnock sized rotary. I have no problems rationalising on cost and conops grounds that very thing as we move to maturing our joint amphibious context and having a "graduated" spectrum solution with both rotary and fixed wing airlift. Can a graduated spectrum solution be found for less?

7. European spare parts culture? Yeap they have experienced it. You can understand why they are very keen on US solutions these days. The V-22 sus/spt model now being developed on the C-17 global model.

8. The biggest problem is not really the unwillingness to spend money - to be cheapskates - they (the NZGovt) have made headway. It is just that they are glacial in their decision making.

I cannot see us getting ospreys or chinooks and have seen nothing to suggest otherwise, the NH90 was the helo upgrade in terms of modernisation and extra lift. At least a CN type has been mooted and at least has a reasoning, role(s) and precedence for use in the RNZAF and ultimately NZDF. Think we are over reaching abit in terms of kit aqquisition and govt willingness, a rifles somewhat different to a tilt rotor aircraft.

I also don't see an aversion to euro equipment in favour of US kit due to some teething issues. NH90s new build, we changed the pinzgauer and do we actually have supply chain issues? In fact the recent MAN truck purchase suggests we are very much still in the euro corner at the moment. American does not always mean better or at least better for us anyway, it is just another option.

 

[t68]

American does not always mean better or at least better for us anyway, it is just another option.

You are correct in that statement, but I would add that it's better to have options in spare with a large mature local logistical train(flight time to europe is roughly 19-20 hrs Hawaii is 10 hrs or Japan is 10hrs)as for the MAN a majority of the spares would be of a COTS nature very little would have procurement problems.

So far a rough estimate would be about 250 NH90 built by comparison there have various sources have estimated that more than 2,000 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter variants are in service with the US Military and more than 600 exported over the years but that also comes with a design that started out in the 1970's. It might not be the best but it's a known quantity with a reliable supplier.

With hopefully an expanded JATF in years to come and perhaps a commonality with ADF Artillery in a few years heavy lift rotary will become of more importance in both land and martime environments

 

[ngatimozart]

1. Firstly there was no indication given by me that MV-22's would be used on the CY. There was no regard given to it by me at all. I have been fairly consistent about that over the years.

I didn't suggest that at all, I was just stating that the issues involved if such was mooted.

2. No I would wait until the urgent priority capabilities are solved first. Strategic/Heavy, then Medium/Tactical. Then follow up with the bridging solution between LTT and MUH capability gaps.

That would be the sensible and practical option, however given the history of NZ defence acquisitions, the pollies and Treasury would not necessarily see a subsequent acquisition of Osprey as being a necessity, unfortunately. I think that there would need to be a major shift in the political classes attitude towards defence before this happened.

3. LPD's are cheaper, but not that dramatically different. but are limited in their aviation capability with respect to a LHD design. Not just sea blindness but air blindness is just as a pronounced affliction in the NZ context and its wider area of capabilities. MV-22's fold up quite nicely by the way. If a LHD hanger takes a Chook height wise it should take a V-22. You do want us to have a hanger that can stow a Chook now NG? Stowed dimensions a similar.

I saw the video of the Osprey folding and being stowed. Quite impressive. Personally, if I was the one approving procurement, I would approve an MV22 acquisition over a Chook acquisition purely because of the capability difference. Unfortunately I don't hold that position. I would prefer the LHD however given the proclivity of NZGs for cost restraint my thoughts are that they would opt for the LPD. You are correct about air blindness and something that is as insidious as sea blindness. I like the term.

4. A link to a journalistic suggestion that the V-22 variant line maybe closed in the 2020s? I have a counter suggestion that it may stay open. With further potential variants coming on that Todj touched on, massive R&D investment so far, maturing platforms, a reasonable order book so far, the knowledge that defence systems are increasingly conceptualized holistically and not through singular "silo" capabilities.

Why is the article problematic? It makes a valid observation and given NZGs glacial speed - to use your term - acquisition process, it could possibly be out of production when the NZG finally makes a decision.

5. Chinooks are around US$6400 pfh (2013) and MV-22's are around US$9300 (2015) according to USGov figures. So yes more but the Chook cannot also pretend to be a CN235 when it wants to. Osprey's fly further & faster than chooks.

6. Scoring 5-6 MV-22's we would end up foregoing buying more NH-90s and a few light-medium tactical transport twins, and possibly the need for a Chinnock sized rotary. I have no problems rationalising on cost and conops grounds that very thing as we move to maturing our joint amphibious context and having a "graduated" spectrum solution with both rotary and fixed wing airlift. Can a graduated spectrum solution be found for less?

I have been giving the same question some serious thought for quite a while. I don't think that a graduated spectrum could be found for less.

7. European spare parts culture? Yeap they have experienced it. You can understand why they are very keen on US solutions these days. The V-22 sus/spt model now being developed on the C-17 global model.

8. The biggest problem is not really the unwillingness to spend money - to be cheapskates - they (the NZGovt) have made headway. It is just that they are glacial in their decision making.

I agree about the decision making velocity, or lack thereof. However I still think that the pollies do not take defence seriously enough. If they were they would resource it far better than they do now and they wouldn't still be enforcing the compulsory savings and the capital charge, when defence is struggling already. How much does that reduce Vote:NZDF by; 10 - 20% at a guess? What ever it is, it is funds that NZDF badly needs. I view the capital charge as a tax and NZDF is not exempt GST and other duties and taxes.

The graduated spectrum - a good descriptive term - for NZDF air mobility around the medium - light tactical level and the heavy rotary wing lift area, is something that IMHO should be discussed. As I intimated above, I have been giving this some serious thought for quite a while and have reached the tentative conclusion that given costs and CONOPS, a MV22 acquisition would be, in the long term, a viable cost effective acquisition for NZDF. This would be because it negates the requirement of having to acquire two platforms with the associated acquisition and full life costs. This acquisition would also bring a range of capabilities to NZDF that would exceed anything that it has had before and introduce new capability sets to NZDF, that would be of direct benefit to it and to our allies, coalition partners and friends. This platform would also bring a very distinct and unique capability set to HADR.

 

[t68]

Appart from cost factors a V22 will cover both roles for heavy rotary loft and battlefield lifter such as C 295, say a mix of 5x A400M 3x V-22?

 

[ngatimozart]

Appart from cost factors a V22 will cover both roles for heavy rotary loft and battlefield lifter such as C 295, say a mix of 5x A400M 3x V-22?

Actually I think if you add up the cost of a C295 and a Chook then the difference between that and the MV22 wouldn't be that great. I'll have to do some calculations. If we went down this path, I'd be suggesting five A400M and probably eight MV22. If we go down the C17 track, then two C17, five or six C130J and five or six MV22. Along with the NH90s that would give us a very effective airmobile capability. Realistically, I don't hold out much hope that the NZG would fund such a combination, because of cost and it's too logical.

 

[t68]

Actually I think if you add up the cost of a C295 and a Chook then the difference between that and the MV22 wouldn't be that great. I'll have to do some calculations. If we went down this path, I'd be suggesting five A400M and probably eight MV22. If we go down the C17 track, then two C17, five or six C130J and five or six MV22. Along with the NH90s that would give us a very effective airmobile capability. Realistically, I don't hold out much hope that the NZG would fund such a combination, because of cost and it's too logical.

You do lose a few ton in lift with the MV-22 but you gain flexibility, with the increased price of A400M over C130J bean counter may go into sticker shock when it comes to the tiered approach.

Problem I fear they will just look at the bottom line. I think you will be doing well getting 5xA400M, with the recent upgrade of L119 and with a possabile out of service date of 2030 your most solid case for a heavy lift rotary asset is harder to justify as you can get 1.5 CH47F for the price of MV-22.

Your case of price capabilty of CH-47F & C295 is an interesting proposal but unit cost is only one part of the equation, for some one published sometime ago that for rate of effort CH47F is not far of the mark operational wise compared to the rest of the rotary fleet

From memory I think the L119 was transportable in the Andover's, but MV-22 make a good L119 carrier along with a decent ammo stock in a single lift

 

[Zero Alpha]

Chinook has been evaluated before. It didn't stack up well to Andover, mainly because of the relatively high number of people required to support rotary ops versus fixed wing.

 

[t68]

Chinook has been evaluated before. It didn't stack up well to Andover, mainly because of the relatively high number of people required to support rotary ops versus fixed wing.

I guess when they did that study requirements things where vastly different in regards to the operating cost would have been a defining factor in its decision from treasury with the then equipment on hand point of view with the case being made to trade versatility for economy.

But jumping forward to future needs (2035) when you look at it with a combat and HADR holistic approach the benefits outweigh the negatives in timing and personnel needed. But as time marches on and with hopefully the NZG improves NZD capability, heavy helicopter is a capability will come into its own with the ability to moves stores straight from your strategic or battlefield lifter or to a future JMMS with 463L Pallets with Chinook or even better with MV-22 without breaking down to suit NH-90 or SH-2G a true distributed network

 

[Zero Alpha]

I guess when they did that study requirements things where vastly different in regards to the operating cost would have been a defining factor in its decision from treasury with the then equipment on hand point of view with the case being made to trade versatility for economy.

But jumping forward to future needs (2035) when you look at it with a combat and HADR holistic approach the benefits outweigh the negatives in timing and personnel needed. But as time marches on and with hopefully the NZG improves NZD capability, heavy helicopter is a capability will come into its own with the ability to moves stores straight from your strategic or battlefield lifter or to a future JMMS with 463L Pallets with Chinook or even better with MV-22 without breaking down to suit NH-90 or SH-2G a true distributed network

Blaming Treasury for every perceived funding issue gets pretty old.

The concept was for resupply for a deployed brigade in South East Asia, from a strategic airhead to a forward operating base. Chinook lost out because of of the time/load factor and the personnel required to support it. It's difficult to see how heavy rotary ware fare any better these days to support a maximum of a deployed battalion.

 

[t68]

Blaming Treasury for every perceived funding issue gets pretty old.

.

well it is the budget that defines the end result capability wise