t68
Well-Known Member
Your certainty making a very good business case, you might to bend the ear of Ron Mark
I wonder how they were planning to move them across the ditch when needed,B747F?
Last edited:
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
I wonder how they were planning to move them across the ditch when needed,B747F?
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
RE: NH90 self-deploying.
At the time of their purchase (around 2006) this was something that was noted in the (then) Govt's Q&A's for the purchase.
From Hansard 1 Aug 2006 then Defmin Goff stated "The other advantage is that this aircraft can self-deploy to the Pacific. It does not need a C130 to carry it, or, for that matter, a multi-role vessel."
Hansard Volume:633 Page:4542
(The rest of that Hansard report on Question Time quickly degenerates into a scene similar to a toddlers kindergarten bust up - looks like that was the time (now Defmin) Ron Mark was infamously photographed "flipping the bird" with a cheesy smirk).
Anyway the NH90's are yet to self-deploy overseas. I'm pretty sure I saw a comment on the WONZ forum once explaining that self-deploying would require alot of associated maintenance upon arrival at the final destination (but I haven't been able to locate the comment and the commentator to verify the veracity of that statement). Then with the recent (single) engine failure a year or two ago and the resulting need to quickly land, whether a self-deployment over vasts tracts of ocean is worth the risk?
I did however locate this comment (which was from a former senior Air Force officer when the NH90 was initially transitioning into service). I think from his answer it is clear that a self-deployment requires additional support resourcing (so not necessarily the most efficient method), which would arrive a couple of days beforehand (unless the support departs later)! Presumably the NH90 aircrew would need to rest at the various stopovers as well etc. (FW = fixed wing).
"With internal and external aux fuel tanks fitted, the NH90 can fly in excess of 580nm, which is the greatest single leg required to deploy to Australia or the South Pacific Islands. A transit to Australia would probably (subject to winds) require stops in Norfolk Island and Lord Howe Island. Such 'self'deployment' would only provide an aircraft and four crew - support equipment and technicians would need to be deployed by FW or by sea."
Presumably a South Pacific self-deployment would follow an initial similar route eg Norfolk Island, New Caledonia, Fiji, then onto whereever etc. But at the end of the day (and at this point of time) I would hazard a guess self-deployments would be very unlikely (also due to NZ's isolation and its "tyranny of distance" issue). If so then other options could come into play ...
At the time of their purchase (around 2006) this was something that was noted in the (then) Govt's Q&A's for the purchase.
From Hansard 1 Aug 2006 then Defmin Goff stated "The other advantage is that this aircraft can self-deploy to the Pacific. It does not need a C130 to carry it, or, for that matter, a multi-role vessel."
Hansard Volume:633 Page:4542
(The rest of that Hansard report on Question Time quickly degenerates into a scene similar to a toddlers kindergarten bust up - looks like that was the time (now Defmin) Ron Mark was infamously photographed "flipping the bird" with a cheesy smirk).
Anyway the NH90's are yet to self-deploy overseas. I'm pretty sure I saw a comment on the WONZ forum once explaining that self-deploying would require alot of associated maintenance upon arrival at the final destination (but I haven't been able to locate the comment and the commentator to verify the veracity of that statement). Then with the recent (single) engine failure a year or two ago and the resulting need to quickly land, whether a self-deployment over vasts tracts of ocean is worth the risk?
I did however locate this comment (which was from a former senior Air Force officer when the NH90 was initially transitioning into service). I think from his answer it is clear that a self-deployment requires additional support resourcing (so not necessarily the most efficient method), which would arrive a couple of days beforehand (unless the support departs later)! Presumably the NH90 aircrew would need to rest at the various stopovers as well etc. (FW = fixed wing).
"With internal and external aux fuel tanks fitted, the NH90 can fly in excess of 580nm, which is the greatest single leg required to deploy to Australia or the South Pacific Islands. A transit to Australia would probably (subject to winds) require stops in Norfolk Island and Lord Howe Island. Such 'self'deployment' would only provide an aircraft and four crew - support equipment and technicians would need to be deployed by FW or by sea."
Presumably a South Pacific self-deployment would follow an initial similar route eg Norfolk Island, New Caledonia, Fiji, then onto whereever etc. But at the end of the day (and at this point of time) I would hazard a guess self-deployments would be very unlikely (also due to NZ's isolation and its "tyranny of distance" issue). If so then other options could come into play ...
Last edited:
The two B757's in the strategic role have provided around 1400 hours per annum when both are flying. Essentially the view was if the C-17 was acquired it would take over a proportion of the strategic hours that the C-130H/J would cover 400-600 hours. In other words around 1800-2000 hours per year. Most C-17 operators have been achieving around 900-1000 hours on each airframe per year. Two C-17s would cover this workload and be as occupied as their OZ, UK, USAF and Canadian brethren.
Due to the upgrade program the United States Air Force (USAF) C-17 inventory will have a certified service life (CSL) of 42,750 equivalent flight hours (EFH). The CSL is captured in the USAF Technical Airworthiness Authority issued legacy C-17 Military Type Certificate No. C-17-C0001 dated 28 February 2013. There is an expectation the the C-17 will fly in USAF service comfortably beyond 2040. The current average EFH for the C-17 fleet is 9,670 hours - remember that is EFH and not actual hours. This means a SLEP is quite a way off if that is your concern.
Indeed Recce. From Ohakea to Nowra in NSW it is a first a flight to Kaitaia to refuel, then to Norfolk, then to Lord Howe and finally over to the East Coast.RE: NH90 self-deploying.
At the time of their purchase (around 2006) this was something that was noted in the (then) Govt's Q&A's for the purchase.
From Hansard 1 Aug 2006 then Defmin Goff stated "The other advantage is that this aircraft can self-deploy to the Pacific. It does not need a C130 to carry it, or, for that matter, a multi-role vessel."
Hansard Volume:633 Page:4542
(The rest of that Hansard report on Question Time quickly degenerates into a scene similar to a toddlers kindergarten bust up - looks like that was the time (now Defmin) Ron Mark was infamously photographed "flipping the bird" with a cheesy smirk).
Anyway the NH90's are yet to self-deploy overseas. I'm pretty sure I saw a comment on the WONZ forum once explaining that self-deploying would require alot of associated maintenance upon arrival at the final destination (but I haven't been able to locate the comment and the commentator to verify the veracity of that statement). Then with the recent (single) engine failure a year or two ago and the resulting need to quickly land, whether a self-deployment over vasts tracts of ocean is worth the risk?
I did however locate this comment (which was from a former senior Air Force officer when the NH90 was initially transitioning into service). I think from his answer it is clear that a self-deployment requires additional support resourcing (so not necessarily the most efficient method), which would arrive a couple of days beforehand (unless the support departs later)! Presumably the NH90 aircrew would need to rest at the various stopovers as well etc. (FW = fixed wing).
"With internal and external aux fuel tanks fitted, the NH90 can fly in excess of 580nm, which is the greatest single leg required to deploy to Australia or the South Pacific Islands. A transit to Australia would probably (subject to winds) require stops in Norfolk Island and Lord Howe Island. Such 'self'deployment' would only provide an aircraft and four crew - support equipment and technicians would need to be deployed by FW or by sea."
Presumably a South Pacific self-deployment would follow an initial similar route eg Norfolk Island, New Caledonia, Fiji, then onto whereever etc. But at the end of the day (and at this point of time) I would hazard a guess self-deployments would be very unlikely (also due to NZ's isolation and its "tyranny of distance" issue). If so then other options could come into play ...
The very FW support required to get it there seriously detracts from the very time sensitive mission that is the reason for going.
Shame the late John Clarke is not alive - he could have written a genius satirical comedy set about 2006 in the New Zealand Defence Ministers office. Call it Goff Defence New Zealand. Maybe I could apply to NZ on Air for script funding myself.
Do you think Ron Mark would be amenable to acquire say 10 UH-60? It would sort out a few problems especially if they were marinised. Remanufacture or upgrade 10 SH-60B? That would mean that they could take the pressure off the Sprites by doing the majority of non ASW and SUW taskings. Reactivate a squadron, say 4 Sqn or 1 Sqn using the same structure as 6 Sqn: RNZN aircrew and RNZAF ground crew.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Yeas, the SLEP on C17 was what I was concerned about too, thanks that was very informative.
I would suggest that short range ship to shore haulage of people and materials in a MAOT/HADR tasking is where it could assist.
Other than the CY and Aotearoa for short term taskings, or possibly the LOSV and a future LHD down the track I don't foresee any other RNZN vessels being compatible - as their is a whole new level of complexity and cost it one wants it to both be both a maritime helicopter as well as a cheap and cheerful utility HADR/MAOT workhorse. Off OPV's and Frigates it is a case of the wrong tool for the box - even in a basic enforcement role.
Simply by adding further corrosion protection during the remanufacturing stage of the UH-60 will suffice. The UH-60 has manual folding blades for the occasional circumstances it may need to travel inside the CY hanger. The UH-60 has been DQL'ed on to a number of logistics and large amphibious vessels.
Any Squadron reformation would see 41 Sqd as being more appropriate in any nod to history as primarily a logistics support role is what has the principal capability shortage and not a maritime support role. 141 flight within 41 Sqd was the rotary detachment up in Singa for many years.
So this type of capability would be something similar to the 7x MRH-90 the RAN maintains in order to provide additional lift and logistic support for the fleet / ship to shore operations?
Personally I’ve always felt we should have looked at the MH-60S for this role, once we went for Romeos for the synergies it would provide within RAN. However NZ would be in a different position obviously with any UH-60 based platform being an effective orphan fleet with few training or operational synergies with the rest of the NZDF fleet.
Is there perhaps a marinised A109 variant available?
There is a marinsed A109. Iirc the Philippines recently acquired some. If they had engines with increased power they could be able to more easily undertake vertreps.
Ok, ADMk2 asked about marinised A109s. If we were to go down that path, it would be worthwhile to have more powerful engines fitted so that they have an increase in underslung load capabilities. That would good for vertrep and other taskings, plus they would be able to operate off the OPVs.
Disagree about 41 Sqn. No 4 Sqn was a patrol bomber Sqn operating in the SWPTO flying PV-1 Venturers. When the Bristol Frighteners were based in Singapore, they and the UH-1Hs were 41 Sqn. When the Frighteners RTNZ in 1977 and were demobbed, 41 Sqn was disestablished and the remaining RNZAF units in Singapore became SUS - Support Unit Singapore. I believe 141 Flt came after SUS. I was in the mob at the time and it was the start of big changes in the mob. 41 Sqn was always the overseas Sqn either as a FW Sqn during and after the war or during its time in Singapore. 4 Sqn has a maritime link which would be appropriate for a naval helo unit.
No. It is not. I proposed substantially a medium utility helicopter capable of being deployed by C-130 in support of both local low end MAOT taskings and HADR both locally and in the Pacific. That is the premise.
As I pointed out to NG - I do not envisage this as a maritime support helicopter nor would see it as requiring anything beyond a basic marine weathering protection and its use offshore would only extend to simple short term lift jobs off the CY in support of MAOT. For example short range ship to shore lift in support of the Department of Conservation or Marine Department.
No it would not be an orphan any more than what the B200 or T-6C is. As I pointed out in my earlier post it is likely using the Australian example provided, an LM subsidiary (and noting the Sikorsky Australia arrangement with Starflight) would work with the RNZAF on a service agreement. Leased or 3rd party look through holding company providing nearly all the ground support at the civilian contractor level and only flown by the RNZAF under that service agreement.
A marinised A-109 sounds nice but:
1. It would not have either the capability benefits in the precise role envisaged.
2. Would not provide the cost benefits in terms of acquisition or ownership.
But it is not going to be a naval / maritime unit. That is not what the problem is nor where there is a pressing need. It is priorities.
We have $70m NH90's doing dropping gas bottles for DOC backcountry huts, flying minsters to look at storm damage, cannot be rapidly deployed, that need to concentrate on their prime role in support of combat troops. With Camcopters to be introduced and with the eight Sprites the occasional short-term short-range UH-60 job off a RNZN deck to do something like roofing iron and quad bikes for DOC's field station on Raoul Island or Campbell island is enough for maritime work.
I do not see the actual advantage in trying to gain a modest increase in lift capability by re-engining and the cost involved to do so. It does not stack up as a business case. Cost control is king. If it is the very rare occasion that a heavier lift capability is sought that is when the NH-90 (3,300kg) is used instead.
The UH-60L has a capability is over 4100kg more than the NH90 which is substantially more than the UH-1H (2200kg) and the AW-109 (600kg). In fact more than the NH90 and the LUH together. Every time an engineering change is made - it costs.
Interesting discussion - itching to jump in from the office but other priorities! Ok I now put my hand up and admit I have now been convinced that NH-90 self-deploy offshore is no longer a realistic option so we now there's only 2 options for rapid deployment, us buying a suitable FAMC asset or relying (bludging) primarily from RAAF who in all likelihood will be using those same assets to deploy their own contribution to HADR efforts etc.Indeed Recce. From Ohakea to Nowra in NSW it is a first a flight to Kaitaia to refuel, then to Norfolk, then to Lord Howe and finally over to the East Coast.
The very FW support required to get it there seriously detracts from the very time sensitive mission that is the reason for going.
Shame the late John Clarke is not alive - he could have written a genius satirical comedy set about 2006 in the New Zealand Defence Ministers office. Call it Goff Defence New Zealand. Maybe I could apply to NZ on Air for script funding myself.
Would I be right in thinking that breaking a NH-90 down into C-130 lots probably requires 2 a/c (including room for a maintenance team?), and that this too involves a reasonable down-time on unpack? Whilst I would be keen to see a UH-60 capability to improve rotary numbers and allow NH-90 & AW109 to meet their own primary roles, I still can't see Govt going for it... but would love to be proved wrong! If it did eventuate I'd imagine we'd be looking at about 5 with a commercial maintenance agreement, unarmed (altho a couple of side mounted MG's would be easy!) and basically doing taxi (with shopping) work!
t68
Well-Known Member
Not related to RNZAF but relates to the prior conversation.
I was at Port Kembla car and machinery wharf today and spied 6 new or refurbished looking UH-1 Huey or derivatives paint in camouflage scheme, too far away to see any markings on who owns them and don't know if they were coming or going.
No idea if we had any left to refurbish to sell or not.
I was at Port Kembla car and machinery wharf today and spied 6 new or refurbished looking UH-1 Huey or derivatives paint in camouflage scheme, too far away to see any markings on who owns them and don't know if they were coming or going.
No idea if we had any left to refurbish to sell or not.
The USAF Pacific F-16 display team will be flying at this year's Warbirds Over Wanaka held over Easter weekend. The team and the C-17 display team will be based in Christchurch. This will be the 3rd F-16 deployment to NZ during the last 12 months. The Pacific F-16 display team was at Ohakea last year and the RSAF deployed F-16s to Ohakea later in the year for training.
F-16s for Wanaka » Warbirds Over Wanaka
F-16s for Wanaka » Warbirds Over Wanaka
Great stuff. I would say that there will be a good turnout down there this year.
A F-15SG would be a great addition!
The latest APDR (Feb 2018) has an interesting and informative article about the FASC, FAMC & ACTC projects.
https://venturaapdr.partica.online/apdr/apdr-feb-2018/features
Addendum: Project Kestral was commenced in 2000.
https://venturaapdr.partica.online/apdr/apdr-feb-2018/features
Addendum: Project Kestral was commenced in 2000.
Last edited:
I've just read that today and it answers most of the questions posed here over the past weeks.
I found it interesting the large capability gap between the C130 H and J models, increases in column/load capacity and range are huge to my untrained eye as I thought the model was simply an upgrade of engines props and avionics and the fuselage was the same dimensions
Airbus has a meeting with NATO A400 buyers and OCCAR to discuss the reduction of financial penalties for its failure to meet the contracted requirements. If the NATO buyers, Belgium, France, Germany Luxembourg, Spain, Turkey the UK OCCAR don't agree to capping of the financial penalties, the A400 program will be in jeopardy.
This may increase the risk factor in the eyes of the NZG and definitely will if no agreement is reached. That would mean that the C-2 will have a better chance.
This may increase the risk factor in the eyes of the NZG and definitely will if no agreement is reached. That would mean that the C-2 will have a better chance.
Airbus is exploring military derivatives of the A320neo including ISR and MPA. The article states that they have been talking to NZDF and / or MOD regarding this. As far as both the FASC and FAMC are concerned, the requirements included that any platforms that respondents submitted for either RFI, had to have achieved IOC in another military and be certified. No paper planes accepted.