Royal New Zealand Air Force

[KiwiRob]

Report that Sweden is sidelining nine of its NH90TTH due to high operating costs equivalent to $25000 US per hour compared to UH60 costs of $4500 per hour.

Sweden's New Helicopters Clobbered as 'Biggest Procurement Blunder'

Another one off Euro blunder that hasn't worked as originally promoted. Tried and true equipment manufacturers maybe don't meet all the boxes in grandiose specifications but they get the job done.

A lot of the Swedish problem is they wanted a very bespoke version of the NH-90 which is quite a bit different from any other NH-90 in service with anyone else.

With regards to our own lack of numbers how difficult would it be to turn the 9th frame into a flyable helicopter?

 

[Todjaeger]

A lot of the Swedish problem is they wanted a very bespoke version of the NH-90 which is quite a bit different from any other NH-90 in service with anyone else.

With regards to our own lack of numbers how difficult would it be to turn the 9th frame into a flyable helicopter?

The issue I have with the above is that it seems the Norwegian and Australian NH90 experience has been similar. Also, while the Swedish and Australian versions might be 'bespoke' that does not necessarily mean that the areas requiring greater than anticipated or desired maintenance were the custom systems. Australia grounded their MRH-90 Taipans at one point due to an engine failure and AFAIK the Australian Taipan's use the standard Rolls-Royce Turbomeca RTM-322-01/9 like most of the rest of the NH90 fleet worldwide. That suggests to me that at least part of the cause of higher maintenance costs is not the customer-specified equipment, or at least not the equipment itself. A poorly situated access panel could easily make routine maintenance and/or diagnostics more time consuming and/or expensive.

What would be nice to know is what the French, German, and Italian experiences have been with their NH90 fleets. More specifically, what the approximate maintenance costs have been (in USD and in time per flight-hour) vs. what the projected costs were to be, as well as what measures have been taken to manage any higher than expected costs. Similarly, I would be interested to know if some of the NH90 parts have been either failing or requiring replacement/maintenance at higher than expected rates. If a widget was expected to require replacement every 100 flight-hours, and a spare parts inventory was established based on that rate of consumption, then it would be good to know if the actual service experience required that widget get replaced every 10 flight-hours instead. Similarly it would be good to know what, if anything could be done to get the replacement rate closer to the expected rate, and/or make the part easier to replace. Please note, I do not know if any of the above situations are what has been going on, but I mentioned them as possibilities.

With respect to getting the RNZAF's 9th (spares source) NH90 airframe into service... I would be concerned not just about the difficulty, but the cost to do so.

The RNZAF has already had one helicopter taken out of service due to lightning strike (and a temp ban on over water flight following a single engine failure). The RNZAF got the NH90 fleet size back to eight by either drawing spares from the 9th airframe, or assembling the 9th and using the NH90 'lightning rod' as a source for future spares. Either way, the question would remain whether or not the damaged components could be repaired/replaced, and if so whether they have or not. In a similar vein, if the NZDF has sufficient spares components to complete a 9th NH90 and did so, then a new supply of spares would need to be acquired to replace all the spares used assembling the 9th NH90. In fact, since the NH90 fleet would be larger, a slightly larger spares supply then before might be required since more helicopters are in service.

With respect to the issue of 'whatif fantasy fleets' that is an understandable concern, as those sorts of discussions have cropped up in various Kiwi (and other nations') threads from time to time. From my POV, and I suspect the situation is the same for a number of others, I am looking at ways and means for the best possible service to be delivered to and by the NZDF, by the most effective and efficient means possible. One of the things this can entail is examining some of the roles the NH90 has in Kiwi service, and considering whether or not alternatives might be 'better' for meeting some/all of these roles. As an example, one of the Kiwi NH90 roles is for SAR/casevac within NZ. Given that there are only eight NH90's available and likely cost ~NZD$34,000/per flight-hour to operate with the capacity for a dozen medevac stretchers, would it make more sense to using a significantly less expensive helicopter more, most, or all the time? In SAR operations within NZ, how often does a dozen patients need a casevac?

 

[Rob c]

A lot of the Swedish problem is they wanted a very bespoke version of the NH-90 which is quite a bit different from any other NH-90 in service with anyone else.

With regards to our own lack of numbers how difficult would it be to turn the 9th frame into a flyable helicopter?

Unless we got a breakdown of costs, the reasons for the costs and man hours required to service the NH 90 for the various services in question it is impossible to really understand what is going on and to understand whether this is a lifetime problem for the aircraft or a phase that will dissipate with time. The cost per flying hour in it self does not tell us anything apart from that at present in some services were this figure is available, that it is high. For what reason we don't know.

 

[chis73]

If UH-60s are a serious option then my preference would be for new MH-60S Sierras, added to 6 Sqn at Whenuapai and run under Navy control. Pilot training to be done in Australia using their MH-60R simulators (the MH-60R & S have a common cockpit), thereby saving costs. Mainly these aircraft would work from the Canterbury (finally giving it the capabilities it really needed when commissioned) & the forthcoming Aotearoa. As discussed above, a UH-60 can be fitted into a C-130, but it is a bit of a mission in itself and I wonder if it would be worth the trouble. But I don't know if a MH-60S would be much of an improvement over the existing NH90 operationally either (other than tying into US - and perhaps Australian logistics, and in operating cost). I don't think the Sierra is fitted with RAST (or ASIST or Deck-Lock), and therefore is likely to be just as constrained in ship operating limits as the NH90 (the US tend to use the MH-60S mainly on their bigger ships and with the "flat-water" LCS, not in Destroyers and Frigates).

One option for increasing the helicopter fleet that doesn't seem to get a lot of love on this forum is the AS565 Panther. It's ship-friendly, ice-friendly (USCG), twin-engined, and large enough to do smaller army troop lifts (I think you can get about 7 troops in full-kit in the back plus a crew-chief), unlike the A109LUH (which I have always though is too small to offer much utility to Army). There are variants of the Dauphin/Panther in service all over the place (USCG, French Navy, Brazilian army, Chinese Navy, numerous coastguards - recent sales to Indonesia & Mexico, and it may yet possibly obtain a big order for the Indian coastguard). Will fit in a C-130, but again I imagine with difficulty. Could easily substitute for a Seasprite for most OPV missions. Probably as small as you would want to go for SAR & casevac missions. The fenestron-tail could be seen as an asset in NZ conditions (eg. in thick bush) - plus it's quiet and less likely to be run into accidently by debussing infantry.

As I have raised on other forums previously, I could see a small fleet of AS565s (perhaps as a new squadron) very usefully employed by the RNZAF, doing the smaller jobs that a Huey would have done, where a A109 is too small and a NH90 too big. Preferably I would operate these out of Christchurch so that 2/1 RNZIR gets more frequent helicopter experience. If a militarized AW169 ever eventuates, that could be another option.

One thing that particularly worries me about the current small NH90 fleet, is that they will be forced into logistics support roles in any serious operation (as the Sea Kings were in the Falklands), as we have nothing better, and therefore not available when needed for troop lift.

 

[Todjaeger]

If UH-60s are a serious option then my preference would be for new MH-60S Sierras, added to 6 Sqn at Whenuapai and run under Navy control. Pilot training to be done in Australia using their MH-60R simulators (the MH-60R & S have a common cockpit), thereby saving costs. Mainly these aircraft would work from the Canterbury (finally giving it the capabilities it really needed when commissioned) & the forthcoming Aotearoa. As discussed above, a UH-60 can be fitted into a C-130, but it is a bit of a mission in itself and I wonder if it would be worth the trouble. But I don't know if a MH-60S would be much of an improvement over the existing NH90 operationally either (other than tying into US - and perhaps Australian logistics, and in operating cost). I don't think the Sierra is fitted with RAST (or ASIST or Deck-Lock), and therefore is likely to be just as constrained in ship operating limits as the NH90 (the US tend to use the MH-60S mainly on their bigger ships and with the "flat-water" LCS, not in Destroyers and Frigates).

One option for increasing the helicopter fleet that doesn't seem to get a lot of love on this forum is the AS565 Panther. It's ship-friendly, ice-friendly (USCG), twin-engined, and large enough to do smaller army troop lifts (I think you can get about 7 troops in full-kit in the back plus a crew-chief), unlike the A109LUH (which I have always though is too small to offer much utility to Army). There are variants of the Dauphin/Panther in service all over the place (USCG, French Navy, Brazilian army, Chinese Navy, numerous coastguards - recent sales to Indonesia & Mexico, and it may yet possibly obtain a big order for the Indian coastguard). Will fit in a C-130, but again I imagine with difficulty. Could easily substitute for a Seasprite for most OPV missions. Probably as small as you would want to go for SAR & casevac missions. The fenestron-tail could be seen as an asset in NZ conditions (eg. in thick bush) - plus it's quiet and less likely to be run into accidently by debussing infantry.

As I have raised on other forums previously, I could see a small fleet of AS565s (perhaps as a new squadron) very usefully employed by the RNZAF, doing the smaller jobs that a Huey would have done, where a A109 is too small and a NH90 too big. Preferably I would operate these out of Christchurch so that 2/1 RNZIR gets more frequent helicopter experience. If a militarized AW169 ever eventuates, that could be another option.

One thing that particularly worries me about the current small NH90 fleet, is that they will be forced into logistics support roles in any serious operation (as the Sea Kings were in the Falklands), as we have nothing better, and therefore not available when needed for troop lift.

From my POV, the Panther/Dauphin/Dolphin has little more than the AW109 in terms of capability. The AW109E has a margin of ~1,000 kg for cargo and personnel (including crew) and depending on which version of the Panther/Dauphin/Dolphin one is operating, it has a margin of up to ~2,000 kg (again, including crew) and both can have room for up to seven passengers.

If one is looking for utility/lift helicopters to augment or replace the NH90 in some roles, I suspect something else would be more appropriate. To put things in perspective, the MTOW of an AS 565 MBe Panther (the newest version) is 4,500 kg and a useful load of up to 2,500 kg. Per NAVAIR, an MH-60S Seahawk has an empty weight of 14,430 lbs (~6,550 kg) and a max gross weight of 23,500 lbs (~10,600 kg). In fact, I suspect a MH-60S could lift an empty Panther as an underslung load.

What really would need to be determined first, is just what the role(s) would be for another type of helicopter to be brought into service. Duplication of existing capability makes little sense IMO unless either the new helicopter is significantly more efficient/effective, or there a greater demand which the existing capability cannot effectively meet.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

What really would need to be determined first, is just what the role(s) would be for another type of helicopter to be brought into service. Duplication of existing capability makes little sense IMO unless either the new helicopter is significantly more efficient/effective, or there a greater demand which the existing capability cannot effectively meet.

Just from my laymans point of view I'd like any future rotary acquisition to be able to piggy back on any FAMC.

 

[t68]

Just from my laymans point of view I'd like any future rotary acquisition to be able to piggy back on any FAMC.

That would most likely need a project funding boost if you want additional type of aircraft

 

[ngatimozart]

Just from my laymans point of view I'd like any future rotary acquisition to be able to piggy back on any FAMC.

The FAMC RFI specifically states that rotary wing options are not being considered, which I think was a mistake. However with a change of govt that may or may not change. The RFT, if one is issued, will be the document to consult, because that will stipulate exactly what the requirements are. As far as I am aware, a RFT hasn't been issued yet.

 

[Todjaeger]

Just from my laymans point of view I'd like any future rotary acquisition to be able to piggy back on any FAMC.

Ideally any future helicopter acquisition would be able to integrate with the overall NZDF airlift capabilities and requirements. As a practical matter, I suspect a fair amount of 'make do' and adjusting conops and missions will be done to manage as best as possible.

Introducing another helicopter with capabilities between those of the NH90 and AW109's could help, that or NZ really needs to get a fixed-wing transport which can airlift an NH90. At present, if NZ wants or needs to deploy the NH90 away from NZ, they either need to be embarked aboard HMNZS Canterbury, or the NZDF has to contract the airlift capability. IIRC the Kiwi NH90's were brought in aboard An-124's. Given what has been happening in the Ukraine over the last 3.5 years, I am not certain if that capability is still available to be hired.

Even just self-deploying to Australia is IMO unrealistic due to the distances involved, how long the flights would be (along with the range limits) and what the likely required maintenance would be after completing the journey one way. To get an NH90 from Auckland to Brisbane would likely require 9+ hours of flying, and between one and three stops for refueling. If the Kiwi NH90 maintenance hours are anything like have been reported for the Australian MRH-90, then 9 hours of flying would require ~240 hours of maintenance.

From my POV, the RNZAF needs to have an organic ability to airlift a transport/utility helicopter into a theatre, whether that means a larger tactical or strategic airlifter, or a helicopter smaller than an NH90 yet larger than an AW109, or a mix of the two I do not know. If this requirement is not managed somehow, then NZ is going to have to keep on relying upon others, either to move Kiwi helicopters where they are needed, or to provide Kiwi personnel with helicopter transport and support.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

That would most likely need a project funding boost if you want additional type of aircraft

From a business point of view dollar figures are inconsequential. When business people deploy money there should always be a high likely hood of a flat return with in a certain time frame so you must be right by a certain time frame and then after that everything is in the green, if not in the green then cut your loses immediately when time expires. That should just be standard and go with out saying.

Because hard power is a nations economic and military performance, soft power is how attractive they are. To take advantage of New Zealand's attributes NZDF planners must enhance the speed at which help can arrive for those who face natural or man-made catastrophe in remote places often only accessible by helicopter after a catastrophic event.

This is an argument for increased awareness of the challenges modern New Zealand faces. Weather events are putting kiwi lives and communities on the line intertwined with unique tourist attractions that face ruin. And it's not specifically the destination that attracts tourists it is the people and professionalism that makes New Zealand unique and attractive.

The pacific which includes Australia, The Pacific Isles, ASEAN and the American continent is Aotearoa's (-New Zealands) oldest allies. The distance between us is not an excuse for fiscal responsibility. We should be reminded that there values are our values. We should always stand ready to provide what ever assistance there governments and people need in there fight against what ever they face. DWP's should not be acquisition straight jackets. New Zealanders should be able to draw strength from DWP's and the acquisitions that are required.

We must also come to terms with the reality that New Zealand is surrounded by oceans and to come to the aid of our ally's we must be able to cross those oceans casually. By casually I mean in volume via specific logistic vessels and transfer vehicles, as well as airbridges that can carry similar loads as logistics vessels just a bit quicker and regularly.

These are not only values that kiwis care deeply about, they make New Zealand attractive and thus valuable by not just kiwis but by foreign investments and there people. For every dollar put into defence and foreign affairs relationships an equal amount of too way trade should be mutually beneficial so when our allies grow prosperous, we grow prosperous as well.

 

[old faithful]

Ideally any future helicopter acquisition would be able to integrate with the overall NZDF airlift capabilities and requirements. As a practical matter, I suspect a fair amount of 'make do' and adjusting conops and missions will be done to manage as best as possible.

Introducing another helicopter with capabilities between those of the NH90 and AW109's could help, that or NZ really needs to get a fixed-wing transport which can airlift an NH90. At present, if NZ wants or needs to deploy the NH90 away from NZ, they either need to be embarked aboard HMNZS Canterbury, or the NZDF has to contract the airlift capability. IIRC the Kiwi NH90's were brought in aboard An-124's. Given what has been happening in the Ukraine over the last 3.5 years, I am not certain if that capability is still available to be hired.

Even just self-deploying to Australia is IMO unrealistic due to the distances involved, how long the flights would be (along with the range limits) and what the likely required maintenance would be after completing the journey one way. To get an NH90 from Auckland to Brisbane would likely require 9+ hours of flying, and between one and three stops for refueling. If the Kiwi NH90 maintenance hours are anything like have been reported for the Australian MRH-90, then 9 hours of flying would require ~240 hours of maintenance.

From my POV, the RNZAF needs to have an organic ability to airlift a transport/utility helicopter into a theatre, whether that means a larger tactical or strategic airlifter, or a helicopter smaller than an NH90 yet larger than an AW109, or a mix of the two I do not know. If this requirement is not managed somehow, then NZ is going to have to keep on relying upon others, either to move Kiwi helicopters where they are needed, or to provide Kiwi personnel with helicopter transport and support.

Man, if the NH90,s require 240ish hours maintenances for 9 hours flight time, I wouldn't be looking at augmenting the fleet with another type, I'd be replacing the fleet completely with another type. That's just useless.

 

[old faithful]

Man, if the NH90,s require 240ish hours maintenances for 9 hours flight time, I wouldn't be looking at augmenting the fleet with another type, I'd be replacing the fleet completely with another type. That's just useless.

Further reading about how and why Australia ended up with the NH90 is here....Multi-Role Helicopter Program | Australian National Audit Office
If you are interested in idiots making decisions, have a read!
In a but shell, Army wanted new blackhawks. The reason we ended up with the Taipan (hoopsnake) was it was perceived to better suited to maritime ops......at a cost of $540 million more than the blackhawks. ++

 

[Novascotiaboy]

What is the desire for transport by air of a helicopter? Is it aid to civil powers for HADR response or is it to support military operations? If military operations are we talking artillery placement or SOF support? If it is SOF support and aid to civil powers is the big lift of the NH90 or Blackhawk truly needed?

If, and its a big if, funds and a desire to solve the issue of a deployable helicopter via fixed wing air transport then maybe another Leonardo product could solve the problem. The AW169M, two civilian examples on order for Westpac NZ with delivery this year, may be a good choice. Larger cabin for 8 persons, flat floor, rescue winch capable, military options of armour and weapons. I can not find if the aircraft would fit in a C130 as listed dimensions are rotors turning but I did read that it was offered to the US and it had to meet disassembly timelines for aero transport. The synergies with the AW109 are apparent. Would provide a good middle size option between the AW109 and the NH90.

We all agree that there are too few rotary assets within the NZDF in order to provide a realistic military capability. One size doesn't fit all but numbers play a part too.

 

[Todjaeger]

Man, if the NH90,s require 240ish hours maintenances for 9 hours flight time, I wouldn't be looking at augmenting the fleet with another type, I'd be replacing the fleet completely with another type. That's just useless.

I honestly do not know if those numbers are still the case for Australia, never mind if they had ever been the case for New Zealand. In Australia's case, while still eye-watering, it is still a marked improvement over what had been a 97 hours of maintenance per flight-hour regime.

While I would like to see NZ and Oz drop a piece of kit if it turns out to be a lemon, I suspect that at this point there has been too much invested, in terms of both resources and reputations, for something like the NH90 to be just dropped and replaced with something else. Or at least this is the way I read the current situation. If a situation arises where the NH90's are called upon and turn out to not be fit for purpose and lives are lost, the situation might change.

As for possibly going with AW169's to augment the NH90, I do not see that design as being particularly viable. The design is a light to intermediate helicopter in basically the same weight class as the Panther with a max gross weight of 4,800 kg. Where the NZDF seems to have a capability gap is with medium-lift, where the NH90's have either been too few, not suitable for conditions, or are too expensive/maintenance & support demanding to meet demands.

Given the likely needs for the NZDF in terms of ability to move nn number of personnel/casualties at once, or move yy amount of cargo (fuel, food, munitions, etc.) and also have a helicopter which can also be transported into a theatre of operations. From my POV, if using rotary lift as a personnel mover, then it should really be large enough to move a squad plus their gear which would basically mean a Black Hawk, Bell 412 or UH-1Y sized helicopter.

Of those, my personal preference would be for some version of the Black Hawk due to the design continuing in service with Australia and the US so there is a large user base and support, as well as potential ease of slotting into allied support systems if away from NZ on a deployment or even just Kiwi personnel being familiar with the helicopter layout if getting support from Australia or the US.

 

[Rob c]

Man, if the NH90,s require 240ish hours maintenances for 9 hours flight time, I wouldn't be looking at augmenting the fleet with another type, I'd be replacing the fleet completely with another type. That's just useless.

That is not as bad a figure as it may sound. to the uninitiated, maintenance figures sound horrendous and in this case works out at about 26 to 27 manhours per flight hour which is not that excessive for a large helicopter which normally use more manhours than fixed wing types, though in past years even some of them got very high. (the F4 Phantom in the 1960's was 55 man hours per flight hour.) You need to remember that maintenance man hours include a lot of different things, such as when multiple people work each is counted separately, during normal planned servicing's there will be significant numbers of personnel working for possibly day's, engine changes etc large numbers of personnel may be involved and that the hours use to repair or service components removed from the aircraft are included, like engine repairs or reconditions are included. Even the simple refueling and preparing an aircraft for flight, while maybe taking 30 min , because several personnel are involved could be 3 or 4 manhours including the paper work for a one hour flight and that is the very tip of the iceberg.

 

[Todjaeger]

That is not as bad a figure as it may sound. to the uninitiated, maintenance figures sound horrendous and in this case works out at about 26 to 27 manhours per flight hour which is not that excessive for a large helicopter which normally use more manhours than fixed wing types, though in past year some of them got very high. (the F4 Phantom in the 1960's was 55 man hours per flight hour.) You need to remember that maintenance man hours include a lot of different things, such as when multiple people work each is counted separately, during servicing's,engine changes etc large numbers of personnel may be involved. that the hours use to repair or service components removed from the aircraft are included, like engine repairs or reconditions. Even the simple refueling and preparing an aircraft for flight, while maybe taking 30 min , because several personnel are involved could be 3 or 4 manhours including the paper work.

That is good to know. From the ANAO report I got the figure from, it was 27 maintenance hours per flight-hour. That same report also indicated that the 27 hours figure was 'high' which I took to mean that whatever estimate was provided by the manufacturer as part of the bid and selection process was measurably lower. As a side note, I found a PDF on the UH-60M which suggests a maintenance regimen of ~5 maintenance-hours per flight-hour.

 

[old faithful]

Nocookies

Not sure if NZ had/has similar experience, but there is a case for buying proven products! We bought a lemon.

 

[old faithful]

Nocookies

Not sure if NZ had/has similar experience, but there is a case for buying proven products! We bought a lemon.

Link didn't work, I'm sorry. But it outlines that on top of 5. Year delay to get the fleet operational, we spent $500,000,000 on consultants and a further $400,000,000 on modifications and the fleet has a target shortfall of nearly 2000 flight hours due to maintenance and reliability issues.

 

[Todjaeger]

Link didn't work, I'm sorry. But it outlines that on top of 5. Year delay to get the fleet operational, we spent $500,000,000 on consultants and a further $400,000,000 on modifications and the fleet has a target shortfall of nearly 2000 flight hours due to maintenance and reliability issues.

Am I correct in assuming the article talked about the MRH-90 Taipan? For me the red flag was when the manufacturer offered an additional (47th) helicopter 'free' as sort of inducement/contract penalty payment. If the first 46 are not performing as expected or desired, with higher costs and maintenance requirements, all another helicopter will do is provide an additional airframe that could potentially be utilized. The underlying higher maintenance and costs are going to remain.

 

[Rob c]

That is good to know. From the ANAO report I got the figure from, it was 27 maintenance hours per flight-hour. That same report also indicated that the 27 hours figure was 'high' which I took to mean that whatever estimate was provided by the manufacturer as part of the bid and selection process was measurably lower. As a side note, I found a PDF on the UH-60M which suggests a maintenance regimen of ~5 maintenance-hours per flight-hour.

5 hours sounds like flight line maintenance only, a guess on my part, but as a power train recondition would cover that, and a "preflight /refuel/afterfight" with paperwork would cover 2-3 manhours, Not an unreasonable guess. But as I have said before, that unless you get the complete break down of anything it is extremely difficult to have any kind of realistic judgement ability as you cannot be sure that you are comparing apples with apples.