Royal New Zealand Air Force

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
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.
I agree that without more information, knowing if the comparison is an "apples to apples" comparison is difficult. It might be helpful if someone could dig up a copy of what the Australian S-70A-9 Black Hawk maintenance-hours per flight-hour ratio was, especially if it was compiled by the ANAO.

I did do a bit of additional digging into some of the US Black Hawk maintenance schedules and what I came across suggested that there three levels of maintenance, Unit level, Intermediate level, and Depot level, with maintenance being done on a schedule based upon both time, and certain maintenance being down after the accumulation of so many flight-hours. The first benchmark was after every 40 flight hours, a series of checks, tests and replacements which on average took 15-20 maintenance hours to complete.

Incidentally I dug up a GAO report from 1983 on the UH-60A Black Hawk which discussed how it was performing with respect to availability rates, maintenance staff-hours per flight-hour and other related matters. One of the early requirements for the Black Hawk, which was being met back in 1983, was no more than 3.8 maintenance staff-hours per flight-hour, and that was with the three levels of maintenance work. I also found it interesting that due to parts shortages and more maintenance required due to higher than planned flight-hours, the mission capable rate fell below the desired target. The part I found specifically interesting was that the lowest rate, which did not meet the US target at the time, was 67.8% out of a target of 80%. That 'failing' rate was 2.8% higher than the serviceability target that Australia has (or had) for the MRH-90 Taipan which was 65%, and when the ANAO report came out, indicated that from 2013-2014 the actual rate was only 48%.

Again, we still do not know if the maintenance-hours per flight-hour numbers are an 'apples to apples' comparison, but there are two reports which have different model Black Hawk helicopters (UH-60A and UH-60M) with maintenance-hours per flight-hour in the mid-single digits, and these reports were published by different US government agencies (GAO and DOD) 30 years apart, with neither report indicating that the maintenance to flight time ratio was only applicable to one level of maintenance.

As a side note, I came across an Australian Army Journal from 1970 that listed the CH-47 Chinook as requiring 19 maintenance-hours per flight-hour after three years of service and this was at a time when the engines had to be changed every 300 hours, though at the time there was a goal to increase the hours to 600 or even 1,200 hours before having to change engines.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
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?
Both I would say, but substantially its use would be for NZ domestic and South Pacific utility duties. You may have not read a detailed post I made a couple of pages back where I laid out the rationale and requirements.

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?
Military operations have a spectrum. SASO and LIC are the likely scenarios to be found in the South Pacific, think RAMSI and Operation Calming Support in 2006. A situation may very well arise where we may see a flight of NH90's deployed on a Chp VII support mission to a NZ CTAG which also may include SH-2G operating of RNZN vessels - and an unpredictable HADR or SASO event happens in the South Pacific. That would be bad enough, but when one figures that in 2017 five domestic state of emergency events were declared due to flooding, severe weather and forest fires. In 2016 there were two significant earthquakes one at M7.1 and the other at M7.9.

HADR is definitely an area where capable lift capacity has a place for both human evac and material support. The recent quake events in NZ are a testament to that.

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.
The Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust provisionally ordered (essentially an option) for two AW169M some years ago. Westpac are solely a naming rights lead sponsor one of many including charitable trusts and Auckland Council. The funding project has not been green lighted because it is not there and the whole delivery model of all Medevac and Air Rescue services within NZ will be under a rationalisation review later this year.

At NZ$15m for a AW169M in Medevac configuration based on what the ARHT were/are looking at I am not so sure it represents great VFM wise when there are cheaper options as mentioned previously.
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
The Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust provisionally ordered (essentially an option) for two AW169M some years ago. Westpac are solely a naming rights lead sponsor one of many including charitable trusts and Auckland Council. The funding project has not been green lighted because it is not there and the whole delivery model of all Medevac and Air Rescue services within NZ will be under a rationalisation review later this year.

At NZ$15m for a AW169M in Medevac configuration based on what the ARHT were/are looking at I am not so sure it represents great VFM wise when there are cheaper options as mentioned previously.
Slightly off topic but for the life of me I can't understand why we have multiple rescue helicopter trusts,it can't be all that efficient, when what we need is a govt operated air ambulance/SAR serice covering the entire country, it could either be part of the airforce or a separate organisation.
 

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
MrC I did indeed read your posts, have read this entire thread multiple times, and from all that I can see the failure of government to take advantage of at least two white tail C17's has stymied their own requirements. Unless the C2 or A400(I hope not) then there is no viable way to fly a medium lift chopper in C130 sized aircraft without stripping them down significantly. I fully agree with the need for an expanded rotary wing capability if for no other reason than domestic aid to civil power. NZ is experiencing more weather and natural events than at any period in modern history. If new choppers are to be sought why buy used. That hasn't worked out overly well in the past as the lifetime is limited. Time to bite the bullet and buy whats needed for Kiwis first. For this Ngati is completely correct in his advocacy for Chinooks. Yes the costs to operate are high but nothing else can do what it can, where it can when it is needed.

As to Rob C's comment regarding the civilian rescue helicopter fleet I am amazed. Here in Nova Scotia we have two medical helicopters covering a million population from a central location in Halifax. Not sure how many rescue choppers are in NZ but I think this could be rationalized and centrally operated. Not by defence.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
If new choppers are to be sought why buy used. That hasn't worked out overly well in the past as the lifetime is limited. Time to bite the bullet and buy whats needed for Kiwis first.
There is a difference between used and remanufactured. Some of our "new" Seasprite airframes were manufactured in the early 1960's and the rest in the late 1960's. But they have effectively been zero houred and represent better VFM and are working out very well. There are both Huey and UH-60 options available. Huey in fact does not require drastic disassembly and UH-60A/L is more straight forward than other variants for C130J and will still save days versus other transport/transit options.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
As to Rob C's comment regarding the civilian rescue helicopter fleet I am amazed. Here in Nova Scotia we have two medical helicopters covering a million population from a central location in Halifax. Not sure how many rescue choppers are in NZ but I think this could be rationalized and centrally operated. Not by defence.
Unless aero-medical transport is handled drastically different in Canada than I would expect, those numbers do not have the significance you seem to think.

Similarly, centralized operation likely does not mean (or have the impact) one would expect.

For instance, out of the population of 1 mil. mentioned, ~400,000 people live within the Halifax Regional Municipality, and within Halifax Regional Municipality & Hants County, there are nine hospitals, and I would expect that most people would be within a 30 minute transport by ambulance to one of those hospitals and across Nova Scotia as a whole, there are ~43 hospitals.

Instances when a helicopter is typically used to transport a patient to hospital have little to do with the population size, and everything to do with how long it can or will take to get a patient to definitive care.

To put it another way, the City of New York (including all five boroughs) has a population of between 7 and 11 mil. people depending on the time of day, day of the week, and time of year. Yes, the population can fluctuate by as much as 4 mil. people over the course of a day. Despite the massive population, helicopters are virtually never used to transport patients to hospital, unless the patient is either being brought in or sent out to a distant location well outside of NYC.

In the specific case of New Zealand, the land area is ~5x the size of Nova Scotia and between the topography and distribution of population centres, it does not lend itself to having medevac helicopters in one central location, or even a central site on North and South Islands each.

Keeping in mind that the point behind using a helicopter for medevac is to get a patient to hospital faster than road travel in an ambulance, having a helicopter based so far away that it could be hours before the helicopter could get on scene or to an intercept. By way of example, if someone was injured in Manapouri, NZ the closest hospital I could find is in Gore, NZ about 140 km away/~90 minutes drive. If the closest medevac helicopter (assuming an AW-169) was based out of Canterbury, it would take 90+ minutes to get to Manapouri, and then perhaps another 30 minutes to get to hospital in Gore. Not only would that take longer then just using ground transportation, it would result in the patient getting to care well over an hour after a trauma occurred which will significantly decrease the likelihood of a good outcome.

Now I make no claims of knowing how many medevac helicopters NZ should have or where they should be posted, but based upon what I am familiar with I would suggest that they should be at least regionally based with attention paid to how long it would take to get on scene to outlying areas, and then from there to hospital.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
For comparison, Ontario's Ornge operates 11 AW139s and some fixed wing assets covering an area of 1 million square kilometres servicing 13 million people. Not really sure how well they are doing now but they had some major scandals several years ago.

Ornge - About
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
As to Rob C's comment regarding the civilian rescue helicopter fleet I am amazed. Here in Nova Scotia we have two medical helicopters covering a million population from a central location in Halifax. Not sure how many rescue choppers are in NZ but I think this could be rationalized and centrally operated. Not by defence.
I know I do have a little of the previously mention CRAFT condition, but I cannot remember commenting on the rescue helicopter situation in NZ. The CRAFT must be progressing more quickly than I thought. Bugger.
 

Donnzy

Member
Rescue choppers in NZ are all operated by trusts, with each region operating a seperate trust. Northland operates at least 3 S-76 and has a large area, Bay of Plenty, Rotorua and Taupo trusts operate one helicopter but inter-operate. Most of the types in use in NZ are AS-350 or BK-117. with the NH-90 being used when the conditions for those are unfavorable. A recent one was people stuck on a rock during a storm, was too strong for the local chopper so a NH90 was sent from Ohakea to take over the rescue because it could handle the strong winds the smaller chopper couldnt.

rescue.org.nz
nest.org.nz
rescuehelicopter.org.nz
 

htbrst

Active Member
There are both Huey and UH-60 options available. Huey in fact does not require drastic disassembly and UH-60A/L is more straight forward than other variants for C130J and will still save days versus other transport/transit options.
For example should Sierra Nevada's bid for the the US Air Force’s UH-1N Replacement get through it could provide a hot production line of re manufactured UH-60's air frames with a commercially available glass cockpit . Is Sierra Nevada's ‘Force Hawk’ Getting Under Sikorsky’s Skin?

However as the current party in power ordered the NH-90's, I suspect they will not want to admit they are not up to the tasks they ordered them for perhaps they might strect to additional A109's for this role.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
For example should Sierra Nevada's bid for the the US Air Force’s UH-1N Replacement get through it could provide a hot production line of re manufactured UH-60's air frames with a commercially available glass cockpit . Is Sierra Nevada's ‘Force Hawk’ Getting Under Sikorsky’s Skin?

However as the current party in power ordered the NH-90's, I suspect they will not want to admit they are not up to the tasks they ordered them for perhaps they might strect to additional A109's for this role.
Thanks for that link to the Force Hawk. Another one for the mixing pot!

As for the current government they could plausibly argue that they require additional utility helicopters (which they do) with less sophistication and cost than the NH90 (combat support) and more capability than the A109 (training) and do it with a straight face.

However, if they are that mendacious that they could not even manage a few regenerated zero-houred Huey II's .....

Ugandan Huey deliveries imminent | defenceWeb

In the end there was an $80m underspend in the NH-90 project ($690m) due to the NZD strengthening from the time of the order to the final delivery and acceptance. Lets have that underspend spent on a proven milspec utility rotary or find a way within the $18.3B CapEx spend to sort this. As I said I don't care if it is a regenerated Huey II or a UH-60.
 

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
Using the B200 lease as an example why doesn't government lease helicopters for the non military tasks? These would be contractor maintained and RNZAF flown? This would free up the AW109LUH's from the initial training task and a fleet of medium helicopters instead of using the overly pricy NH90?

A fleet of three or four light twins for basic rotary training combined with six AW139 owned and maintained by say,NZ Helicopter, but flown by RNZAF personnel? Given my limited understanding of NZ budgeting would this avoid the Capital charge imposed by the bean counters? The bonus is that it creates a place for trained pilots to go because there are more aircraft. Flying in support of other government agencies would be paid for from that agencies budget not defence.

If there is $80 million unspent from the NH90 purchase and the government saw the benefit of investing it in more rotary capability could you get a private public partnership with a NZ based company to provide such a capability in support of the defence force?
 

t68

Well-Known Member
In the end there was an $80m underspend in the NH-90 project ($690m) due to the NZD strengthening from the time of the order to the final delivery and acceptance. Lets have that underspend spent on a proven milspec utility rotary or find a way within the $18.3B CapEx spend to sort this. As I said I don't care if it is a regenerated Huey II or a UH-60.

Crikey why didn't they use the money at the time to get the additional aircraft that would get them closer to optimum numbers, lost opportunity are never regained
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Crikey why didn't they use the money at the time to get the additional aircraft that would get them closer to optimum numbers, lost opportunity are never regained
Unless the initial contract included options for more helicopters, that would likely have required a new/additional contract, which would not really be able to start being negotiated until NZ new that there would be an underspend. Now given the price paid for 8 NH90's (+1 spares), training material, etc. that works out to ~ NZD$86.25 mil. That means an NZD$80 mil. underspend might get a single additional unit. From my POV, since AFAIK it would require and entire, new contract for a single helicopter, then it would not really be worthwhile.

And that is before considering whether or not a single extra NH90 would make a difference in service.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Unless the initial contract included options for more helicopters, that would likely have required a new/additional contract, which would not really be able to start being negotiated until NZ new that there would be an underspend. Now given the price paid for 8 NH90's (+1 spares), training material, etc. that works out to ~ NZD$86.25 mil. That means an NZD$80 mil. underspend might get a single additional unit. From my POV, since AFAIK it would require and entire, new contract for a single helicopter, then it would not really be worthwhile.

And that is before considering whether or not a single extra NH90 would make a difference in service.

while the contract as whole works out to that per aircraft. the machine itself would not be that much. Granted they need to factor in transport cost but I was under the impression that the aircraft themselves where approx. 35m a coply
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The AW149 has a similar performance to the blackhawks. Thais have ordered 5 at about $13-16m US. Each.
Think they seat around 10 troops with all their gear.
Blackhawks would be a better option IMO just for the logistics alone.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
while the contract as whole works out to that per aircraft. the machine itself would not be that much. Granted they need to factor in transport cost but I was under the impression that the aircraft themselves where approx. 35m a coply
I have come across a range of pricing for the NH90, one of the joys of trying to interpret defence procurement contracts, but the base range is from USD$24 mil. to around USD$50 mil. Going off the non-discounted price France got, it would work out to ~NZD$55 mil. but that would just be for the aircraft and again, with such a small order there would be little to no incentive for NH Industries to offer any sort of break.
 

StereoGeek

New Member
Hey all. I have not posted here in a very long time! But I have been lurking...

I thought some of you might be interested in this article I wrote for KiwiFlyer Magazine comparing the Saab Swordfish and Boeing P8 offers for the NZDF's Future Air Surveillance Capability (FASC) requirement.

It was edited down from 4000 words to fit the available space here, so if you are interested in more detail (mostly just specs and deeper description) let me know.

Over the four days of the trade only days of the Singapore Airshow 2018 I had the privilege of talking in-depth to all the manufacturers with a bid in for our FASC requirement, as well as current RAAF and USN P8 crews, and many people from across the industry with MPA/ASW experience, including ex- RAF Nimrod pilots, ex- RAAF P3 aircrew, ex and current US Coast Guard aircrew, many of whom had no commercial interest in the competition. The Saab people were especially forthcoming, hence why I concentrate here on comparing their aircraft with the P8, which is to many the frontrunner in the competition. I ran all the specifications past the Boeing people, but they contradicted what the RAAF and USN aircrews told me.
While the article is obviously fawning for the Saab offer, I promise there was no remuneration by them for me. I know it looks like I was bought!
The RAAF aircrew were especially taken with the Bombardier G6000, they had just been for a tour through it when I spoke to them...
I would have liked to have done a comparison that included the other contenders, especially the Kawasaki P1, which was universally admired by everybody I talked to, but I didn't have the space available to do it justice... All of them have their ups and downs, but Embraers KC-390 + E190-E2 combi was pretty interesting. It might have come down to a close race between the Swordfish and the P1 if I had done so, but the huge industrial offset Saab can offer by partnering with local industry to support the operation, development and upgrade through the aircraft's life would have trumped it there.

Anyway, I just thought it might be relevant to your discussion here...

Meet Google Drive – One place for all your files

Okay, I think I fixed the link now... It should be public.
 
Last edited:

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
I thought some of you might be interested in this article I wrote for KiwiFlyer Magazine comparing the Saab Swordfish and Boeing P8 offers for the NZDF's Future Air Surveillance Capability (FASC) requirement.

It was edited down from 4000 words to fit the available space here, so if you are interested in more detail (mostly just specs and deeper description) let me know.

Anyway, I just thought it might be relevant to your discussion here...
One thing we do allow is to break it down into 4-5 digestible parts if it is a lengthy piece of your own authorship and you are willing to post it. It is much easier for DT members to read, refer to the text, discuss within the RNZAF thread rather than through a link.

Cheers, Mr C
 
Top