There are indeed many variables. Temperature is one of them. However, one should also bear in mind that the significant likelihood is that a strategic lift HADR tasking will leave NZ a lot heavier and return from for example Rarotonga, Apia, Niue et al, a lot lighter. Air NZ has operated the B772 into those airports even as commercial flights. A half load B772 can take off like a scolded cat a good friend who used to fly them says.
Right, I'll take 4 thanks AirNZ... 3 fly-away & the other for spares! I'm just going to talk to my bank manager about finance, then pop down to the Resene shop & buy all their stock of dark-grey paint!
www.flightglobal.com
www.flightglobal.com
The OPVs hangars are the same size as the ANZAC class frigates, so the Romeo will fit. I have read various reports over the years that the Wildcat isn't a patch on the Lynx.
I to have been following the stories and am having my doubts about the NH90 NFH in NZ service. We would basically end up with an aircraft not used in this part of the world, the same as the Wildcat and the Seasprite. By going to the Romeo we'd have commonality with our major allies and partners, so it does make a lot of sense.On a slightly different note (mods please move if appropriate), and after reading the last few posts in the RNZN section about numbers/letters on the helipad to ID ships I was back to thinking about the Seasprite replacement down the track.
As discussed previously, for New Zealand, it is likely at this stage of proceedings, going to be a two horse race between the NH90 vs MH60-Romeo (If we are to keep capability the same or improve it). All things considered, I’m not convinced the AW159 Wildcat rates - the majority of countries who have had the option went with the MH60-R over the AW159.
To be honest, my preference has always been for the MH60-R because it is a waaaay more established Maritime ASW platform with the ability to hang some pretty impressive offensive options on the airframe (afterall, ASW was/is the Seasprite’s primary purpose). Being a newer airframe, the maritime version of the NH90 NFH hasn’t really been put through the wringer and had all the bugs ironed out (See my links below).
Despite this however, I do see the many advantages of having one type class across both 3Sqn and 6Sqn (Inter alia - training/maintenance/parts etc). I also see the advantage the NH90 has in being able to carry a decent load inside (bodies or boxes) - a significant factor when you are selling it to govt + treasury that it has this additional HADR assistance capability. We all know HADR is something high up on the govts radar for defence assets (especially to get buy in from the Greens.....) and also where they are looking to go with Canterbury’s replacement plus an additional LHD etc
So I was kind of coming around to the NH90 due to the German and French navies heading down that road but then I came across these two recent articles from Flight Global (Which gave me that sinking feeling as I read them...!) note you need to sign up to Flight Global to read them, but it is free....
Belgium hits out over poor industrial support as it cuts NH90 TTH helicopter flights
Belgium has delivered stinging criticism of the NH Industries consortium, blaming a lack of industrial support, low availability rates and looming costly upgrades for its decision to slash operations with its four NH90 troop transport helicopters by 40%.
In summary the key point in this article is “Belgium has delivered stinging criticism of the NH Industries consortium, blaming a lack of industrial support, low availability rates and looming costly upgrades for its decision to slash operations with its four NH90 troop transport helicopters by 40%.“
I understand that this is the TTH version not the NFH but the builds are comparative.
The second article was;
German navy warns over continued Sea Tiger helicopter procurement delay
Delays to the procurement of NH Industries (NHI) NH90 anti-submarine warfare helicopters are threating a "seamless transition" to the type, the head of the German navy has warned.
This article discusses the frustration from the German navy with ongoing delays by NH Industries on delivering the German version of the maritime NH90 (the Sea Tiger).
From what I know, Flight Global doesn’t appear to post up sensationalised stories, they tend to report more factually - so when I hear “......lack of industrial support, low availability rates and looming costly upgrades....” and “.....ongoing delays in delivery....”, I can’t help but think, is the NH90 the right way to go for NZ?
I think Ngati, you have alluded to the fact that the Seahawk is getting long in the tooth now (a bloody good point) and consequently leads to the question of how long will it be supported for? 20+ years is what we may need on the support, maintenance and upgrade side of things.
Despite this....I think I’m back to the Seahawk as the best option in the long run. I realise the initial outlay may be more than the NH90 but if we have the same issues crop up as reported from other countries then maybe the expense is worth it for capability and airframe availability rates?
The OPVs aren't due for replacement until the mid 2030s and the possibility exists that a maritime UAV may be operational off the OPVs then. But we could also operate marinised and navalised A109M off them if we wanted to go down that road. That would also make sense and Leonardo already have such a variant.
Indeed NG. And that is entirely possible. You know this but as others might be interested that the A109/119 was built to FAR27 standards so not strictly a platform designed to live aboard a ships hangar long term but fine for short stay use in a shipboard environment if a number of additional components that are listed on the schedule of equipment criteria required under the NZCA's No.7/21B/20 TCDS (type certificate data sheet) are installed on the airframe. Our Mako's IIRC already have protection of electrical and electronic systems from High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) which is one of those conditions required under No.7/21B/20 acceptance when operating off/on shipdecks. Other necessary components such as Folding blades, deck securing and floatation devices are all commercially available. NZCA's No.7/21B/20 covers both the A109 and A119 variants.
Looks like a reasonable idea though a couple of areas would need to be sorted , One is would the A109 simulator be able to switch to the A119 and back as required or would we need a new one and you would be introducing a different engine into the mix. These issues may negate any savings that over the purchase of say basic A109's.
IIRC, the Seasprite replacement has been bought forward to 2026. Modest ASW & ASuW capabilities isn't going to fly (pun intended) with our friends across the ditch and further afield. Given the geostrategic situation in the region, the NZG of whatever stripe is going to have to up its game. The NZG has finally realised that cheapest is not best because of false economies. They learned that lesson with the SH-2G(NZ) fiasco.
Adding more light helicopters for the light utility role/training, or marinised versions to deploy on the OPV's is certainly an idea I can get behind. Why go for the AW119 instead of simply more AW109's though? I recall one of the key reasons for the AW109 being selected was that it has wheels rather than ski's, and is a twin engine, and can therefore serve as a more appropriate lead in for the NH90 and SH2G. The AW119 does not appear to tick these boxes.
I am not certain what the exact numbers are, but IIRC from reading through USN and GAO reports, as well as ANAO reports, the costs per flight hour as well as maintenance per flight hour requirements for NH90 aircraft are significantly higher than for SH-60 Sea Hawk helicopters. The cost per flight hour is something like 4x higher, and the maintenance per flight hour (after significant improvement) is a similar sort of ratio. Now the MH-60R is a slightly different version of the of the Sea Hawk, with a more advanced cockpit and integrated sensors, but the operating and maintenance costs IMO would not be significantly higher.
The boxes being ticked then for down-selection were for a one size fits all training and light utility aircraft. Now we need to tick different boxes. In fact I do like the A109. Probably the single defence selection between 2000-2010 the government actually got right - at that time.
www.verticalmag.com
NHI have been trying to make this aircraft work for a number of years. The RNZAF is now into its 7th year of operations, 14 years after they ordered it and it still is nowhere near the availability rates of the venerable and much loved Huey. A more complex NHF90 I fear maybe even more of issue serviceability wise and a regional orphan.
My understanding from a colleague (whose day job was reporting on Air Force and Navy outputs within MOD) was the operating cost for NH90 TTH was $24K an hour and availability of 60%. That was from about 3 years ago. From what I have been able to find the MH-60R Flight hour cost is about $5K USD (but that is from the Lockheed Site - Sikorsky MH-60R SEAHAWK® Helicopters).The boxes being ticked then for down-selection were for a one size fits all training and light utility aircraft. Now we need to tick different boxes. In fact I do like the A109. Probably the single defence selection between 2000-2010 the government actually got right - at that time.
Using the AW119M/TH-73A for training is more cost effective in terms of acquisition - half the cost of the twin A109LUH. The USN has just selected the TH-73A as its next training helicopter, which is a pretty solid endorsement. Those USN pilots and crew will be introduced to their trade as military pilots on this platform. There is no need for retractable wheels at this stage in a pilots flying career as pilots can very quickly adjust to wheeled landing as part of their type conversion training on to the operational squadrons A109, NH90 and reasonably likely in my view the MH-60R in a few years.
Leonardo bags $176 million deal to build new TH-73A U.S. Navy trainer
The U.S. Navy has selected the Leonardo TH-119 over the Bell 407GXi and Airbus H135 as its next helicopter trainer, the TH-73A.
NHI have been trying to make this aircraft work for a number of years. The RNZAF is now into its 7th year of operations, 14 years after they ordered it and it still is nowhere near the availability rates of the venerable and much loved Huey. A more complex NHF90 I fear maybe even more of issue serviceability wise and a regional orphan.
A horse trainer knows pretty quickly after a yearling sale whether or not he has a Melbourne Cup winning potential thoroughbred on his hands or something that might have a highlight of its career being a 3rd placing in the 2nd race at Whanganui during a weekday. I think that the RNZAF knows that the MH-60R is a Melbourne Cup winner amongst maritime combat helicopters as they have seen the success the other nations are having with it.
Those numbers are similar to what I can recall finding when I went combing through Australian ANAO and US DOD and GAO reports. Probably the largest difference that I can recall was that the MRH90 availability was hovering at around 50%. This was after Australia had done significant work to cut down the maintenance required by the MRH90 from a high of just over 100 maintenance hours per flight hour to around 20 maintenance hours per flight hour. This was from an ANAO report issued around 2014, so the information is potentially a bit out of date but still rather lopsided.
