Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Womble 47]

With respect to the Army overwatch role that members are talking by using attach helicopters .Perhaps one affordable answer could be that the US Special forces command is buying at the moment .If I remember the article they are buying three squadrons of Agricultural crop-dusters and sending them to L3 for weaponization .
The article said that they were for low grade operations in places like Africa and as they were Agricultural aircraft needed little maintenance and were able to operate off very rough surfaces .They would be a lot cheaper than elderly expensive helicopters and complement other friendly air forces in the area .

 

[At lakes]

With respect to the Army overwatch role that members are talking by using attach helicopters .Perhaps one affordable answer could be that the US Special forces command is buying at the moment .If I remember the article they are buying three squadrons of Agricultural crop-dusters and sending them to L3 for weaponization .
The article said that they were for low grade operations in places like Africa and as they were Agricultural aircraft needed little maintenance and were able to operate off very rough surfaces .They would be a lot cheaper than elderly expensive helicopters and complement other friendly air forces in the area .

If you wanted a cheap fixed wing overwatch then in my opinion the only option is the AT6 Wolverine. The Air Force has the T6C in service, so it would be obvious to consider the armed version of it. But I prefer the rotary wing options from the Sikorsky stable.

 

[Todjaeger]

With of the maritime role, I would be arrogant enough to suggest that SH-60R is the only 4 Sqn answer due to pure ASW & AShW avionics and weapons operational ability (despite its high zero fuel weight), availability, and RAN/USN compatibility. Additionally this might significantly, in short order, increase the combat capability of our frigates at a time when they are relatively unarmed and tensions are rising. Eg. I suspect that the current SH/Penguin has sever limitations

In turn this could drive the UH-60M slicks and MH-60M over-watch for 3 Sqn. Noting previous comments about the relative age of the 60's technology and new USA helo systems just around the corner, I counter that its the avionics, evolving weapon packages, and again compatibility with Australian Army/USA/USAF that makes this a military answer. I'm speculating that Tiger etc is too much of a specialist helo for NZDF CONOPS/manning and that the commonality of SH/MH/UH-60s airframes would assist engineering & training etc. Finally, their (again operational) AAR capability in the Pacific would also enable huge advantages with our new 40 SQN J's ... assuming extra M/KC-130Js are

Honestly I would not have an issue with the relative age of the Black Hawk/Seahawk design. Yes, the US is running a FVL programme but IIRC that is not planned to start delivering results for nearly a decade (early 2030's IIRC) and as mentioned, the US currently expects to keep at least some Black Hawks in service for another 10-15 years after the FVL starts replacing in-service Black Hawks. Something else to keep in mind is the sheer scale of helicopters in use and in service with different users. I believe that there are somewhere between 400 - 500 NH90 helicopters in service worldwide. Whilst that might seem a significant number and large user base, the US Army (as the single largest user) has in excess of 2,000 UH-60 Black Hawks in one configuration or another. That many helicopter in US Army service alone (never mind other branches of the US military and gov't) cannot be replaced quickly, so not only will the US need ongoing support, but also periodic upgrades to keep existing helicopters functionally available for some time. The advantages to other users is that with the US having a fair level of support required, that demand will keep a flow of parts coming for both the US and other users for years to come. This, when coupled with the high level of availability for the Black Hawk design (80% availability or better) and relatively low Cpfh (under USD$5k IIRC) does tick off quite a few boxes. When additional options which could be specified with an S-70i build...

What I would hope NZ does, is take a realistic look at both what the current and likely future helicopter support needs are, as well as what would be available to meet those needs. IMO an eight NH90 fleet of lift helicopters and several SH-2G(i) naval helicopters are suitable for current, peace time ops, but the numbers and capabilities would likely be not up to the tasks required if (when) hostilities break out. Of course that would also require that members of gov't actually recognize, ahead of time, the potential for hostilities to break out.

 

[ngatimozart]

I like it but do think the extra aircraft type in the AW139M might be a bit of a logistics strain. Better to acquire more AW109M in my view.

Not really Lucas because there is a civilian fleet of the AW139 being operated here and IIRC it's now the air ambo helo of choice here.

I think most of these ideas have significant merit but a couple of quick questions.

Overwatch & CAS options: Regarding the Tiger ARH, do we know (roughly) how many flight time hours the airframes have used (and how much is left), plus also roughly the cost per flight hours to operate them and support them? Asking as the cpfh may be an important factor as to whether to consider the Tiger or something else (or do nothing). Support will also be an important factor but presumably we would be reliant on a contract with the supplier for most servicing needs (additional costs to factor in - but at least technically it could be "doable").

But if I pause (this line of thought over overwatch & CAS) and step back for a moment and look at the wider picture, I think we are all here mostly in agreement that we need NZDF force (and logistics) elements to be prioritised to be operating in the maritime domain (because both funding is tight but also because assuming new funding will be released as Defence reassesses its priorities then surely the priority is to enhance operating in the maritime domain which includes potential for "island hopping" or at least protection of NZDF forces operating forward from NZ or in conjunction with Australian forces (as opposed say to funding Overwatch & CAS for UN Peacekeeping/enforcement type operations - perhaps let's not do that now, as a priority that is)).

I think that it is as much as a priority as the fixed and rotary wing air mobility capabilities.

So is ARH the right type (be that Tiger or say Apache - commonality with ADF), or should we look at armed mil-spec "drones" to support land forces?

And can we easily deploy ARH's and/or armed mil-spec "drones" via air (C-130J / future Strategic airlift) or via HMNZS Canterbury sealift (until the future LPH is acquired - assuming it is)?

Everybody seems to think that UAV-RPAS are the bees knees and the magic go to tool. They aren't and they have an inherent weakness. They are susceptible to EW in the form of GPS spoofing and comms interference / loss. They are highly vulnerable in contested airspace especially when they can't immediately react to sudden threats; there is an approximate 5 - 6 second signal lag from the time the threat is seen by the camera, the operator sees it, reacts, sends the appropriate avoidance commands and the UAV executes the commands - if it's still viable. They're great for chasing terrorists around the desert, but not against a near peer enemy with GBAD, MANPADS, etc.

I'll come back to NH90's and the rest in another reply, except to say briefly surely if we acquire extra MRH90's then that negates the need for AW139M's as they are very similar plus the NH90/MRH90 has a crucial advantage (as we don't operate Chinooks) is that it's under-slung cargo load is 4,000kg v the AW139M's 2,200kg underslung cargo load.

I was looking for a platform between the AW109 and the NH90 that could operate operate off an OPV and also be used in roles that don't require an NH90. I don't think that the Apache would be the right platform because it hasn't really been upgraded. It still uses the monocular helmet mounted sighting system, which should've been done away with 15 - 20 years ago. Politically the Tiger ARH would be more acceptable than the Apache.

Teal,

you had me at "I'm not a fan of the NH90'. Snap, for reasons that I've stated previously. As well as the wooden floors, they are just not combat helicopters. The door guns, operating costs, configurations, and European data links, being other significant issues. I am unsure of availability of Y and Z, and admit that I am not up to speed in current LUH areas.

With of the maritime role, I would be arrogant enough to suggest that SH-60R is the only 4 Sqn answer due to pure ASW & AShW avionics and weapons operational ability (despite its high zero fuel weight), availability, and RAN/USN compatibility. Additionally this might significantly, in short order, increase the combat capability of our frigates at a time when they are relatively unarmed and tensions are rising. Eg. I suspect that the current SH/Penguin has sever limitations

In turn this could drive the UH-60M slicks and MH-60M over-watch for 3 Sqn. Noting previous comments about the relative age of the 60's technology and new USA helo systems just around the corner, I counter that its the avionics, evolving weapon packages, and again compatibility with Australian Army/USA/USAF that makes this a military answer. I'm speculating that Tiger etc is too much of a specialist helo for NZDF CONOPS/manning and that the commonality of SH/MH/UH-60s airframes would assist engineering & training etc. Finally, their (again operational) AAR capability in the Pacific would also enable huge advantages with our new 40 SQN J's ... assuming extra M/KC-130Js are

If I may strongly spike the baby seal that is NZ Army taking the helicopter role. This should be avoided at all costs. Due to Vietnam mythology and service politics, Australia did this and destroyed their UH capability for decades. Army should concentrate on tanks, infantry, arty, etc. NZ has enough problems without brown jobs attempting to fly too.

Apologies for sounding all light blue!

We know your anti NH90 prejudices based on Aussie propaganda.

A correction there is no such animal as a SH-60R. Never has been. It's the MH-60R a.k.a., the Romeo. The RNZAF NH90s do not have Euro data links and any such links are the customer nations specs. The Aussie MRH90s have Aussie army data links. 4 Sqn has been operational in the RNZAF since 1958 when it was a RNZAF TAF Sqn. Maybe you should actually do some research before bursting into print. You also need to understand that the modern day NZDF is very much a purple, i.e., joint force.

 

[ngatimozart]

Just my thoughts regarding the helicopter fleet. I'm not a fan of the NH90. Its a European battlefield helicopter and not a South Pacific maritime nation helicopter. Its cost per hour is alot (I seem to remember the operation budget was increased by $100M many years back to cover 3sqn added costs), its construction of plastic/fiberglass is just not up to the rough and tumble of Mil Ops (note bespoke wooden floor installed to stop floor cracking), the civil world gets away with it because they can be precious with the airframes, you just cant beat Al construction. The NZ model can't operate off a ship whilst under way in even moderate/light sea states is the final nail for me, so with that in mind, sell the whole fleet back to NHI.

• Id like to replace it with ten Bell 214 Griffons for general use throughout NZ and the Pacific. Great for all those mundane tasks, hay bales in winter, SAR, NZPOL support picking secret stashes of tomato plants etc. I seem to remember they fit in a C130 too. Bell CH-146 Griffon - Wikipedia
• To compliment them at the high end ten UH 1Y Huey's with the pylon weapon systems, eg rockets and heavy machine guns etc for ground support. These aircraft are built for the US Marine Corps, fully marinised, auto folding blades and are designed to operate off a ship. Bell UH-1Y - The Ultimate Utility Helicopter (bellflight.com)
• There is a sense of commonality training between the Griffins and the Yankees. Id rather many airframes carrying smaller loads than a few frames carrying a lot. We saw this in ET, the ying/yang relationship of having a smaller UH1 airframe complementing a larger Blackhawk frame, be it loads , LZ size or frequency of flights. The Yankee could bridge the gap between a full ARH and not.
• If we were choosing ARH, then for me the Bell Cobra Viper is cost effective if we had Yankees, engines, rotor, and appendage is the same as the Yankee. Again fully marinised and keeps the logistic/training mtce pool smaller.
• For the medium lift Id purchase eight Karman KMAX helicopters, single-pilot operation only, as operated by the US Marine Corps. These are medium lift helicopters with a sling load of an excess of two and a half tonne and are (in Helicopter world) cheep as to run. Great for all that lifting of things painted green and ship to shore ( DOC tasks on remote Islands etc). Since the RNZAF does not conduct single pilot Ops anymore I would like to see these operated as a VR (Reserve) Squadron and and piloted by WOs, civil qualified. Keeping the cost lower again. Kaman K-MAX - Wikipedia
• The AW109 will be kept, increasing the number by three to a fleet of eight. Noting the age of the existing airframes.
• From a Naval aviation perspective the AW Wildcat it's probably the better helicopter, size vs cost. 10 purchased, again fitted for and with dipping sonar and weapon systems. If you need to move bulk pers off a ship , take a Yankee, bulk lift , take a KMAX.

Just my thoughts , sorry in advance if I have upset the NHI supporters.

Just because an aircraft is made in Europe doesn't mean that it is unable to operate elsewhere in the world. Such logic would apply to the UH-1H Iroquois, UH-60 Blackhawk, Boeing 737, 757, 767, 777, 787, Airbus A320, A330, A350 & A380 etc., all built in either the US or Europe. So your argument is rather specious and illogical.

KMAX???? Why, just why. We'd be operating an orphan again and after our Seasprite experience with Kaman why would we want to go there again? That's totally risky and the NZ Govt wouldn't touch it with a 40ft barge pole.

If you wanted a cheap fixed wing overwatch then in my opinion the only option is the AT6 Wolverine. The Air Force has the T6C in service, so it would be obvious to consider the armed version of it. But I prefer the rotary wing options from the Sikorsky stable.

Any slow fixed wing wouldn't last five minutes in a near peer conflict.

Australia’s ARH Tiger model is a generation or more behind current state of the art attack helicopter systems and requires a significant MLU to remain current. Hence the Tiger Mk.3 upgrade program that Airbus helicopters has designed which France and Spain have signed on for but Australia passed on and (perhaps significantly…) Germany has yet to sign onto...

Not upgrading the Tigers to some degree is not an option because many aircraft components are obsolete, requiring integration work and replacement, which is being done via the Mk.3 program. Not committing to the Mk.3 program would also leave NZ an orphan operator of the platform with absolutely nowhere to go for support in operating a standard no longer used anywhere else in the world.

Committing to the Mk.3 upgrade program, would see NZ committing to the eye-watering €133m per aircraft upgrade cost, that I suspect (along with the poor support problems etc) is one of the main reasons Australia passed on the project (besides the fact that Airbus helicopters were unable to provide additional aircraft to meet our 29x aircraft requirement, hence their ludicrous Tiger + EC-635 Scout offering) and why Germany is reportedly considering ditching Tiger for an Apache acquisition.

It’s not completely impossible, but there is a lot more to acquiring Tiger than first appearances suggest. It’s probably why no-one in the world did outside the original 4 nations…

That is something that had been concerning me and if it's going to cost €133m per aircraft for a MLU for the same amount of money we could buy the F-35B. I know which i would rather have. How the hell can they justify €133m per aircraft?

 

[ImJustDubzzz]

I don't think that the Apache would be the right platform because it hasn't really been upgraded. It still uses the monocular helmet mounted sighting system, which should've been done away with 15 - 20 years ago. Politically the Tiger ARH would be more acceptable than the Apache.

I would like to ask what makes you think the Apache hasn't been upgraded? the Echo models introduce Link 16, JTIDs, better engines which gives it much better performance, avionics upgrades, MUMT-X and a sleuth of other things that make it a far better helicopter over the competition and its predecessor model the delta Apache. I do however agree that the IHADSS is a bit dated at this point, it still works however. If it ain't broke don't fix it. I dont agree that the Tiger is better politically. At face value it might be, but when we consider the €133m dollar MLU and just the number of issues the Tiger has had even the politicians here would be convinced enough to not buy it.

 

[recce.k1]

RNZN warships don’t have a deck-mounted SSM that is true, but RNZAF do have the AGM-119B Penguin ASM in-service capable of deployment from their SH-2G(i) naval helicopters, carried on-board RNZN warships, so it seems there at least isn’t an ideological opposition in NZ Government at least, to anti-ship missiles per se.

Perhaps it is merely a funding / priority issue?

I think you've astutely assessed it and I also don't believe it is due to ideological opposition (qualifier - most of the time). Funding/priorities would be the main drivers (qualifier - RNZAF/RNZN appear to be astute enough to factor in provisioning (FFBNW) capabilities should funding/priorities allow for purchasing at a later date).

For example contrary to "popular belief here" the P-3K2 Orions were capable of being fitted with an anti-ship missile capability (according to NZDF LTDP 2006 "The timing of this project is dependent on the completion of the P-3 mission systems upgrade. The modification required to enable the P-3 to launch anti-ship missiles is relatively straightforward and could be done during routine maintenance. Before a missile capability is added, the mission systems upgrade would be necessary to provide sensors capable of locating and properly identifying targets". The P-3 mission system upgrade was completed successfully (which later allowed for the integration of the long delayed ASW sensor project, which was implemented by Boeing) but I suspect the anti-ship missile capability didn't proceed due to the change of Govt in 2008, and with the GFC, Canterbury earthquake rebuild costs, 2010 DWP re-orientation and the need to better support deployments to Afghanistan (and later training in Iraq with the ADF), saw this capability quietly dropped down the priority order, particularly as focus was turning towards replacing the P-3 anyway (with the Poseidon).

I also wouldn't be surprised if the RNZN has reserved space/weight for a potential future Mk-141 GMLS (Harpoon) or Mk-87 MLS (NSM), a la RAN ANZAC Frigates, again should future funding/priority allows for such. In the meantime the funding/priority compromise is to use Seaceptor in surface-surface mode (obviously depending on the nature of the threat).

Australia’s ARH Tiger model is a generation or more behind current state of the art attack helicopter systems and requires a significant MLU to remain current. Hence the Tiger Mk.3 upgrade program that Airbus helicopters has designed which France and Spain have signed on for but Australia passed on and (perhaps significantly…) Germany has yet to sign onto...

Not upgrading the Tigers to some degree is not an option because many aircraft components are obsolete, requiring integration work and replacement, which is being done via the Mk.3 program. Not committing to the Mk.3 program would also leave NZ an orphan operator of the platform with absolutely nowhere to go for support in operating a standard no longer used anywhere else in the world.

Committing to the Mk.3 upgrade program, would see NZ committing to the eye-watering €133m per aircraft upgrade cost, that I suspect (along with the poor support problems etc) is one of the main reasons Australia passed on the project (besides the fact that Airbus helicopters were unable to provide additional aircraft to meet our 29x aircraft requirement, hence their ludicrous Tiger + EC-635 Scout offering) and why Germany is reportedly considering ditching Tiger for an Apache acquisition.

It’s not completely impossible, but there is a lot more to acquiring Tiger than first appearances suggest. It’s probably why no-one in the world did outside the original 4 nations…

Thnx very helpful info, so 133m Euro is currently NZ$213m, so 10 potential Tigers would be NZ$2,130m (15 would be NZ$3,195m), let alone the costs to acquire, train, support and continuously upgrade them & purchase weapons. Although hypothetically that "might be possible" if say only 10 (as in, should other more pressing capabilities across the NZDF NOT proceed .... it's very unlikely, so I think we can safely rule Tiger out for the NZDF in favor of other options (eg put the funding towards increasing the utility rotary fleet instead, or eg acquiring armed AW109's/AW139's or a similar armed (and lightly sensored) LUH/MUH, or possibly an alternative ARH fleet or better still 4.5 gen/second-hand F-16's or maybe Grippens (to slowly re-build competencies) for that sort of cost and wider operational/strategic value).

 

[recce.k1]

The suggestion that the NZDF acquire some of the to-be-decommissioned MRH-90 makes eminent sense based on logic. I feel that such good sense and logic will run into difficulties from:

1. Political (and fiscal) will,
2. Funding availability, and
3. Manpower.

The politicians and their advisors (policy and fiscal) would see such a suggestion as an admission that the earlier professional advice from NZDF (and RNZAF in particular) regarding the number of transport helicopters required to meet the GoTD's requirements was right (and more damningly, their advice was wrong). Such a position would be unpalatable.

Even if the first obstacle was passed the political and fiscal advisors would have the 'economic situation' card to play in order to prevent (their preferred outcome) or at least minimise any budget allocation that could (foolishly in their opinion) provided in the future for the purchase of a very limited number of airframes (perhaps less than 5 including airframes to be stripped down for use as spares).

The final obstacle to pass would be the availability of experienced manpower (aircrew and maintainers) to support the expanded fleet. To achieve this stage would also require successful outcomes in the first 2 stages in order to expand the training pipeline to ensure a continued availability of suitably trained personnel to fill both new positions and vacancies due to retirements etc.

The overwatch and CAS element of the suggestion would, I believe, encounter and additional obstacle being what would be the NZDF CONOPS. Whether this obstacle was before the first obstacle or after it is largely irrelevant, but it would be needed to inform the desired outcomes of the 2nd and 3rd stage. Perhaps the approach could be to expand the CONOPS for LOH/LUH to include a limited escort function based on FFAR & HMG for protection of TTHs, rather than going full attack helo mode with ATGM & 20mm cannons.

As for introducing one or more new airframe types (be it ARH, AH-6 or AW139M) into NZDF service may be the metaphorical bridge too far, based on the logistical and training demands such an introduction would impose upon the NZDF in general, and potentially the RNZAF in particular.

Some very logical analysis, a couple of things which I wonder what you may think, I've read (on either NZGovt or MoD sites) that 6 (of 8) operational NH90's are available for tasking (75% availability - although presumably that figure may decline over time as the airframes get more wear and tear etc) and that they have (or are aspiring to have) 12 air crews for them. Do you have any thoughts what perhaps the "ideal" NH90 numbers should be at (within the 3 limitations you've noted & putting aside their higher cpfh for the moment)?

Although that could be a moot point if the AusGovt do not proceed (yet) with the Blackhawk acquisition as Redlands18 notes (I've read the NZDF NH90's were spec'ed identical to the ADF's, apart from some differences with the comms gear IIRC and a couple of other minor points of difference, so presumably ex-ADF examples would be better than eg ex-Norwegian examples that presumably would have a more "Euro" fitout than the antipodean examples).

Unless NZG spent the $$ for new-builds (although can't quite see that happening ... or could it with the defence assessment)?

Although perhaps one could argue for Blackhawks instead to be compatible with the ADF or NG's AW139M's perhaps instead, both with lower Cpfh ... but then again to focus on completely changing the NZDF's utility helo fleet when there are other high priority needs might not be feasible for us, unlike our Trans-Tasman cousins).

 

[recce.k1]

In any case, the Mk.46 Mod 5 torpedoes operated by RNZN and RNZAF are currently up to date certification-wise, according to the attached article from 2021. They are not integrated onto the P-8A in that standard, but I suspect Mk.54’s will be, in due course seen in RNZAF service.

I suspect the torpedo replacement project that Todd is referring to may have been plans to follow the ADF and acquire the MU90 (I saw msm reports in the early 2000's on the NZDF or to be fair the French visiting NZ and advocating for that). Probably what resulted was, as you noted earlier, funding/priority issues, or lack of, where alternative options were instead explored with the US (around 2010-ish IIRC) which saw the Mk46's refurbished in the US as they reached their expiry dates to extend their lives (there were discussions & media references on DT here about that a decade or so ago), so it's not likely the NZDF were operating expired or ineffective Mk46 torpedoes.

In late 2021 Ultra Electronics Ocean Systems announced the US Govt awarded them a contract to supply MK54 MOD 0 lightweight torpedo (LWT) array kits for a number of nations including NZ (so that'll be the Mk46's upgraded to Mk54 standard).

Interesting though the MOD 1 (with double the arrays) wasn't selected, is that an "enduser" choice or possible USG restriction?

 

[Redlands18]

Honestly I would not have an issue with the relative age of the Black Hawk/Seahawk design. Yes, the US is running a FVL programme but IIRC that is not planned to start delivering results for nearly a decade (early 2030's IIRC) and as mentioned, the US currently expects to keep at least some Black Hawks in service for another 10-15 years after the FVL starts replacing in-service Black Hawks. Something else to keep in mind is the sheer scale of helicopters in use and in service with different users. I believe that there are somewhere between 400 - 500 NH90 helicopters in service worldwide. Whilst that might seem a significant number and large user base, the US Army (as the single largest user) has in excess of 2,000 UH-60 Black Hawks in one configuration or another. That many helicopter in US Army service alone (never mind other branches of the US military and gov't) cannot be replaced quickly, so not only will the US need ongoing support, but also periodic upgrades to keep existing helicopters functionally available for some time. The advantages to other users is that with the US having a fair level of support required, that demand will keep a flow of parts coming for both the US and other users for years to come. This, when coupled with the high level of availability for the Black Hawk design (80% availability or better) and relatively low Cpfh (under USD$5k IIRC) does tick off quite a few boxes. When additional options which could be specified with an S-70i build...

What I would hope NZ does, is take a realistic look at both what the current and likely future helicopter support needs are, as well as what would be available to meet those needs. IMO an eight NH90 fleet of lift helicopters and several SH-2G(i) naval helicopters are suitable for current, peace time ops, but the numbers and capabilities would likely be not up to the tasks required if (when) hostilities break out. Of course that would also require that members of gov't actually recognize, ahead of time, the potential for hostilities to break out.

Well the US military is still operating Huey derivatives in substantial numbers, mainly the UH-1N in Marine service. I would expect the H-60 family to serve well into the 2060s in one form or another.

 

[OldTex]

Some very logical analysis, a couple of things which I wonder what you may think, I've read (on either NZGovt or MoD sites) that 6 (of 8) operational NH90's are available for tasking (75% availability - although presumably that figure may decline over time as the airframes get more wear and tear etc) and that they have (or are aspiring to have) 12 air crews for them. Do you have any thoughts what perhaps the "ideal" NH90 numbers should be at (within the 3 limitations you've noted & putting aside their higher cpfh for the moment)?

I seem to remember (can't find the document) that the RNZAF specified one option that would fully meet NZ Govt requirements requiring 10 NH-90s, while another option with caveats specified 8 NH-90s. So based on my fuzzy memory the "ideal" number of NH-90s should be 10. Any possible growth in NH-90s should only be once that figure has been achieved. So by my reasoning an increase of 5 airframes over the current fleet levels would really only count as a growth of 3 airframes.
The problem with very small fleet sizes is that having +/- 1 airframe available (before considering mission readiness) can see very large swings in the headline rate of availability ( so 5 a/c out of 8 would see 62.5% availability while 6 a/c out of 8 would see 75% availability reported, and which do you think the politicians would feed to the media?).

 

[ADMk2]

That is something that had been concerning me and if it's going to cost €133m per aircraft for a MLU for the same amount of money we could buy the F-35B. I know which i would rather have. How the hell can they justify €133m per aircraft?

I know, I was absolutely gob-smacked when I saw the price tag. I suspect Germany is as well and Australia was and said, thanks but no thanks. We’ll go and buy a larger fleet of Apaches for half the price, if you don’t mind…

My understanding is this early 90’s design era helicopter is effectively being re-manufactured from the inside out to being it up to a supportable modern standard and being upgraded with new sensors, weapons, EW, cockpit systems, comms, processors and so forth, so they should be pretty nifty, but the cost is being amortised across an increasingly small fleet. Australia is out, Germany may be out, Spain and France have both reduced their planned numbers of in-service fleets (down to 18 and 42 respectively, IIRC) so the famed “support” of the Tiger by Airbus Helicopters, not to mention the cost, seems unlikely to greatly improve…

When I think about this, Apache for Australia doesn’t seem quite so surprising…

With respect to the RNZAF capability in this area, I know it would be a different type, but I was always a fan of the Kiowa Scout concept. Turning a utility helo into an armed recon helo. I know that airframe was retired, but the US Army is such a fan of the concept it is bringing in a replacement capability under FARA. I’m not suggesting RNZAF acquire the eventual FARA winner, but a similar concept could well be achieved and may well have strong synergies with RNZAF’s future replacement naval helicopter if the AW159 Wildcat base platform were to be chosen for such a role.

The Thales Martlett missile is as adept at air to ground missions as it is anti-ship missions (and even has a secondary air to air capability) and a door mounted M3M 12.7mm gun, along with a light fire sniper capability would enable a range of effects from a platform that could go to sea, or work with ground forces equally well. Other weapons are available too, with South Korea paying for the integration of Spike NLOS missiles onto their AW159 platforms.

It would also boost NZDF Tactical Transport helicopter capability and retain the 3 platform type base within RNZAF. The naval variant would bring strong ASW and ASuW capabilities in a platform that may not break the bank, in a fashion that MH-60R might and NFH-90 definitely would… Being a British product, may well appeal more politically than a US based solution as well…

Seems to me a lot of boxes are being ticked there…

 

[recce.k1]

Everybody seems to think that UAV-RPAS are the bees knees and the magic go to tool. They aren't and they have an inherent weakness. They are susceptible to EW in the form of GPS spoofing and comms interference / loss. They are highly vulnerable in contested airspace especially when they can't immediately react to sudden threats; there is an approximate 5 - 6 second signal lag from the time the threat is seen by the camera, the operator sees it, reacts, sends the appropriate avoidance commands and the UAV executes the commands - if it's still viable. They're great for chasing terrorists around the desert, but not against a near peer enemy with GBAD, MANPADS, etc.

Thnx, some compelling "negatives" when up against a high-tech adversary particularly the EW/GPS spoofing could render them ineffectual. Do we then wait until complimentary UAV platforms that can be controlled from airborne assets (eg P-8's) are a reality? Are there any plans to control smaller or short/medium endurance "battlefield" UAV's from say a console setup in a LUH/MUH etc?

Although I'm not against a cheaper, smaller platform at the platoon/company level for situational awareness or for artillery spotting etc, as long as it is one of a number of tools in their toolkit should they be subject to jamming etc (so perhaps that is where a manned LUH or ARH platform could fit in)?

I was looking for a platform between the AW109 and the NH90 that could operate operate off an OPV and also be used in roles that don't require an NH90. I don't think that the Apache would be the right platform because it hasn't really been upgraded. It still uses the monocular helmet mounted sighting system, which should've been done away with 15 - 20 years ago. Politically the Tiger ARH would be more acceptable than the Apache.

What are your thoughts on the (hypothetical) option of the AH-1Z Viper/Cobra - marinised, faster (410km/h), fit for USMC conops (that we could emulate to an extent for our maritime domain ops) .... and for our pollies they look more like the Tiger ARH than them mean looking Apaches!

 

[Todjaeger]

For example contrary to "popular belief here" the P-3K2 Orions were capable of being fitted with an anti-ship missile capability (according to NZDF LTDP 2006 "The timing of this project is dependent on the completion of the P-3 mission systems upgrade. The modification required to enable the P-3 to launch anti-ship missiles is relatively straightforward and could be done during routine maintenance. Before a missile capability is added, the mission systems upgrade would be necessary to provide sensors capable of locating and properly identifying targets". The P-3 mission system upgrade was completed successfully (which later allowed for the integration of the long delayed ASW sensor project, which was implemented by Boeing) but I suspect the anti-ship missile capability didn't proceed due to the change of Govt in 2008, and with the GFC, Canterbury earthquake rebuild costs, 2010 DWP re-orientation and the need to better support deployments to Afghanistan (and later training in Iraq with the ADF), saw this capability quietly dropped down the priority order, particularly as focus was turning towards replacing the P-3 anyway (with the Poseidon).

As I recall the situation (which IIRC had also been reported/commented on by Australian Aviation) it was not exactly that the P-3K2 Orions could not be fitted with AShM, but that they (the AShM) would be quite limited in capability if they were. Most of the info on the issue came from two DT posters who have not been by in quite some time, but were involved in Australian aviation/defence reporting. The basic gist of what I recall is that during Project Kestrel, when the Orions were re-winged, the wiring harness was not upgraded to the MIL-STD 1553 data bus. This meant that while ordnance could indeed be carried and launched or dropped from the P-3K2's, much of the potential sensor or target data could not be relayed from the aircraft to ordnance in the wings and such ordnance would be forced to rely upon their own, onboard seekers.

Now the MIL-STD 1553 first came out ~1973 with the entry into service of the F-16 Falcon, unfort the Orions in Kiwi service started as -B models in 1965/1966, excepting for one Orion acquired from Oz in 1985 (but also a -B model IIRC) which means the aircraft were never originally fitted with a modern data bus.

Now the new build Poseidons should not have an issue, but ordnance would still need to be acquired.

 

[Gooey]

Chaps,

I humbly apologies for my lack of attention to detail. I don't believe that I am a propagandist but then thats just my subjective opinion.

I also believe that:
1. RNZN capability would benefit in short order from a modern, armed, helicopter and that this is a higher priority than gunships
2. From its order of battle, NZ Army is too small to create a gunship helicopter career stream and should be correcting its core issues first
3. The existence of the RNZAF would be at risk if helicopters were transferred to army
4. No mater how Purple NZDF is, or is not, a few decades ago it was lack of army disciple which created ammunition for PM Clark to defang the Air Force and have procurement of LAV as a priority
5. AT6 aircraft would be a good start for ACF to be regenerated as demonstrated by the recent PC21 visit
6. The military is subservient to the political decisions which have led to our current situation whereby Australia has made an attempt at a balanced maritime combat capability and mastery of modern warfare vice New Zealand has made a conscious decision not to have a war fighting defence force and subjugated its warriors.

chin chin

 

[Lolcake]

It all comes down to the age old cost/benefit argument. Would an ACF would be of useful strategic value to NZ in the current environment vs the cost to aquire that capability.

When Mrs Clarke tore down the ACF in the early 2000s and successive governments failed to reinstate it. It has left NZ with a massive cost to get back up to speed. Procurement, Infrastructure, personell, training, maintenence and logistics. It will take years and huge amount of outlay likely in the tens of billions.

In an ideal world with with more than a token in the amount of defence spending this obvously would happen, but given the current strategic circumstances in North asian waters and looking at timeframes for a potential conflict it will unfortunately boil down to what assets would REALLY contribute to strategic deterrence given the limited nature of the NZ budget. I simply dont believe any potential governent, Labor or national is willing to double the the GDP spending to make an ACF happen nor I do i believe aquiring cut price Type 31s is something that will assist in providing a proper deterrence.

Something to consider.

 

[Boardgamer88]

On lighter news, the first of NZ's four P-8A Poseidon aircraft took to the skies in the United States today, completing a test flight ahead of systems fitout

 

[At lakes]

4 Sqn has been operational in the RNZAF since 1958

If I may be so rude is to correct you, 4 Sqn RNZAF was disbanded in 1958. The 4 Sqn you may be referring to is the FAC unit from the RAAF which is RAAF 4 Squadron which is the unit that deployed to Ohakea

 

[recce.k1]

If I may be so rude is to correct you, 4 Sqn RNZAF was disbanded in 1958. The 4 Sqn you may be referring to is the FAC unit from the RAAF which is RAAF 4 Squadron which is the unit that deployed to Ohakea

I think NG actually meant "hasn't" (been operational) rather than "has" (re: 4 Sqn RNZAF).

But anyway moving on, 4 Sqn RAAF were meant to have ended their deployment today, hope it went well for both air forces and safe journey home (due to the extreme stormy weather conditions currently hitting NZ from the Tasman sea & if they are having to land at Norfolk Is. for refueling etc).

ZKaviation

A visit to RNZAF Base Ohakea this morning to catch the visiting Royal Australian Air Force Pilatus PC-21 arriving back for the last flight of their deployment, coming back to land on runway 09 was...

www.facebook.com

 

[Gooey]

Small story as some sort of vague excuse ... one of the reasons that I never made it onto jets is that when I flew low-level, I had a L on my lefthand glove and a R on my righthand glove IOT help with my direction consultation services to Peter-pilot, stick monkey. I fear that said dyslexia is also responsible for my previous 4 Sqn RNZAF comments about maritime wocca-wocca's when of course I should have said 6 Sqn:

No. 6 Squadron RNZAF - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Apologies for a thoroughly trivial typo turning into Ben-Hur.

As an aside, with all the money that RNZAF could have been be awash-in post ACF binning I fantasised that the helicopter force would be expanded to the following 3 squadrons:
3 Sqn UH type with 15 cabs
4 Sqn LUH/training type with 18 cabs
6 Sqn SH cabs

boring mode OFF