Ok Reg, if you are happy with that capability, no worries.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Very informative article from Phil Pennington (kudos to him). Seems to be no major issues flagged in regards to availability and support from Airbus (although perhaps one oddity in the article is where it mentions they may need to be flown for more hours than the manufacturer recommends to maintain aircrew skill levels for the numbers of airframes available - however that's based on the Cabinet papers projections from around the time of purchase (2005/06-ish?) and presumably the recent purchase of a CAE NH90 full flight simulator will help alleviate that).Radio NZ News item on the NH90. The article has links to the different sources for its info. It gives the RNZAF availability for the type, which sits around 75%.
NZ sticks with troubled NH90 helicopters as Australia and Norway opt for alternatives
New Zealand faces higher hurdles using its military helicopters alongside its defence partners now that Australia is switching choppers.www.rnz.co.nz
However the article also signals "interoperability with Australia" will become more difficult and defence "may explore options in future". But it's probably way too early to be thinking of alternative options at this point in time, if so expect the NH90's to be around for a while.
In addition it appears that Qatar are doing well and also have an average serviceability above 80%.
It still seems really odd that some nations are experiencing really major issues and some are not. Is it to do with the support arrangements? But if it were then surely that could be addressed. Very strange, still.
The supporting Cabinet papers (linked to in the RNZ article) talk about lifting a 3 section platoon (typically on an overseas deployment) requiring 3 medium lift helicopters. 3 NH90's deployed would give 51% availability, but 4 NH90's deployed would give 82% availability (5 = 94% availability) for the 3 NH90's required for the platoon lift.
As a number of us here have been advocating (i.e. for the defence review) that the NZDF needs additional medium (or heavy) lift helicopters (and personnel) to allow for concurrent deployments. In the meantime the AW109LUH provides backup domestic CT roles should NH90's be unavailable domestically eg if most were tasked for overseas deployment (the AW109 also provides some command and control for the NH90's and usually work together).
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
At the end of the article it says "Defence faces another big chopper choice: A $1 billion-plus replacement of its eight Seasprite frigate helicopters. A tender would go out soon for proposals, it said".Radio NZ News item on the NH90. The article has links to the different sources for its info. It gives the RNZAF availability for the type, which sits around 75%.
NZ sticks with troubled NH90 helicopters as Australia and Norway opt for alternatives
New Zealand faces higher hurdles using its military helicopters alongside its defence partners now that Australia is switching choppers.
The GETS tender was out today - can you access this if so can you provide any further info? Asking as the public facing GET's page doesn't say much!
Ben Felton states NZDF are RFI'ing in the 6.3k-13.6k kg weight range (plus a UAS capability). There are a couple of obvious options at that lower weight range. But at the higher ... Merlin? Makes sense if RNZN goes T23 (etc) in the future ... but in the meantime (ANZAC's)?? Although presumably Defence are looking at options to better inform future planning scenarios etc.
I did notice that, the articles are a mix of old and new snippets mixed together to form a story about todays activities. To me referencing issues from day dot as if relevant today doesn't really help anyone in the scheme of things in terms of overall project progression.
Exactly, it actually miffs me abit as to why so many countries are having such a wide range of results for essentially the same product which to me then comes down to country specific practices, procedures and implementation. Country specced upgrades (or lack of) seem to be standout possibility along with workable support software also another seemingly culprit. You would assume everyone in the user group would just take the best parts of each others operation and apply it accordingly just like most other common platforms, especially if it was obviously faltering to the point of failing?
The thing about planning for concurrent activities is then how many concurrent activities do you then plan for? As ET has shown a BN gp deployment is almost certainly the biggest force NZ could project, and even then it was a struggle, strain and effort for army (and by default NZDF) to train, sustain and maintain for any length of period other than a surge, so much so I highly doubt we could do it again if required currently to even thens standard.
As an aside I do wonder why we have never gone ahead with the planned 6th A109 frame never mind the mooted 7th and 8th as even civil spec models would take up at least the training portion and free up more operational taskings. An assumedly "cheap", quick and beneficial fix relative to the helo outputs afforded. The ex RAN 109s for example could have been aqquired in a project much like how police eventually took over their B429s?
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Looks like RNZ needs to get their hands on the Acquisition Proposal papers for Cabinet for the T/LUH (AW109) to figure out why the numbers were lower when the acquisition signed off, but from reading between the lines of that earlier Cabinet Business Committee report perhaps the cost blowout from $70m to $140m didn't help as NZDF as a whole had to defer other projects to free up the funding? Also looks like there was a further change later to acquire all 8 NH90's in a single tranche (rather than the 6+2 option initially proposed) so perhaps that was prioritised available funding wise)?
So if the initial plan was for 4x AW109's for training, leaving 2 for CT/light utility tasks (2 became 1 - although CT/light utility could call upon the whole fleet if required) but as well as CT Army had several other light utility taskings (page 3: "can rapidly transport a commander and staff throughout the area of operations or act as a link between ground units separated by difficult terrain, provide emergency search and rescue, small group insertion, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and aeromedical evacuation support") ... then yes you are right additional airframes, ideally, may still be needed, be they fully militarised or simply commercial models for the training role! But not mentioned in that earlier cabinet paper are flight simulators. One was subsequently bought so that may have helped with availability (and perhaps the cost offset obtaining the 6th?) and perhaps other infrastructure could be needed eg extensions to the hangers further inflating costs?
Anyway to today we see the AW109 had its first overseas deployment (Fiji) hopefully that will better inform defence planners for the defence review if additional light/medium (and heavy?) utility helos are required? For the issue of concurrent activities, I think it's more a recognition that with things hotting up there could be instances where concurrent support (and training) could be required plus also simply sustaining deployment(s) if airframes are lost due to accidents or incidents. Of course we would have to raise additional personnel over time so as always it hinges on what the Govt decides to fund and whether they do so adequately. But it is probably a relatively small cost for the benefits and the recent cyclone may have reinforced the need with our political class?
I was intrigued if the Romeo as used by the Aussies would be able to be an option as it is a large helicopter that might not fit aboard the OPVs, but it can fold quite small: 12.51m long, 3.37m wide, 3.94m tall. For comparison, the Seasprite when its blades are folded is: 15.9m long, 4.5m high and ~3.73m wide. Seems like the obvious choice then, as the only other real option is either the MRH-90 (hated by most) or AW159 (smaller than the SH-2G and would require us getting a new AShM). Spain just bought 8 SH-60s and extras for just under a billion USD. Opinions?
A RFI has been issued for the SH-2G(I) Seasprite replacement. This is the Maritime Helicopter Replacement Project (MHR)
Details are:
This is an RFI only and doesn't imply that all of the capabilities listed will feature on any future RFP / RFT.
Details are:
The Project scope includes:
(a) Medium Naval Helicopters;
(b) Uncrewed Aerial Systems;
(c) Through Life Support solutions;
(d) Training System solutions;
(e) Mission Support System and system integration;
(f) Infrastructure (both ashore and embarked);
(g) Integration into the Maritime System of Systems;
(h) Future operating concepts; and
(i) Future personnel operating model.
The MHR will be used to respond to a wide range of New Zealand and partner military tasks
(within contested and uncontested environments). New Zealand Government agencies will
also be supported by the inherent multi-role nature of the capability. These roles include:
(a) Military Roles:
(i) Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW);
(ii) Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW);
(iii) Joint Fires Support (JFS);
(iv) Intelligence Reconnaissance and Surveillance (ISR); and
(v) Force Protection (FP); and
(b) Support Operations:
(i) Search and Rescue (SAR);
(ii) Utility – Air Logistics Support (ALS) such as Vertical Replenishment (VERTREP);
(iii) Casualty Evacuation; and
(iv) Boarding Operations.
MHR’s roles will reflect contemporary solutions, with the ability to conduct multi-domain
warfare. These roles include an increase in littoral and land effects and interoperability with
coalition forces, as well as the opportunities presented by Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS).
Integrated Logistics Support (ILS): The overall logistics support concept is to ensure
that the systems acquired fit, wherever able, into existing Defence support systems and
structures. This includes the management and technical process through which
supportability and logistics support considerations of capability systems are defined,
developed, integrated and sustained through all phases of the capability system’s life
cycle. The components of ILS as defined by Defence are:
(i) engineering support;
(ii) maintenance support;
(iii) supply support;
(iv) packaging, handling, storage and transportation;
(v) training and training support;
(vi) facilities;
(vii) support and test equipment;
(viii) personnel;
(ix) technical data management; and
(x) computer support;
Responses to this RFI must be received by 4.00p.m. (NZT) on 21 June 2023
This is an RFI only and doesn't imply that all of the capabilities listed will feature on any future RFP / RFT.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
There are 5 Western Maritime Helicopters. the AW-101, CH-148, MH-60R, NFH-90 and AW-159. The first 2 are probably too big for the Frigates, not sure about the NFH-90, could probably come down to the Seahawk v Wildcat.
Yep. The German problems could be lack of maintenance because the Bundeswehr was underfunded for so long that maintenance was not as it should be. The French aren't complaining and as for the others, standfast Australia, I am unsure.
You know, twice in the last 40 years we have followed Australia in rotary wing acquisitions, and the two platforms we acquired (SH-2G Seasprite and NH90) for compatibility reasons have been ditched by Australia because Australia couldn't get all their crap in the same sock. Was it AU$1.7 billion wasted trying to get your Seasprites to fly and never did; and the MRH90. All because you went rip, shit, and bust trying to Australianise platforms. In both cases your egos were greater than your abilities. Do you know how we got the ex RAN Seasprites to fly? We removed the Australian specific requirements. Do you know how we have managed to keep our NH90s flying without anywhere near the problems that Australia has? Because we didn't try to change things and took the stock standard build except we changed the inches for far better ones and we deleted the IR sensor on the nose because our helo aircrew use low light goggles. The second change was purely for cost purposes. So don't come the smart arse and tell us how we should do things. People living in glass houses etc.
I have to be honest that possibility of an acquisition the NFH (NATO Frigate Helicopter) does fill me with slight dread. It has problems and we may have to pay for the integration of the Mk-54 LWT and the Penguin AGM. Given the desire for compatibility with existing platforms it may get a look in. However its problematic history so far and its operating costs, may overrule the desire for compatibility. I certainly hope so. I can see three other types being included; MH-60R, AW159, and the AW101 Merlin. A rank outsider would be the Sikorsky S-92 as developed for the RCN. Of those four the MH-60R would be my choice because of compatibility with both the RAN & USN. The AW159 is only operated by the RN, Philippines and South Korea.
In recent years the NZG has become risk adverse WRT defence procurements so that's why I think that the MH-60R will be the favourite. We can acquire it through FMS like we did the P-8A & C-130J-30 platforms and we haven't had any problems with that process. If they also go the way of the P-8A then the MH-60R could be kept in lockstep with USN developments. One thing that is an essential requirement for the MHR is that it has a dipping sonar as well as the sonar buoys.
Agreed, the Romeo is literally just the safest bet right now with the best options in terms of use, upgrades and user network. Proven, supported and common is future proofing in itself.
Too bad they do not produce sierras anymore as I'm still not convinced we need all to be full bells and whistle versions for what we do plus the obvious cost savings. 6 Romeos for the combats and 3 Sierras for the supporties would be/have been my ideal mix choice but a single fleet of MH60r is still a definite improvement/upgrade either way.
Correct me if I am wrong but dont PZL from Poland manufacture the S70i which as far as I can work out is a variant of the "S" model
Personally I'd like to see a hi - lo mix of RNZN helo capability. The Romeos for the war fighting and something for all the other bits including operating off non tier 1 vessels. This is for two reasons.
- If we only acquire one type then we are limited in how many we can acquire and end up thrashing them. The SH-2G(NZ) Seasprites comes to mind as does the current Seasprite fleet.
- A hi - lo capability mix ensures that we are not using a Romeo for mundane stuff like transferring stores from ship to shore in Raoul Island or down in the Auckland Islands. That way we are ensuring that the expensive Romeos have lower overall hours.
S70i is the international export model of the UH60m made in Poland for the civil and military market. MH60s was the marinised utility version of the maritime MH60r sharing the same cockpit and engines minus all the ASW dedicated mission specific equipment.
Well at least some progress is being made with the release of the RFI. Still it is only an RFI - it's not an actual order. Like the RFI for the SOPV, it may yet go nowhere. I guess the disappointing bit for me is that, for the want of one line in the RFI, they could have also asked for information on a marinised utility/cargo helicopter for the auxiliary vessels. Yet all they have asked for is a medium Naval helicopter for ASW/ASuW missions. Like Ngati, I'm a firm believer that the Navy now needs two types of maritime helicopters. History suggests a fully-specced MH60R will be too expensive to get the full 9 they want - so we will either get not enough, a FFBNW version, or something cheaper (perhaps AW159 Wildcat).
I'm surprised it has taken till now to issue an RFI. At the FADT Select Committee hearing back in December it was mentioned that only 3 of the 8 Seasprites were flyable at that time due to spares availability. In Feb, Kaman announced they were shutting down production of their KMax manned & unmanned helicopters (the new CEO wants to reduce costs and focus on more profitable product streams - which doesn't sound good for the Seasprite). It sounds like the Seasprite is going to struggle to get to 2025 let alone 2028.
A Seahawk would need to have a Decklock system fitted (I doubt we would change the systems on the frigates this late in their careers). The Danes I think have done that. Hopefully that wouldn't impact the ASW systems. The Seahawk also has issues with flotation devices (I think they no longer have them due to egress issues). That's why the Danes carry a podded liferaft on one of the pylon stations. Seahawk might well have issues with operating from the OPVs - it may fit the hangar, but what about on the flight deck with rotors extended? The Seasprite was a pretty tight fit there (note the gap in the railing for the Seasprite's tail). Then there is the issue of weight (4 tonnes heavier than the Seasprite) and what that would do for stability on the OPV.
AW159 Wildcat might get away with operation from the OPVs. However, it will need to be integrated with Mk54 torpedoes (as far as I am aware, none of the present users are using Mk 54 - UK has Stingray, South Korea & Philippines are using the Blue Shark torpedo). Plus there is a small worldwide user base (mostly all in the UK), and we would need to really sort out our logistics systems if we picked it. Other than that, the Wildcat is a good naval helicopter - that should be cheaper than a Seahawk. I would look at the South Korean version - with Link 16 & NLOS Spike missiles - rather than the UK version in the first instance. If a dunking sonar is fitted it's going to be very cramped inside. Probably has slightly less range/endurance and underslung load than the current Seasprite. Leonardo is probably desperate for a sale though.
AW101 & CH-148 would seem to be much too large (and costly) to be seriously considered.
NH90 - an outside possibility for a utility/cargo role (hopefully not). I doubt the Aussies will be selling theirs cheaply. Unlikely for a naval role due to cost.
One helicopter that hasn't been mentioned yet is the Airbus H160M. Very outside chance IMHO, as it isn't even due to enter French service until 2028.
I'm surprised it has taken till now to issue an RFI. At the FADT Select Committee hearing back in December it was mentioned that only 3 of the 8 Seasprites were flyable at that time due to spares availability. In Feb, Kaman announced they were shutting down production of their KMax manned & unmanned helicopters (the new CEO wants to reduce costs and focus on more profitable product streams - which doesn't sound good for the Seasprite). It sounds like the Seasprite is going to struggle to get to 2025 let alone 2028.
A Seahawk would need to have a Decklock system fitted (I doubt we would change the systems on the frigates this late in their careers). The Danes I think have done that. Hopefully that wouldn't impact the ASW systems. The Seahawk also has issues with flotation devices (I think they no longer have them due to egress issues). That's why the Danes carry a podded liferaft on one of the pylon stations. Seahawk might well have issues with operating from the OPVs - it may fit the hangar, but what about on the flight deck with rotors extended? The Seasprite was a pretty tight fit there (note the gap in the railing for the Seasprite's tail). Then there is the issue of weight (4 tonnes heavier than the Seasprite) and what that would do for stability on the OPV.
AW159 Wildcat might get away with operation from the OPVs. However, it will need to be integrated with Mk54 torpedoes (as far as I am aware, none of the present users are using Mk 54 - UK has Stingray, South Korea & Philippines are using the Blue Shark torpedo). Plus there is a small worldwide user base (mostly all in the UK), and we would need to really sort out our logistics systems if we picked it. Other than that, the Wildcat is a good naval helicopter - that should be cheaper than a Seahawk. I would look at the South Korean version - with Link 16 & NLOS Spike missiles - rather than the UK version in the first instance. If a dunking sonar is fitted it's going to be very cramped inside. Probably has slightly less range/endurance and underslung load than the current Seasprite. Leonardo is probably desperate for a sale though.
AW101 & CH-148 would seem to be much too large (and costly) to be seriously considered.
NH90 - an outside possibility for a utility/cargo role (hopefully not). I doubt the Aussies will be selling theirs cheaply. Unlikely for a naval role due to cost.
One helicopter that hasn't been mentioned yet is the Airbus H160M. Very outside chance IMHO, as it isn't even due to enter French service until 2028.
Not quite right I think. MH60S is a marinised version of the Blackhawk, not the Seahawk (notice the tailwheel position).
The Sierra IS a seahawk and they are all a version of a blackhawk, including the Romeo. Its alittle more complicated then merely the tailwheel position as its the role, features and intended purpose that define the models not the outwardly appearance.
Its a naval helicopter and part of the seahawk family for a reason otherwise they would just use stock UH60s, paint them sea haze grey and save all the developmental costs but as we all know that's not really how shipborne helos work.
Fair enough. I can see your point of view, but I don't think I'm wrong either. To me it is a Blackhawk airframe fitted with Seahawk systems (cockpit, engines, auto folding rotors & tail, winches etc). See here. If it was an MH-60R converted to a utility role, it would have the Seahawk airframe (including the Seahawk tailwheel) and therefore give up 3000lb of underslung load capacity.
------
Also, Tim Fish has an article out on Janes with some more details from the RFI (Link). Deliveries hoped for by mid-2027 apparently.
Oh I have never said it was a converted Romeo, its not, and tbh that would be rather silly to do so. Its the utility version of the Romeo within the Seahawk family. The only thing it shares from a blackhawk is the basic cabin and frame for it's cargo attributes, everything else is essentially based on a Romeo for commonalitys sake (and rightly so), cockpit, engines, folding blades, winches, marinisation etc. It most definately has more in common with a romeo than say a mike which is literally by design but yes, they are all blackhawks by basic design.
I also think the idea of basing the next gen maritime Helos on the current legacy platforms (in terms of deck, hanger etc) WRT to size would also be rather short sighted. We should ideally be acquiring the best helo going forward not limit them to the current naval assets that are pretty much on the out anyway in the grand scheme of things ie look to suit the replacement ships to the replacement helicopters rather than suit the replacement helicopters to the current ships, which imo are reaching the end of their useful lives anyway. In the case of the OPVs it would be potentially wasteful to base any decision on the Otagos limitations which would in turn serve on the current/new frigates for the next 30-40 years (let's be honest) and in all honesty I would rather see the OPVs go without helo support for a few years if worse comes to worse rather than any option that involves downgrading the fleet to suit them in particular. The OPVs rarely embark sprites as it is anyway so hardly a deal breaker imo.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Thx, also interesting to see the integration of Joint Fires Support, which I understand as the coordination and integration of indirect fire systems to support land efforts in its most basic sense, and perhaps also in the littorals (judging by the mention in the above details). For NZDF commanders it gives them another syncronised weapon system.
But is this also a realisation of sorts that NZDF lacks suitable air combat power, perhaps in the form of specialist sensor equipped attack helicopters ... or even a fast-air ACF?
If so should this be assessed/rectified (as a separate new project)? Granted, having this capability for the Maritime Helicopter Replacement (MHR) is timely, puts us in good stead with our allies during combined operations and could prove indispensable supporting and safeguarding land forces/special forces being deployed from sea to land (being on hand to respond), so it is important to ensure that this capability is integrated into the MHR.
But the Maritime Helicopter replacement is a vital extension or force multiplier for its Frigates when conducting surface and sub-surface ISR or warfare, so also needs to be available for these taskings (eg screening the landing sea forces from enemy underwater intrusions, or patrolling or responding to potential contacts etc) as a high priority.
Is this timely for Defence to be putting new (separate) alternative solutions forward to government? Perhaps as a component of the LPD/LHD project (signaled in DCP19), if helicopter based solutions have some utility?
Last edited: