Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ngatimozart]

The other ASW Helicopter which hasn’t been brought up is the Panther, cheaper option at least.

AS565 MBe

The AS565 MBe version of Airbus’ Panther helicopter family was designed for a multitude of naval and coast guard missions.

www.airbus.com

Again it's not a helo that's used by our regional partners. It comes down to compatibility, logistics, and sustainment. If we are using a common platform to our ally and partner, we are able to access spares easily, rather than having to organise spares from across the world in a hurry.

 

[t68]

Again it's not a helo that's used by our regional partners. It comes down to compatibility, logistics, and sustainment. If we are using a common platform to our ally and partner, we are able to access spares easily, rather than having to organise spares from across the world in a hurry.

Only going by fuzzy memory but wasn’t NZ the 1st in the region to pick the NH-90. Technically if memory serves right it was an orphan fleet untill the RAN got there feet wet to replace the SeaKings and UH-1

 

[Rotorhead]

Do

Again it's not a helo that's used by our regional partners. It comes down to compatibility, logistics, and sustainment. If we are using a common platform to our ally and partner, we are able to access spares easily, rather than having to organise spares from across the world in a hurry.

But do we share spare etc with Australia, The only aircraft in common in the NH90??? At the moment.

 

[ngatimozart]

Only going by fuzzy memory but wasn’t NZ the 1st in the region to pick the NH-90. Technically if memory serves right it was an orphan fleet untill the RAN got there feet wet to replace the SeaKings and UH-1

IIRC both countries selected it about the same time. There was consultation between the two.

Do

But do we share spare etc with Australia, The only aircraft in common in the NH90??? At the moment.

We may do at that, but our acquisition process was totally different to Australia's.

 

[MrConservative]

Only going by fuzzy memory but wasn’t NZ the 1st in the region to pick the NH-90. Technically if memory serves right it was an orphan fleet until the RAN got there feet wet to replace the SeaKings and UH-1

The ADF signed up about a year before the NZDF.

The one thing that surprises me was that by 2006 when the acquisition cost of the NH90 had blown out to $771m and the A109 out to $154m that they did not do a further evaluation and reconsider the whole rotary replacement project on cost-benefit-capability. Because for the $925m spent there were clearly better and more proven options, if they had avoided the pitfalls of a one size fits all unproven helicopter from a new European consortium.

 

[MrConservative]

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.

The NH90 in RNZAF service is getting close to 70% - for now. That is also after a hell of a lot of hard work by 3 Sqd. It should not have to be that way. LM Sikorsky are claiming well over 90% availability for their S-70i family.

 

[chis73]

Again it's not a helo [the Panther] that's used by our regional partners. It comes down to compatibility, logistics, and sustainment. If we are using a common platform to our ally and partner, we are able to access spares easily, rather than having to organise spares from across the world in a hurry.

Ahem - the Panther / Dauphin is used by the French Navy, in Tahiti (link) and on their Floreal Class patrol vessels within the South Pacific. I'd consider them very much a regional partner. Then there is also the USCG (MH-65 variant) in Hawaii, Indonesia, Malaysia, and further afield within the Pacific, the Korean coastguard, Taiwan, and the Chilean, Chinese & Mexican Navies. It is also very widely supported commercially, and at least one Police force in Australia (Victoria) use them too (but being replaced this month apparently -link). Wouldn't be the stupidest idea to put a bid in and navalise them as the French have done, or let Army use them as a cheaper alternative to the NH90 as an interim solution.

France recently marinised some more commercial Dauphins to see them through until the H160 comes online (link).

The Panther is probably too near to the end of it's lifetime for NZ to consider it now. 10 -15 years ago it could have made a lot of sense.

 

[south]

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).

In perspective the C-130's are about $40K NZD an hour. And I have seen a US Army figure for the Chinook at $12,000 USD an hour (New CH-47F simulator 1st of its kind).
Food for thought.

not saying that you are incorrect, this is more for the discussion as a whole. Costs per flight hour values vary wildly between who is reporting them/analysing them and what is inclucded. If people are not careful you can easily end up with an apples to roast beef calculation.

 

[ngatimozart]

Ahem - the Panther / Dauphin is used by the French Navy, in Tahiti (link) and on their Floreal Class patrol vessels within the South Pacific. I'd consider them very much a regional partner. Then there is also the USCG (MH-65 variant) in Hawaii, Indonesia, Malaysia, and further afield within the Pacific, the Korean coastguard, Taiwan, and the Chilean, Chinese & Mexican Navies. It is also very widely supported commercially, and at least one Police force in Australia (Victoria) use them too (but being replaced this month apparently -link). Wouldn't be the stupidest idea to put a bid in and navalise them as the French have done, or let Army use them as a cheaper alternative to the NH90 as an interim solution.

France recently marinised some more commercial Dauphins to see them through until the H160 comes online (link).

The Panther is probably too near to the end of it's lifetime for NZ to consider it now. 10 -15 years ago it could have made a lot of sense.

I am aware of that, but we still have the logistics problem. We can't readily access spares from the USN fleet train for it, as an example. As you say it's being replaced. IIRC it was one of the contenders for the Iroquois replacement so didn't make the cut then.

 

[Todjaeger]

The NH90 in RNZAF service is getting close to 70% - for now. That is also after a hell of a lot of hard work by 3 Sqd. It should not have to be that way. LM Sikorsky are claiming well over 90% availability for their S-70i family.

From what I can recall on reading the DOD documents, the US contract for the Black Hawk which the Seahawk was based off had either an 80% or 90% availability rate required.

Incidentally, it appears that the Black Hawk is expected to continue to be a part of US Army Aviation until 2054. It might therefore be worthwhile for the NZDF to re-examine the rotary wing fleets.

 

[Rotorhead]

Hopefully NZ can pick up some more RAN Helicopters.

Navy to get new utility helicopter | ADBR

The Royal Australian Navy’s 808SQN based at HMAS Albatross near Nowra will soon replace its Airbus MRH 90 helicopters with a new utility helicopter. As forecast in the Government’s 2020…

adbr.com.au

 

[ngatimozart]

Hopefully NZ can pick up some more RAN Helicopters.

Navy to get new utility helicopter | ADBR

The Royal Australian Navy’s 808SQN based at HMAS Albatross near Nowra will soon replace its Airbus MRH 90 helicopters with a new utility helicopter. As forecast in the Government’s 2020…

adbr.com.au

If the RAN relinquish their 6 NH90 MRH from the combined pool, those 6 helos will become Australian Army Aviation assets. However if it's decided that the RAN acquire the Sierra then it would be worth our while ordering ours with theirs if we decided to go down the Sierra road. The article states that the Sierra production line is closed, however LM advertise the S-70i Advanced Multi-Mission Plus which is basically an updated Sierra. So I would presume that they could be built on the standard Blackhawk production line but with different features being fitted where appropriate.

 

[shanes_world_05]

not saying that you are incorrect, this is more for the discussion as a whole. Costs per flight hour values vary wildly between who is reporting them/analysing them and what is inclucded. If people are not careful you can easily end up with an apples to roast beef calculation.

Absolutely. Take those numbers with some reserve.

But on the other hand I do a mean roast beef with Chilli, worcestershire sauce, abit of balsamic and apples.

 

[milliGal]

The June edition of Airforce News adds a bit of information to this topic.

From what I had seen it appeared the complementary maritime surveillance capability (now called EMAC apparently) was quite far progressed. Given that all we had seen to date was 2 KA350's modified with an EO/IR and a multi-mode radar I thought this might be it, but that article appears to suggest we might see additional capability added yet.

Their is also a piece in there about interning at the DTA that shows they are already experimenting with CubeSat technologies. I am not sure if an EO system capable of providing high enough resolution imagery for maritime surveillance can bit shrunk down to fit on a CubeSat, so I am not sure what kind useful capability they could provide (communications node perhaps, or low resolution maritime radar). Perhaps other members know more.

Well to follow on from my earlier post, it appears the EO imaging technology available in CubeSat's is already at a very high resolution, so would be well up to the task of maritime surveillance.

Rocketlab's most recent (unfortunately failed) launch included the Canon CE-SAT-IB, capable of imaging a 5 x 3 km area at 0.9 m resolution; and 5 SuperDove satellites, apparently capable of imaging at 0.5 m resolution. Almost good enough to make surveillance aircraft obsolete (if no clouds are in the way of course).

 

[MrConservative]

The next two projects down the RNZAF pipeline other than the Strategic component of the FAMC are the following:

Enhanced Maritime Awareness Capability
The Enhanced Maritime Awareness Capability project will support the Government’s civil maritime security strategy, providing air surveillance capabilities that enhance all-of-Government maritime domain awareness in New Zealand and the Southern Ocean. The capabilities delivered through this investment will be dedicated to civil surveillance requirements, with Defence support for their delivery and operation. This will free up the new P-8A maritime patrol aircraft fleet to fly more missions in the South Pacific and further afield. Investment in a range of capabilities will be considered, including satellite surveillance, unmanned aerial vehicles and traditional fixed-wing surveillance.

Indicative dates:
Industry engagement commences – Currently underway
Request for tender – 2020
Introduction into Service – 2023
Indicative capital cost: From $300m–$600m

Future Air Crew Training Capability
The recently acquired King Air 350 have allowed the New Zealand Defence Force to conduct air crew training domestically, improving Defence’s resilience and sustainability. The leased aircraft will require replacement in the mid-2020s with a training platform that reflects the
Royal New Zealand Air Force’s modern fleet of aircraft, following the introduction of the P-8A Poseidon, C-130H replacement, and strategic airlift capability.

Indicative dates:
Industry engagement commences – 2024
Request for tender – 2026
Introduction into Service – 2028
Indicative capital cost: From $150m–$200m

It will be fascinating to see both these projects unfold and what kind of mix we end up with. In some respects they will have to be complementary with each other, though that does not mean a rinse and repeat of an identical platform for both projects. These two acquisition projects will require direct association with each other to generate the optimal capability. It will be important for Defence to examine them together so as to not create a silo solution within each project.

The graduates from the FACTC project will go on to work with the EMAC project and the platform selected for the FACTC will have synergies in the operational output of the EMAC and FASC projects. Also the EMAC will inform and react to the Maritime Satellite Surveillance Capability (MSSC) due to start next year and be in place by 2025 as well as the Long Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Capability post 2030.

As noted in DCP19 the LRUAV Project will be acquired to support land and maritime forces with improved, continuous intelligence and surveillance. The capability will provide a greater range and coverage of operational areas, while also reducing risk posed to personnel in collecting intelligence. The MSS Project is separate to the current WGS-9 capability is about the procurement of specific coordinated services from operators of satellite systems which will provide broad coverage of our expansive maritime domain, allowing for improved situational awareness, and more targeted and efficient use of surface vessels and aircraft.

My preliminary thoughts sense the orthodoxy of selecting the MQ-9B Sea Guardian for the EMAC solution as it will be have a number of operational and workflow efficiencies with the P-8A, WGS-9 and MMS projects, as well as provide a capability pathway into the LRUAV project next decade. EMAC project notes that the solution can be drawn from UAV, Satellite and fixed wing solutions. That is true but does not necessarily mean that EMAC will wrap up all of that into three specific platforms. It may well be that the satellite component of the project can flow into enhancing the concurrent MMS project and that the fixed wing component of the EMAC solution can flow into the enhancement of the FACTC project - as the existing Air Crew Training Capability Project (ACTC) does. This leaves what should the actual FACTC capability be.

The FACTC as a joint training platform for both MEPT and AWOT will have to reflect as the DCP19 notes the RNZAF’s revised fleet of the P-8A Poseidon, C-130-30J-30, and B757 strategic airlift replacement, which will very likely be a converted wide body commercial jet. I note that there has been a shift to a light-medium business jet amongst some militaries over the last couple of years for MEPT, away from the older KA-350 platform. With a predominant "heavy" future jet fleet and with the PW TP-6 in the T-6C going for a twin biz jet solution does have logic.

In 2017 I identified the Pilatus PC-24 as a potential future KingAir replacement as the platform matures, and I still think that this is a very good prospect as an alternative to the KA-350 which would have given as a type 30 years service by the time the FACTC project goes IOC. Pilatus offer a very good ISR capability in the smaller PC-12 platform, which I gather is easily cross decked into the PC-24 via their US integration parters. They have significant experience in producing flight training systems as well. The PC-24 has both good STOL and rough field landing abilities. It is offered with QC/Combi configuration that can if equipped, swap out to either VIP, general pax (11 seat), medevac, and with the enlarged cargo door and flat cabin floor it can do a reasonable light airlift role. With 2 pilots, a steward and seating for 2 Officials and a DPS minder, it has a direct range (within flight rules) that can get to all East Coast Australia capitals including Adelaide as well as the capitals of the nine closest South Pacific nations. With 2 pilots, a loadmaster and it can air lift 1400lbs to those same Pacific destinations in a pure cargo role under normal flight rules.

I believe that this gives the PC-24 as a platform huge versatility towards meeting the requirements of the EMAC and FACTC projects in a broader sense as a supplement to a MQ-9B Sea Guardian prime acquisition in the EMAC role.

 

[ngatimozart]

The PC-24 may work as the KA350 replacement, CAF has indicated that they are looking at a medium sized aircraft for the EMAC role, so we are looking at another type. The may also decide to keep the KA350 as well since it's operated by other FVEY air arms. The KA350 also offers the experience of and training in engine out flying in a multi engine turbopro that you can't get in the simulator or on a PC-24. Neither gives you the feel of the drag of the feathered prop as it slows down if you haven't feathered it quickly enough. Nor do they give you the feel of the handling of the aircraft due to asymmetric power being applied.

The PC-24 may be seen as to risky especially, if it has to be fitted out with appropriate kit. NZMOD and NZDF would not want to be the initial client, plus it isn't being operated by any other FVEY.

 

[aussienscale]

I agree with the FA-50 suggestion. It's been something that I have given thought to for quite a while and would be at the top of my list. Given that it's not operated by another FVEY partner, it is operated by other air forces within the region and the engine is US.

The South Koreans do make good gear and that's why I like them for shipbuilding, but so do the Japanese and the Singaporeans.

Would be nice, would love to see something like this back in NZ, but maybe getting a little long in the tooth design wise ?

Interesting timing if/should NZ be in the market with the RAAF kicking off the RFI for Air 6002 Phase 1 to replace the Hawk 127's. Will be interesting to see who who puts in some paperwork ? Do our 127's have any legs left in them for NZ ? probably not, but the contenders could be interesting

Canberra kicks off search for new advanced jet trainer

Canberra has commenced the search for a new advanced jet trainer to replace BAE Systems Hawk 127s operated by the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF).

www.flightglobal.com

Boeing–Saab T-7 Red Hawk - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

BAE Systems Hawk - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Leonardo M-346 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

KAI T-50 Golden Eagle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

The PC-24 may work as the KA350 replacement, CAF has indicated that they are looking at a medium sized aircraft for the EMAC role, so we are looking at another type.

But the CAF has also said that a UAV is also in the mix as well for EMAC.

The may also decide to keep the KA350 as well since it's operated by other FVEY air arms. The KA350 also offers the experience of and training in engine out flying in a multi engine turbopro that you can't get in the simulator or on a PC-24. Neither gives you the feel of the drag of the feathered prop as it slows down if you haven't feathered it quickly enough. Nor do they give you the feel of the handling of the aircraft due to asymmetric power being applied.

They may do that, but it has now real competition. When the operational fleet becomes the P-8A, B776/B777/A330 variant, it leaves only the five C-130J-30 turbo-props. One could argue that a post-wings course pilot would have already had ample experience with turboprop characteristics during their extensive time on the T-6C and would now as they head into a future of flying either a turbofan or a heavy turboprop C-130J, the handling characteristics, and the rough field and STOL capability of a PC-24 would seemingly be more appropriate in the context of a 2028 IOC, than a great but elderly platform like the KingAir that was designed in the early 1960's.

The PC-24 may be seen as to risky especially, if it has to be fitted out with appropriate kit. NZMOD and NZDF would not want to be the initial client, plus it isn't being operated by any other FVEY.

I disagree that the risk would be significant enough to be a show stopper. Already in 2.5 years in commercial service numerous PC-24's have been delivered world wide including to the RFDS replacing its KingAirs, it will be in its 11th year of commercial operation by 2028. The PC-24 as part of its EASA certification pre-qualified though FFBNW, enhanced surveillance functions including sat-links as the Swiss are very sensible and have always designed their passenger aircraft for later dual civil-military use and have long established partnerships with Honeywell and Raytheon (and their prior corporate entities). This is a capability which will IOC in 2028, and there is a legitimate expectation that the PC-24 platform lending, itself to a coastal surveillance / crew training role, will be militarily/para militarily operational before that.

The FVEYS usage is really only applicable on an our military assets in which will be interoperable between them. Pilatus PC-21 is solely used by the RAAF as a training aircraft in which the PC-24 would also be in the RNZAF context. It is not a show stopper. The adage that is not the platform but what is inside the platform that counts with AFIC protocols and acceptances in place. For example Pilatus PC-12M's that are earmarked for Spectre ISR configuration are completed at Pilatus and then delivered stateside for installation of ISR kit, which I am sure went through all necessary AFIC protocols and acceptances. If this configuration is good enough for the US Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the DEA, the RCMP (all partner agencies represented under the FVEY's umbrella), I foresee no particular issues with kit supplied by US integrators being modified for a RNZAF PC-24 FACTC platform. I also foresee that when the indicative business case goes to Cabinet in 5-6 years their will be PC-24's serving in existing multi-mission roles - after all Pilatus did not spend $500m developing the platform solely for Swiss bankers.

 

[RegR]

Yes IMHO for that very reason of $$$ RNZAF's only realistic options for 40sqn (aside from WP) are AIA or Ohakea. Can't see Woodbourne being a serious contender as only the C130 could comfortably operate out of there and it is having increasingly suffering from the same 'crowded neighbourhood' issues WP is experiencing. Of the 2 options I'd assume Ohakea would be RNZAF's preferred option. As for 6sqn, it's not implausible that WP could be chopped down to a heliport operation but it'll largely depend on cost/ benefit of doing that versus moving to AIA. As for moving RNZN north... I think the costs are way under-estimated...

Well there is a vacant hanger at OH in the old 3 sqn hanger which is essentially a clone of the current 40 sqn hanger in WH and with 5 sqn buiding a purpose built facility means it is still up for grabs. There was talk years ago of moving just the boeings down to make use of the hanger and be nearer their primary customer but I guess the idea of splitting the squadron out weighed that logic but I think once 5 sqn does begin the transition (if not earlier) then the prospect of closing WH will again become a serious debate.

 

[RegR]

If the RAN relinquish their 6 NH90 MRH from the combined pool, those 6 helos will become Australian Army Aviation assets. However if it's decided that the RAN acquire the Sierra then it would be worth our while ordering ours with theirs if we decided to go down the Sierra road. The article states that the Sierra production line is closed, however LM advertise the S-70i Advanced Multi-Mission Plus which is basically an updated Sierra. So I would presume that they could be built on the standard Blackhawk production line but with different features being fitted where appropriate.

Sierras would only be good for use off the support ships and not as a direct replacement for the sprites. A split purchase of 5 romeos and 3 sierras could work saving the 5 romeos for the frigates and OPVs covering the "combat" role with the 3 sierras doing the logistical/training work and would be be still cheaper than an all romeo fleet as well.