Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ADMk2]

But, you do, and you are, kinda the whole point.

The seasprites didn't enter Australian service because Australia canned the project all together after years of trying and billions of dollars, again that was an Australian call not Kamans. The US had been using seasprites for decades and the RNZAF are using them now, funnily enough the exact same ones even, and you are still trying to say it's the type?? Seriously? Your claim would make some kind of sense if no one was using them before and the fact that someone is using them now is only further de-bunking your myth.

First of all you could try to get your argument straight. MRH-90 was an Army managed project with a limited RAN involvement whereas Seasprite was a solely RAN managed project. So which user are you pointing the finger at exactly? Or are you just blaming all of Australia for that? All 3 services are exactly the ‘same’ in terms of inventory management and sustainment are they? Lol.

Secondly, your figures are wrong. The entire SeaSprite project expenditure was $1.1b not “billions”.

Thirdly the SeaSprite capability RAN tried to introduce is not one either the RNZAF or the USN ever operated. We attempted to introduce a bespoke 2 person crew design, utilising advanced avionics and equipment to replace the 3rd crewman. The airframes subsequently sold to NZ were de-modified and reverted back to the original 3x crew configuration. The SH-2G(A) standard is not the standard RNZAF flies and wisely has never tried to.

The problems with SeaSprite however are entirely different to the MRH-90. The problem was the basic design of the SH-2G(A). RAN started with an illogical design idea - take a 3 person helicopter and try to use automation and “advanced” avionics ( from the 1990’s…) to turn the SH-2G into a 2 person helicopter and do the same job. Despite it never working they persevered futilely until a smart enough Government cancelled the whole thing and ordered the aircraft they should have invested in originally.

The MRH-90 fleet however has never lived up to expectations in terms of cost, availability or capability. The basic design concept isn’t the problem as it was with SeaSprite. The entire fleet (plus 1 extra aircraft provided by Airbus helicopters due to contract penalties for non-performance no less…) was in-service and Army and RAN worked with the manufacturer for decades trying to get the things to deliver what they promised.

The problems with NH-90 as a fleet is the problem that has led to us cancelling them and as it happens is one not unique to Australia, as has clearly been demonstrated by other users, all of whom ran bigger fleets of same than NZ does.

The only ‘commonality’ between both situations is ADF choosing the wrong capability and trying doggedly despite that to make it work, in both cases, ultimately unsuccessfully and being let down ultimately by manufacturers who couldn’t deliver what they were contracted to do.

RNZAF was the first user in the world to reach 2000 hours on the NH90 and has one of the best availability rates bar none so not sure where you are getting your info from re Australia? A major excuse is your low availability rates for the type so how does that then equate to flying them "more" than anyone else, including RNZAF?? Are you comparing the flight hours to date combined of all 47 ADF 90s to the single NZ 90 with 2000 hours? Ironically if you had flown the type more then obviously your availability rates would be comensurate or are you suggesting users like RNZAF have hit the 2000 hour mark and then parked up their fleets?

Directly from Army evidence on oath to the Australian Senate,

No I am not, I am comparing overall fleet hour numbers, One RNZAF aircraft may have reached 2000hrs, but the Australian fleet as a whole has flown well beyond 40,000hrs and it’s overall fleet hours useage substantially exceeds the hours accrued by any other user.

You are replacing the tiger early as well due to "similar problems" so no, I wouldn't exactly consider that any kind of success story, at all. You would only like to hope 4 out of 7 types of helicopter fleets in service work otherwise it would really be a difficult to overlook and not entirely sure how you can't blame poor management on the user with those kinds of stats!

Tiger has some of those problems it is true, but Army is fairly happy with it’s availability now - that isn’t the reason it is being replaced. It is being replaced because they believe the capability is obsolete. Australia as a participating OCCAR member and a long time user is well aware of the capability of the helicopter and aware of the requirement for it needing to be substantially upgraded and has expressed reservations about the ultimate capability they can get out of it.

This lack of capability is recognised by others in the program with Germany also deciding to phase them out (in favour of the H145M no less) and the other users deciding the substantial Tiger Mk3 upgrade is required.

Australia also has an expanded fleet requirement that Airbus helicopters is unable to fill, hence their (silly) proposed ‘dual fleet’ upgraded Tiger + H145m combo to meet our requirement, moving from 22x airframes to 29x airframes as we are with Apache.

So yeah, pretty solid argument all round…

 

[RegR]

MRH was an NHI caused problem, massive efforts from the ADF and Airbus were unable to produce a viable capability. What is a viable capability? A viable capability is reliability and maintainability delivering the required availability, or more to the point, a minimum number of airframes are able to their job when needed.

What is their job and when is it needed?

Training evolutions,

First of all you could try to get your argument straight. MRH-90 was an Army managed project with a limited RAN involvement whereas Seasprite was a solely RAN managed project. So which user are you pointing the finger at exactly? Or are you just blaming all of Australia for that? All 3 services are exactly the ‘same’ in terms of inventory management and sustainment are they? Lol.

Secondly, your figures are wrong. The entire SeaSprite project expenditure was $1.1b not “billions”.

Thirdly the SeaSprite capability RAN tried to introduce is not one either the RNZAF or the USN ever operated. We attempted to introduce a bespoke 2 person crew design, utilising advanced avionics and equipment to replace the 3rd crewman. The airframes subsequently sold to NZ were de-modified and reverted back to the original 3x crew configuration. The SH-2G(A) standard is not the standard RNZAF flies and wisely has never tried to.

The problems with SeaSprite however are entirely different to the MRH-90. The problem was the basic design of the SH-2G(A). RAN started with an illogical design idea - take a 3 person helicopter and try to use automation and “advanced” avionics ( from the 1990’s…) to turn the SH-2G into a 2 person helicopter and do the same job. Despite it never working they persevered futilely until a smart enough Government cancelled the whole thing and ordered the aircraft they should have invested in originally.

The MRH-90 fleet however has never lived up to expectations in terms of cost, availability or capability. The basic design concept isn’t the problem as it was with SeaSprite. The entire fleet (plus 1 extra aircraft provided by Airbus helicopters due to contract penalties for non-performance no less…) was in-service and Army and RAN worked with the manufacturer for decades trying to get the things to deliver what they promised.

The problems with NH-90 as a fleet is the problem that has led to us cancelling them and as it happens is one not unique to Australia, as has clearly been demonstrated by other users, all of whom ran bigger fleets of same than NZ does.

The only ‘commonality’ between both situations is ADF choosing the wrong capability and trying doggedly despite that to make it work, in both cases, ultimately unsuccessfully and being let down ultimately by manufacturers who couldn’t deliver what they were contracted to do.



Directly from Army evidence on oath to the Australian Senate,

No I am not, I am comparing overall fleet hour numbers, One RNZAF aircraft may have reached 2000hrs, but the Australian fleet as a whole has flown well beyond 40,000hrs and it’s overall fleet hours useage substantially exceeds the hours accrued by any other user.



Tiger has some of those problems it is true, but Army is fairly happy with it’s availability now - that isn’t the reason it is being replaced. It is being replaced because they believe the capability is obsolete. Australia as a participating OCCAR member and a long time user is well aware of the capability of the helicopter and aware of the requirement for it needing to be substantially upgraded and has expressed reservations about the ultimate capability they can get out of it.

This lack of capability is recognised by others in the program with Germany also deciding to phase them out (in favour of the H145M no less) and the other users deciding the substantial Tiger Mk3 upgrade is required.

Australia also has an expanded fleet requirement that Airbus helicopters is unable to fill, hence their (silly) proposed ‘dual fleet’ upgraded Tiger + H145m combo to meet our requirement, moving from 22x airframes to 29x airframes as we are with Apache.

So yeah, pretty solid argument all round…

Actually I don't care who in particular flies any of Australias troubled fleets and not sure where you got the idea I got any of the relevant services wrong anyway? And TBH it has no bearing on my arguments anyway, New Zealand helos work, Australian not so much, Army, navy, air force dosent change that? The boy scouts could maintain the 90s and the local pub the seasprites and I would still be asking why/how these ones are working and these ones are not? Lol

Much like I don't really care about what/how/why any particular type doesn't perform based on what any particular country did or didn't do to them as like Im saying, that is then country caused not type. Point being they work in other countries service so if Australia wants to get all technical and fancy then to me that is somewhat on them, risk and all.

Sorry, hundreds of millions not billions, my bad, but I'd like to think you get my drift.

You would only hope the bigger your overall fleet then the higher your flying hours but then that seems like a strange way to gain flying hours, to essentially buy more helicopters, and no doubt ridiculously expensive? Pretty sure the more generic baseline is CPFH and availability rate for a truer performance indicator vs total fleet numbers.

Again we, well to be more specific you, seem to focus on the 4 countries that are "prematurely" retiring their 90s and not on the other 10 that are not? For example why don't we figure out how RNZAF is getting the availability rates they are getting out of their frames or even why Germany is buying 31 more examples?? In all honesty if it was even the other way around and 10 countries were ditching them and 4 countries were still flying them then we should be then be asking what are those 4 doing so different? Heck even if it was 1 country! Thing is they obviously have a working plan to their "problems", so what is the secret??

 

[Volkodav]

Actually I don't care who in particular flies any of Australias troubled fleets and not sure where you got the idea I got any of the relevant services wrong anyway? And TBH it has no bearing on my arguments anyway, New Zealand helos work, Australian not so much, Army, navy, air force dosent change that? The boy scouts could maintain the 90s and the local pub the seasprites and I would still be asking why/how these ones are working and these ones are not? Lol

Much like I don't really care about what/how/why any particular type doesn't perform based on what any particular country did or didn't do to them as like Im saying, that is then country caused not type. Point being they work in other countries service so if Australia wants to get all technical and fancy then to me that is somewhat on them, risk and all.

Sorry, hundreds of millions not billions, my bad, but I'd like to think you get my drift.

You would only hope the bigger your overall fleet then the higher your flying hours but then that seems like a strange way to gain flying hours, to essentially buy more helicopters, and no doubt ridiculously expensive? Pretty sure the more generic baseline is CPFH and availability rate for a truer performance indicator vs total fleet numbers.

Again we, well to be more specific you, seem to focus on the 4 countries that are "prematurely" retiring their 90s and not on the other 10 that are not? For example why don't we figure out how RNZAF is getting the availability rates they are getting out of their frames or even why Germany is buying 31 more examples?? In all honesty if it was even the other way around and 10 countries were ditching them and 4 countries were still flying them then we should be then be asking what are those 4 doing so different? Heck even if it was 1 country! Thing is they obviously have a working plan to their "problems", so what is the secret??

So in a nutshell you don't care about facts because you have your unsupported, biased opinions.
The rest if us however will stick to the facts.

 

[RegR]

So in a nutshell you don't care about facts because you have your unsupported, biased opinions.
The rest if us however will stick to the facts.

Facts? Exactly, are you denying that RNZAF NH-90s are flying, and according to their own reports, quite well, and they are actually rather satisfied with them?

Facts? Are you denying RNZN are flying the seasprites, the same seasprites the RAN could not?

Facts? Are you denying Australia has abandoned both the taipan and seasprite fleets, one prematurely and one literally did not get off the ground! Or the fact that NZ is using both fleets and has been for sometime now.

Facts? Are you denying10 countries will still use the NH90, 3 will not and 1 is 50/50 on the idea?

Facts? So are you denying the taipans and seasprites, by Australia's own admission, are failed projects that have been replaced by completely new platforms?

Not sure where you are getting the idea my "opinions" are unsupported or biased when that is literally what is happening (or has already happened), right now, so does that not actually make them....ironically....facts? But do tell me how any of the above is unsupported or biased?

The "rest of you" seem to be in alittle bit of denial it would seem if you think I have made any of this up out of the blue when it is literally plastered all over the internet for all to see, another fact!

 

[Volkodav]

So how many aircraft does the RNZAF operate in each of its fleets?

Reality check, the largest single fleet is the Texan with 11 airframes, no other type breaks into double digits.

Now let's compare ADF "flight" sized squadrons. Wedgetail, KC-30, VIP Fleet, Chinook and Peregrine (when delivered). Maybe, just maybe Growler, if you ignore the existence of the Rhino Fleet. Spartan?

Pretty much every other fleet has as many or more aircraft than the entire RNZAF. Every other fleet has multiple tiers within its support organisation, a flightline maintenance organisation, a repair organisation, deep maintainance usually within the ADF and an industry support organisation. These organisations fit within a larger whole, with as much commonality as possible.

NZ maintains small niche capabilities with a very high-level of specialised support. It's more like a well funded motorsports team than a bus or taxi company, or even fleet management in a police, fire or ambulance service.

You are comparing small niche or boutique capabibilies to large, hard working fleets. The niche capabilities the ADF operate also have very high levels of availability.

 

[Maranoa]

The Australian Defence Force also pretended that the MRH90 was an effective helicopter until the very last moment. 5 Aviation Regiment even allowed Airbus to make a fluffy celebration video on the type in recent years even though they knew the reality of trying to maintain the airframe and the inherent issues of dealing with the prime contractor. New Zealand has no special powers. They already know what an expensive nightmare the NH90 is, their former Defence Minister (Ron Marks?) has openly discussed the issue in parliament and the RNZAF's Chief has stated this. But New Zealand, like the ADF for a decade, has decided to soldier on with the type and hopefully will sort it out at the end.

 

[RegR]

So how many aircraft does the RNZAF operate in each of its fleets?

Reality check, the largest single fleet is the Texan with 11 airframes, no other type breaks into double digits.

Now let's compare ADF "flight" sized squadrons. Wedgetail, KC-30, VIP Fleet, Chinook and Peregrine (when delivered). Maybe, just maybe Growler, if you ignore the existence of the Rhino Fleet. Spartan?

Pretty much every other fleet has as many or more aircraft than the entire RNZAF. Every other fleet has multiple tiers within its support organisation, a flightline maintenance organisation, a repair organisation, deep maintainance usually within the ADF and an industry support organisation. These organisations fit within a larger whole, with as much commonality as possible.

NZ maintains small niche capabilities with a very high-level of specialised support. It's more like a well funded motorsports team than a bus or taxi company, or even fleet management in a police, fire or ambulance service.

You are comparing small niche or boutique capabibilies to large, hard working fleets. The niche capabilities the ADF operate also have very high levels of availability.

I'm not comparing anything, you are. Supporting the type is all relative and I assume you then have the comensurate number of pilots, maintainers and support staff regardless of if you have 8 frames or 47. NZ has a single squadron of NH90s based at 1 base and Australia has multiple squadrons at multiple locations and Im relatively sure there are more than 135 pers spread across those locations, again, all relative. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the ADF had more support personnel in general tbh as RNZAF has always struggled to maintain numbers, 3 squadron included. Not sure why you think having smaller numbers in a fleet then makes it any easier to operate and maintain as economies of scale then go out the window, an issue we found with the smaller sprite fleet. Niche fleets are not easier, they're actually harder and NZ otherwise pays a premium for these in general.

Are you trying to say Australia just doesn't have enough specialised support for the NH90 because they are all off supporting all the other multiple aircraft many times more than the RNZAF? So, that would again make it an Australian issue right? Its not the types fault you dont have the required support staff to support your fleet of helicopters. You can name drop all the aircraft types and numbers you want but still not sure what that has to do with operating NH90s. Is the ADF short? Welcome to the club.

So since you like to use the small fleet excuse let's try a bigger fleet then, Germany for example, which is in the process of adding 31 90s to their already rather large fleet. Now what? there goes that niche capability theory? But then like I keep saying we can use any of those other 9 user countries, I just keep quoting RNZAF because of our supposed commonality.

BTW how are those unsupported biased claims of mine coming along? Still waiting for the answers on which is apparently unsupported or supposedly biased.

 

[RegR]

The Australian Defence Force also pretended that the MRH90 was an effective helicopter until the very last moment. 5 Aviation Regiment even allowed Airbus to make a fluffy celebration video on the type in recent years even though they knew the reality of trying to maintain the airframe and the inherent issues of dealing with the prime contractor. New Zealand has no special powers. They already know what an expensive nightmare the NH90 is, their former Defence Minister (Ron Marks?) has openly discussed the issue in parliament and the RNZAF's Chief has stated this. But New Zealand, like the ADF for a decade, has decided to soldier on with the type and hopefully will sort it out at the end.

Is that the same defence minister that was shocked to find an Nh-90 costs 2.5 times more to fly than a UH-1H?? I would have assumed tjat was a given and you would have to be some kind of idiot to be surprised by that little bombshell...he'll probably struggle to comprehend a C-130 costs more to fly than a king air as well‍ stick to being a politician in that case. BTW he was ex army so that does not then make him some kind of expert in all things air force, in fact in my experience that doesn't even make him an expert in all things army‍

The fact is our govt likes to complain about anything and everything in the military especially in opposition. NZLAV, IPVs, B757s are just a few of their rants over the years, all trying to remain relevant and deflect from larger issues.

 

[south]

Conflating different issues (RAN Seasprite introduction to service vs MRH-90 ongoing issues) doesn’t really help your case - particularly given they were from different projects, roles, manufacturers, with significantly different technical reasons for the issues.

An assessment that these types are symptomatic of the ADF being unable to operate helo’s isn’t really supportable given it has successfully operated a variety of other helicopter types (as ADMk2 tried to point out). If there was a consistent issue with ADF helo acquisition, sustainment and operation then why has the MH-60 introduction to service gone smoothly? Or the CH-47F been successful?

Regarding MRH-90 its entirely possible that any availability/serviceability differences could come from a variety of reasons (assuming logistics and maintenance are relatively similar)
Environmental - heat / dust / humidity / rain / cold / maritime
Operational - risk acceptance / flight profile / mission types / load / shipborne

As an example - the airworthiness and training requirements to conduct a multi-ship formation SF fast rope insertion from a maritime platform at night, are significantly different from conducting a day VMC point-point cargo mission.

It’s well known that Aus Army (6Avn) was using the helos in one of the more demanding roles. Unless you’re able to show that the RNZAF was routinely operating MRH-90 in a similar fashion, you may be comparing apples and oranges. One thing that we do know is that the ADF is not on their own in being dissatisfied with the capability provided.

 

[RegR]

Conflating different issues (RAN Seasprite introduction to service vs MRH-90 ongoing issues) doesn’t really help your case - particularly given they were from different projects, roles, manufacturers, with significantly different technical reasons for the issues.

An assessment that these types are symptomatic of the ADF being unable to operate helo’s isn’t really supportable given it has successfully operated a variety of other helicopter types (as ADMk2 tried to point out). If there was a consistent issue with ADF helo acquisition, sustainment and operation then why has the MH-60 introduction to service gone smoothly? Or the CH-47F been successful?

Regarding MRH-90 its entirely possible that any availability/serviceability differences could come from a variety of reasons (assuming logistics and maintenance are relatively similar)
Environmental - heat / dust / humidity / rain / cold / maritime
Operational - risk acceptance / flight profile / mission types / load / shipborne

As an example - the airworthiness and training requirements to conduct a multi-ship formation SF fast rope insertion from a maritime platform at night, are significantly different from conducting a day VMC point-point cargo mission.

It’s well known that Aus Army (6Avn) was using the helos in one of the more demanding roles. Unless you’re able to show that the RNZAF was routinely operating MRH-90 in a similar fashion, you may be comparing apples and oranges. One thing that we do know is that the ADF is not on their own in being dissatisfied with the capability provided.

Why does everyone keep bringing up other helicopter types as if it then somehow explains the problems with another completely different type? I get it, ADF can fly helicopters and I would be completely dumbfounded if they couldn't! but then I'm not talking about those other helicopter types am I which I thought was rather obvious at this point?

My case? My "case" is the helicopter fleet issues in general, the nature of which is irrelevant and the point being there are obviously helicopter problems. tbh it would only be a worse look anyway if these were caused by the same/similar issues with the same/similar root cause in same/similar projects etc as that would then show a case of not learning from past mistakes and point towards systematic failings across the rotary wing as a whole rather than any one type.

So now we are saying Australia flies helicopters differently which is causing the issues? Ok so how do other countries fly them if not the apparent vanilla up and down of the RNZAF I wonder? Ive actually flown with both the Aus army and RNZAF here and in ET so not overly sure what these demanding roles would be? let's just say, some pilots threw it around a lot more than others and made for a memorable flight, others nap inducing... Remember the 3 sqn (as in single squadron) NH90s support NZDF as a whole incl SF, regular army, civilian, even navy and considering the smaller fleet if anything are actually having to do more with less, again, its all relative.

In any case why would "more demanding" flight equate to the helicopter then coming up with issues? Was the ADF flying them all constantly at their operational limits? past their limits? hard enough to seemingly cause problems? At full load? All at once?? There are also a wide range of nations still operating them in a multitude of environs around the world from hot/dry/wet/cold/maritime/sunshine/cloudy or whatever else we want to come up with but then yea, they could possibly be flying them nice and easy and only in nice weather on Sundays etc as like you say, who knows? You can only glean so much from every nations internet postings of their 90s in operation.

Yes I understand there are a few countries not flying these, and there are a few countries that are....and there in lies the conundrum? Most of them operate multiple types succesfully as well in what Im sure they deem demanding roles which Im sure explains, something, right??

 

[Volkodav]

MRH was a maintenance hog, it was also a data hog. Systems that had no issue supporting every other platform in service ground to a halt when processing the MRH fleet. Fantastic, NZ has a fleet of six, they could probably track everything on a spread sheet, Australia had seven times that number.

Rotable parts and repairable parts, NZ has a fleet of six including a rotable part pool of what 15-20%? Australia had a much larger fleet, to do maintenance the way NZ does they would have to have bought an additional pool of aircraft greater than the whole NZ fleet.

You can do things with small fleets you can't do with large fleets. Ever done any RAM? I have, I am no expert but am officially a practitioner, NZs fleet is so small that statistically speaking they may never encounter some of the issues faced by other operators, especially operators who work their fleets hard.

This discussion is going nowhere. You are comparing apples to oranges and claiming on the basis of your assessment of watermelons, that NZ operates coconuts better than Australia can herd meercats.

 

[RegR]

MRH was a maintenance hog, it was also a data hog. Systems that had no issue supporting every other platform in service ground to a halt when processing the MRH fleet. Fantastic, NZ has a fleet of six, they could probably track everything on a spread sheet, Australia had seven times that number.

Rotable parts and repairable parts, NZ has a fleet of six including a rotable part pool of what 15-20%? Australia had a much larger fleet, to do maintenance the way NZ does they would have to have bought an additional pool of aircraft greater than the whole NZ fleet.

You can do things with small fleets you can't do with large fleets. Ever done any RAM? I have, I am no expert but am officially a practitioner, NZs fleet is so small that statistically speaking they may never encounter some of the issues faced by other operators, especially operators who work their fleets hard.

This discussion is going nowhere. You are comparing apples to oranges and claiming on the basis of your assessment of watermelons, that NZ operates coconuts better than Australia can herd meercats.

So stop comparing to the NZ fleet then, like I keep saying, almost repeatedly in fact, there are numerous other countries with just as many and more then Australia? You just keep choosing to ignore because you feel your whole numbers argument is the root cause. Germany alone just bought another fleet almost the same size again!! Now what.

So maybe you should do "7 spreadsheets" then, as obviously it works? Another great excuse though.

Your right it is going nowhere, that last paragraph is literally the crux of your explanations...

 

[Pepe le pew]

MRH was a maintenance hog, it was also a data hog. Systems that had no issue supporting every other platform in service ground to a halt when processing the MRH fleet. Fantastic, NZ has a fleet of six, they could probably track everything on a spread sheet, Australia had seven times that number.

Rotable parts and repairable parts, NZ has a fleet of six including a rotable part pool of what 15-20%? Australia had a much larger fleet, to do maintenance the way NZ does they would have to have bought an additional pool of aircraft greater than the whole NZ fleet.

You can do things with small fleets you can't do with large fleets. Ever done any RAM? I have, I am no expert but am officially a practitioner, NZs fleet is so small that statistically speaking they may never encounter some of the issues faced by other operators, especially operators who work their fleets hard.

This discussion is going nowhere. You are comparing apples to oranges and claiming on the basis of your assessment of watermelons, that NZ operates coconuts better than Australia can herd meercats.

No one likes a "nit picker" but the NZDF seems to think we have 8 airframes.

NH90 Helicopter - New Zealand Defence Force (nzdf.mil.nz)

 

[Volkodav]

No one likes a "nit picker" but the NZDF seems to think we have 8 airframes.

NH90 Helicopter - New Zealand Defence Force (nzdf.mil.nz)

Fair enough eight it is. Less than one squadrons worth in the Australian army.

 

[Volkodav]

So stop comparing to the NZ fleet then, like I keep saying, almost repeatedly in fact, there are numerous other countries with just as many and more then Australia? You just keep choosing to ignore because you feel your whole numbers argument is the root cause. Germany alone just bought another fleet almost the same size again!! Now what.

So maybe you should do "7 spreadsheets" then, as obviously it works? Another great excuse though.

Your right it is going nowhere, that last paragraph is literally the crux of your explanations...

I wish this page had a block function. I do my best to ignore you but then you post complete BS that has to be addressed.

I literally don't care if you wear your underpants on the outside of your trousers and like wearing a towel tied around your neck.

Maybe we should limit this discussion to NZs fast jets, submarines, strategic transports, LHDs guided missile ships and heavy armour.

 

[RegR]

I wish this page had a block function. I do my best to ignore you but then you post complete BS that has to be addressed.

I literally don't care if you wear your underpants on the outside of your trousers and like wearing a towel tied around your neck.

Maybe we should limit this discussion to NZs fast jets, submarines, strategic transports, LHDs guided missile ships and heavy armour.

At this point Im just loving how you don't answer/reply/even acknowledge any of my "unsupported and biased opinions", instead go off on a tangent and get all defensive, pun intended.

 

[Volkodav]

My BS?? At this point Im just loving how you don't answer/reply/even acknowledge any of my "unsupported and biased opinions", instead go off on a tangent and get all defensive, pun intended.

And now we want to dick wave instead! No point discussing those on an NZ page because NZ doesn't have any of those. Cool story though.

Feeling better?

Basically you are a troll.

Disappointing none of the mods have stomped yet, maybe I'll give them a wake-up nudge. It's not something I normally do but you are taking the piss so time to do the adult thing and tell the teacher you are being a jerk.

 

[Volkodav]

My BS?? At this point Im just loving how you don't answer/reply/even acknowledge any of my "unsupported and biased opinions", instead go off on a tangent and get all defensive, pun intended.

And now we want to dick wave instead! No point discussing those on an NZ page because NZ doesn't have any of those. Cool story though.

Feeling better?

You gave been answered on multiple occasions by multiple people relaying the same facts. You have chosen to troll instead of discuss in a professional manner.

 

[RegR]

Basically you are a troll.

Disappointing none of the mods have stomped yet, maybe I'll give them a wake-up nudge. It's not something I normally do but you are taking the piss so time to do the adult thing and tell the teacher you are being a jerk.

I'm taking the piss?? You're the one talking about fruit, vegetables and Meerkats and I'm talking/asking about NH-90s and I'm taking the piss? the fact you don't like what I'm saying is literally not my problem! Did you just expect me to roll over and agree with you? Sorry to dissapoint, but no.

 

[Volkodav]

I'm taking the piss?? You're the one talking about fruit, vegetables and Meerkats and I'm talking/asking about NH-90s and I'm taking the piss? the fact you don't like what I'm saying is literally not my problem! Did you just expect me to roll over and agree with you? Sorry to dissapoint, but no.

Ok I'll bite.

It has been explained to you that there is a massive difference between operating a large fleet in the tropics versus a small fleet in a temperate climate.

It has been explained to you that the ADF has worked their fleet very hard.

It has been explained to you that the ADF currently operates multiple types of helicopters without the same issues that were experienced with the MRH.

It has been explained to you the ADF operates multiple fleets of aircraft, without the issues experienced with the MRH.

It has been explained to you that systems successfully used to manage multiple other types have issues where the MRH is concerned that no other capability has experienced.

This is obviously a case of one-upmanship where you are concerned. You are not discussing the topic, you are simply being recalcetrent because you appear to find it entertaining.