Royal New Zealand Air Force

Rob c said:

Well put, I think that increasing the AW 109 numbers is a must and should be early cab off the rank should additional funds be come available. NZ armed forces have always suffered from not having the right numbers of major equipment to achieve what is expected of them and rotary is no exception to this. I remember when I was at DEF HQ the minister ordered a review of UH1 numbers, ( from memory one of the criteria was to transport a company a set distance in a set time, there was a lot more which I have forgotten.) The min number was said to be 20 and some work was done towards this achieving this number. be for the project was scrapped.
A significant increase in AW 109's would also improve the availability of the NH90 as they are often used in tasks that their size is not needed. Mr C do you have any info on how the NH90 is going in RNZAF service as what I have heard locally is generally fairly positive.
I was interested in your comments in regard to the C 130 SLEP in allowing time for the A 400 project to mature. It would appear that the RNZAF was moving away from the C 130 J at that time. However it must be remembered that the J was experiencing significant problems then, with a low availability to add to this, these problems have since been solved.

Click to expand...

Generally the NH-90 is going OK but it is I understand fairly expensive to operate.

I don't think that we need to increase the numbers of the A109. We have enough for solely the rotary pilot and crew training role with five and a simulator. It is a superb training platform.

The capability gap exists in the space between the A109 training role and the NH90 as the principal rotary platform that would be operationally deployed to support a CATG. The gap is with respect to MAOT, rapid air deployed HADR & SASO into the Pacific via C-130, SAR and SOF training and support including CT. Also lets be clear here - this will not be a platform that will likely go with a CTAG to participate in a medium intensity UNSC Chp VII event - that is the NH90's job.

Rather than buying more A109s and a couple more NH90s to cover this the more pragmatic solution is introduce a proven utility helicopter to do this - smaller and less expensive to operate than the NH90 and larger and more capable than the A109. The solution is blindingly obvious with the regenerated UH-60L (or ideally Victor model with the latest digital cockpit). The impact of operating a third type is mitigated through support contracts - the current Hawker Pacific model for example or what LM are doing with the ten Blackhawks that will undertake firefighting duties in OZ.

MrConservative said:

Generally the NH-90 is going OK but it is I understand fairly expensive to operate.

I don't think that we need to increase the numbers of the A109. We have enough for solely the rotary pilot and crew training role with five and a simulator. It is a superb training platform.

The capability gap exists in the space between the A109 training role and the NH90 as the principal rotary platform that would be operationally deployed to support a CATG. The gap is with respect to MAOT, rapid air deployed HADR & SASO into the Pacific via C-130, SAR and SOF training and support including CT. Also lets be clear here - this will not be a platform that will likely go with a CTAG to participate in a medium intensity UNSC Chp VII event - that is the NH90's job.

Rather than buying more A109s and a couple more NH90s to cover this the more pragmatic solution is introduce a proven utility helicopter to do this - smaller and less expensive to operate than the NH90 and larger and more capable than the A109. The solution is blindingly obvious with the regenerated UH-60L (or ideally Victor model with the latest digital cockpit). The impact of operating a third type is mitigated through support contracts - the current Hawker Pacific model for example or what LM are doing with the ten Blackhawks that will undertake firefighting duties in OZ.

Click to expand...

While I can see were you are coming from I would hesitate to add a third level of complication that another type would inevitably bring, while my fairly brief experience with helicopter servicing and its added complications was many years ago, I would still be reluctant to add another type. I would personally try to keep our in service types down to the current 2 and build on their numbers. It would be interesting to know what the hourly cost of our NH 90's was and what the breakdown was, as I don't think it would be anything like as high as reported for the Swedes as if it was, some pollies would have found out and would have had a field day over it. For example the previous national government could have really bagged Labour for the the stupid *xxx;'" they had bought.

Rob c said:

While I can see were you are coming from I would hesitate to add a third level of complication that another type would inevitably bring, while my fairly brief experience with helicopter servicing and its added complications was many years ago, I would still be reluctant to add another type. I would personally try to keep our in service types down to the current 2 and build on their numbers. It would be interesting to know what the hourly cost of our NH 90's was and what the breakdown was, as I don't think it would be anything like as high as reported for the Swedes as if it was, some pollies would have found out and would have had a field day over it. For example the previous national government could have really bagged Labour for the the stupid *xxx;'" they had bought.

Click to expand...

I think from memory the new/old Sea Sprites will eventfully have to be replaced within 15years, using Mr C Blackhawk fleet may be the stepping stone to use Romeo's in the future. it may go to four now but will go back down to three with the added benefits of a common fleet already in use.

Rob c said:

While I can see were you are coming from I would hesitate to add a third level of complication that another type would inevitably bring, while my fairly brief experience with helicopter servicing and its added complications was many years ago, I would still be reluctant to add another type. I would personally try to keep our in service types down to the current 2 and build on their numbers. It would be interesting to know what the hourly cost of our NH 90's was and what the breakdown was, as I don't think it would be anything like as high as reported for the Swedes as if it was, some pollies would have found out and would have had a field day over it. For example the previous national government could have really bagged Labour for the the stupid *xxx;'" they had bought.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, I suspect the NH90 figures (or at least the ratio) is if not exactly correct, within the correct range. Norway and Australia have both reported in the Military Aviation thread, post #'s 80 and 84 approximate per flight hour cost ratios of 5:1 when comparing the NH90 to the UH-60 Black Hawk, in addition to Sweden. If it was just a single country, then there might be something with the contracts and/or sustainment methodology, but three different nations all showing the same basic cost issue...

Something I would be interested in knowing is what the RNZAF experience has been with the NH90 in terms of maintenance hours per flight hour, and what the capability requirement and actual serviceability rate has been. Going by the ADF's MRH90 experiences as reported by the ANAO, the requirement was for 65% serviceable on average, while the actual experience was only 48%. If the RNZAF's NH90's are showing a similar performance, then it could well be more cost effective to either introduce a third lift helicopter into service, or replace the NH90's with something else.

Consider the following, an NH90 can carry approximately twice the troops or the same amount of underslung cargo as a Black Hawk, but per the reports from Australia, Norway, and Sweden, the per flight hour cost is 5x that of a Black Hawk. So for ~the same amount spent flying a single NH90, one could fly 5 Black Hawks, with a capacity to lift 2.5x the troops, or 5x the cargo (or some mix of the two).

If the RNZAF is having a similar serviceability rate as the ADF's MRH90, then out of the 8 NH90's in the Kiwi inventory, 4 of them are down for maintenance at any given time, leaving 4 available for operations, training, etc. Now I do not know what target number of NH90's the NZDF to have available for operations at any given time is/was, or what the desired surge number was/is, but the idea that the Canterbury could find itself holding all of the flyable NH90's in Kiwi service is an issue IMO. As is the possibility that a deployed Canterbury might find itself with a hangar full of unserviceable NH90's due to their maintenance demands.

At present, it seems that the Rule of Threes which is applicable to most military units and systems does not apply to NH90's and instead it is a Rule of Fours. If there is a requirement for nn units available for immediate use, then utilizing something with a Rule of Fours can rapidly become prohibitive. This is likely why the Australian Army's 6 Avn still utilize Black Hawks in support of SOCOMD roles, as the cost to support sufficient MRH90's to meet the requirement is prohibitive.

t68 said:

I think from memory the new/old Sea Sprites will eventfully have to be replaced within 15years, using Mr C Blackhawk fleet may be the stepping stone to use Romeo's in the future. it may go to four now but will go back down to three with the added benefits of a common fleet already in use.

Click to expand...

I appreciate peoples apprehension about going to a 4th type in service and potential support strain within the RNZAF - however this can be mitigated and Defence currently have a support model in place with respect to the T-6C and B200 provided by Hawker - NZ Govt PPP that provides a reduced risked and institutional footprint within the RNZAF. In the last 15 years contractor support models within defence have replaced the need to to have large scale service personnel establishments to support aircraft types. Especially as in this case like the T-6C and B200, the proposed platform UH-60 is for all those taskings which are essentially non combat (i.e non UNSC Chp VII ops) but still are an essential part of the NZDF's aid to civil power remit such as HADR and SASO local and South Pacific, SAR, MAOT, VIP and Police/CT support. What I have referred to in the past as the Hilux Ute type roles - the important but non sexy stuff. Let the NH90 concentrate as the combat support platform and be freed up to do so - let the A109 concentrate on training and the Seasprite on maritime duties and again be freed up to do so and thus leave all the routine other stuff to a utility workhorse.

Here is a flavour of the kind of support model that would work and thus relieve the concerns about 4th type implications. Starflight Australia and its relationship with Lockheed Martin in getting 10 regenerated UH-60's into service for AUD $62m.

World-first refurbishment of Black Hawk helicopters for firefighting and disaster relief in Australia under new agreement

Whilst the RNZAF is the "owner" and an RNZAF rotary squadron becomes the "operator" with respect to flying and crewing, Lockheed Martin (Sikorsky's parent) additional to the acquisition contract is responsible as the support, training and sustainment "provider" to assist in getting the capability solution operational onto the Ohakea flight line for RNZAF crews to use.

Cheers, Mr C

The Seasprites are due for replacement around 2030 - 35. Whilst the (MH-60) Romeos may look good contenders now as their replacement, in 2030 they could have an equivalent in-service status to that of the USN Super Seasprites in 2000. Hence we could end up with an orphan fleet yet again. However we have about eight to twelve years to monitor the on-goings and outcomes of the US Future Vertical Lift program, before we have to make a decision.

I am of the opinion that Blackhawks, as suggested by Mr C, may be the better option (especially) in the short to medium term. I disagree with him regarding the A109s, in that my belief is that an extra (five max) A109s would be an affordable addition to the fling-wing fleet, especially if they were not armoured and wired for weapons like the current five A109 in RNZAF service. I think that the current Minister of Defence would be amenable to a Blackhawk acquisition because he is (or was) not a fan of the NH90. IMHO he wouldn't be keen on acquiring any more NH90s for the fleet plus if ordered they won't be here for years. As previous posters have suggested it would be an expensive undertaking. I do see a place for four Chooks in the RNZAF but not at the expense of Blackhawks.

ngatimozart said:

I am of the opinion that Blackhawks, as suggested by Mr C, may be the better option (especially) in the short to medium term. I disagree with him regarding the A109s, in that my belief is that an extra (five max) A109s would be an affordable addition to the fling-wing fleet, especially if they were not armoured and wired for weapons like the current five A109 in RNZAF service. .......... I do see a place for four Chooks in the RNZAF but not at the expense of Blackhawks.

Click to expand...

I am assuming you want those extra A109's for the training role and the current wired/armoured A109's transferred into a light attack or SOF platform. That is fine - I do not disagree in terms of it being an aspirational outcome. But the priority is the existing utility gap in which the UH-60 would fill - to plug the holes in the boat so to speak.

Chinooks will likely only be an option if the NH90 ends up as a failure and discontinued and/or if we get an LHD to replace the CY or a couple of ex USAF C-17's magically appear.

MrConservative said:

I appreciate peoples apprehension about going to a 4th type in service and potential support strain within the RNZAF - however this can be mitigated and Defence currently have a support model in place with respect to the T-6C and B200 provided by Hawker - NZ Govt PPP that provides a reduced risked and institutional footprint within the RNZAF. In the last 15 years contractor support models within defence have replaced the need to to have large scale service personnel establishments to support aircraft types. Especially as in this case like the T-6C and B200, the proposed platform UH-60 is for all those taskings which are essentially non combat (i.e non UNSC Chp VII ops) but still are an essential part of the NZDF's aid to civil power remit such as HADR and SASO local and South Pacific, SAR, MAOT, VIP and Police/CT support. What I have referred to in the past as the Hilux Ute type roles - the important but non sexy stuff. Let the NH90 concentrate as the combat support platform and be freed up to do so - let the A109 concentrate on training and the Seasprite on maritime duties and again be freed up to do so and thus leave all the routine other stuff to a utility workhorse.

Here is a flavour of the kind of support model that would work and thus relieve the concerns about 4th type implications. Starflight Australia and its relationship with Lockheed Martin in getting 10 regenerated UH-60's into service for AUD $62m.

World-first refurbishment of Black Hawk helicopters for firefighting and disaster relief in Australia under new agreement

Whilst the RNZAF is the "owner" and an RNZAF rotary squadron becomes the "operator" with respect to flying and crewing, Lockheed Martin (Sikorsky's parent) additional to the acquisition contract is responsible as the support, training and sustainment "provider" to assist in getting the capability solution operational onto the Ohakea flight line for RNZAF crews to use.

Cheers, Mr C

Click to expand...

Me being me, I would not rule out the potential for Kiwi Black Hawks (if they do come into service) being utilized for Chapt. VII ops. IMO the deciding factors will be serviceability and availability in-theatre. Having a per flight-hour cost more appropriate for a vacationing resort magnate out playing golf IMO would not help, but is of lesser importance. I can easily see scenarios where there are too many NH90's down for maintenance and/or already away on deployments to provide sufficient helicopters for an operation, especially if the Kiwi NH90's are also 'high maintenance' since there are only eight in total. Similarly, I can easily foresee Kiwi personnel deployed to a theatre or area of operations where it is just too difficult and/or expensive for the RNZAF to get the required number of NH90's in to provide support. Particularly if the RNZAF does not get the A400M or a similarly sized airlifter into service.

If ten upgraded Blackhawks can be had for $60 million is this a lease or an outright purchase? With LM (Sikorsky) providing all support would this be affected by the capital charge or would it be excempt?

I like Ngatis suggestion of five vanilla AW109 and use these for training and use the A/LUH to support military operations.

For less that $100 million you could get a lot of capability. And with LM looking after maintenance no tail to be concerned with for additional support personnel or supply chain. Just pilots, navigators and loadmasters. Looks like a very good plan. Make it so please MrC.

Todjaeger said:

Me being me, I would not rule out the potential for Kiwi Black Hawks (if they do come into service) being utilized for Chapt. VII ops. IMO the deciding factors will be serviceability and availability in-theatre. Having a per flight-hour cost more appropriate for a vacationing resort magnate out playing golf IMO would not help, but is of lesser importance. I can easily see scenarios where there are too many NH90's down for maintenance and/or already away on deployments to provide sufficient helicopters for an operation, especially if the Kiwi NH90's are also 'high maintenance' since there are only eight in total. Similarly, I can easily foresee Kiwi personnel deployed to a theatre or area of operations where it is just too difficult and/or expensive for the RNZAF to get the required number of NH90's in to provide support. Particularly if the RNZAF does not get the A400M or a similarly sized airlifter into service.

Click to expand...

My only problem with the Black hawk would be on the servicing side. Mr C has suggested the civilian contract model which works very well, but restricts you to non combat use and non field use. The other possibility would be a mixture with civil base maintenance and military flight line maintenance, which would give you more options. The other maintenance problem is that you would need to keep the current types and the Black hawks separate from a maintenance point of view as the black Hawks are built to US National Standards and our current fleet are Metric, so basic spares and tools cannot be mixed and for safety reasons should not be in the same area. In larger forces differing types are operated in different units so the problem does not exist.

Rob c said:

My only problem with the Black hawk would be on the servicing side. Mr C has suggested the civilian contract model which works very well, but restricts you to non combat use and non field use. The other possibility would be a mixture with civil base maintenance and military flight line maintenance, which would give you more options. The other maintenance problem is that you would need to keep the current types and the Black hawks separate from a maintenance point of view as the black Hawks are built to US National Standards and our current fleet are Metric, so basic spares and tools cannot be mixed and for safety reasons should not be in the same area. In larger forces differing types are operated in different units so the problem does not exist.

Click to expand...

It might be worthwhile for the RNZAF to talk with Australian Army Aviation and/or the RAN FAA about how they handle operating and maintaining their respective UH-60 and MH-60R fleets. From my POV, it would seem sensible if 8-10 Black Hawks were acquired, for a new squadron to be raised, perhaps No. 1 Squadron, or No. 41 Squadron, given both units had history as a transport unit.

Another possibility would be for any Kiwi Black Hawks to be based at RNZAF Base Auckland, which is where No. 6 Squadron is based, and operates the US-made SH-2G(I) Seasprites. From a maintenance POV, if basic standards and units of measure for tooling and spares are such an issue, then having different designs built to the same set of standards col-located should help ease that concern.

What I would also hope is that the NZDF makes plans that will introduce a heavy-lift helicopter like the CH-47 Chinook into the capability. The plans themselves do not necessarily have to be implemented, but a failure to consider the possibility could make a future implementation more difficult and/or expensive if circumstances dictate that it needs to be done.

So far, HMNZS Canterbury's helipad can take a CH-47 Chinook, but it cannot fit into the hangar for maintenance. As a side note, per issue 202 of Navy Today, August 2016, the future HMNZS Aotearoa will be the only vessel in the RNZN fleet that is able to both operate and maintain the RNZAF NH90 helicopter. That strongly suggests to me that while HMNZS Canterbury can have NH90's embarked, it lacks appropriate facilities to maintain them. If that is the case, then could make NH90 service away from NZ problematic in HADR or similar situations where land-based facilities might be primitive or just unavailable. The inability of the NH90 to operate from either the ANZAC-class FFH's or Protector-class OPV's is to be expected, given the size of the NH90 and limited space available aboard those vessel classes.

Rob c said:

My only problem with the Black hawk would be on the servicing side. Mr C has suggested the civilian contract model which works very well, but restricts you to non combat use and non field use.

Click to expand...

The Counterpoint is those MAOT/SAR/HADR type taskings undertaken by a vanilla UH-60 free's up the NH90 for an increase in its combat/combat training role in support of the NZ Army. Right now with just 5 LUH and 8 MUH we are not just restricted in every operational rotary matrix we are completely compromised.

Rob c said:

The other possibility would be a mixture with civil base maintenance and military flight line maintenance, which would give you more options. The other maintenance problem is that you would need to keep the current types and the Black hawks separate from a maintenance point of view as the black Hawks are built to US National Standards and our current fleet are Metric, so basic spares and tools cannot be mixed and for safety reasons should not be in the same area. In larger forces differing types are operated in different units so the problem does not exist.

Click to expand...

Lockheed Martin / Sikorsky's would obviously have a bigger base footprint at OH to support this. I am sure they will be in a position to deliver everything we need under the terms of the contract including a small number of contractors for a fly-away support who are trained to reattach the blades and rotor hub post C-130 hop and keep it ticking over whilst deployed.

Of course it would have to be an open tender and no doubt Bell may propose a Huey variant - because at the end of the day it is about solving a number of issues which impact on the RNZAF being able to deliver on its primary military and aid to civil power roles. Something that more NH-90's or brand new UH-60M's packed with all the latest gear to fight WW3 are wasted on with respect to capability and cost.

In fact I frankly don't care if it is a Huey or UH-60 that does this as long as the capability gap is meet and resources are used wisely.

From another forum I visit there is speculation on how far UH60 has to be broken down to fit inside a C130. Apprantly it was done during INTEFET and it was such a tight squeeze it had taken another 24hrs just to reassemble, he compared it to the Kiwi Huey's at the time just needing a few hours for them to become operational again. I guess in the RAAF pov it has c17 to move them around. Also he suggested that the Seahawks do not fit in a C130 can anyone confirm?

t68 said:

From another forum I visit there is speculation on how far UH60 has to be broken down to fit inside a C130. Apprantly it was done during INTEFET and it was such a tight squeeze it had taken another 24hrs just to reassemble, he compared it to the Kiwi Huey's at the time just needing a few hours for them to become operational again. I guess in the RAAF pov it has c17 to move them around. Also he suggested that the Seahawks do not fit in a C130 can anyone confirm?

Click to expand...

I read that yesterday and I wouldn't ignore it because that poster is fair dinkum.





Above images from AVSIG: One of the UH-60A Design Requirements

MrConservative said:

The Counterpoint is those MAOT/SAR/HADR type taskings undertaken by a vanilla UH-60 free's up the NH90 for an increase in its combat/combat training role in support of the NZ Army. Right now with just 5 LUH and 8 MUH we are not just restricted in every operational rotary matrix we are completely compromised.



Lockheed Martin / Sikorsky's would obviously have a bigger base footprint at OH to support this. I am sure they will be in a position to deliver everything we need under the terms of the contract including a small number of contractors for a fly-away support who are trained to reattach the blades and rotor hub post C-130 hop and keep it ticking over whilst deployed.

Of course it would have to be an open tender and no doubt Bell may propose a Huey variant - because at the end of the day it is about solving a number of issues which impact on the RNZAF being able to deliver on its primary military and aid to civil power roles. Something that more NH-90's or brand new UH-60M's packed with all the latest gear to fight WW3 are wasted on with respect to capability and cost.

In fact I frankly don't care if it is a Huey or UH-60 that does this as long as the capability gap is meet and resources are used wisely.

Click to expand...

All makes sense, but I would like the military in first line servicing so that they could be used in combat area's. Interestingly some years ago prior to the delivery of the NH 90's I suggested that our UH 1H's be up graded to T standard, which the Marines were doing at the time, as support for the NH90's. This idea got shot down.

t68 said:

From another forum I visit there is speculation on how far UH60 has to be broken down to fit inside a C130. Apprantly it was done during INTEFET and it was such a tight squeeze it had taken another 24hrs just to reassemble, he compared it to the Kiwi Huey's at the time just needing a few hours for them to become operational again. I guess in the RAAF pov it has c17 to move them around. Also he suggested that the Seahawks do not fit in a C130 can anyone confirm?

Click to expand...

The Huey is of course a much quicker bird to dismantle because there is less to do. The tight fit is with respect to fuselage length at 51.75ft which is the absolute max which a C-130H can take. The UH-60A/L are quicker and simpler than other variants to dismantle for air transport in a Herc. The tail rotors are dismantled, then the 4 main rotors and then the hub assembly. The landing gear is dismantled as well as the horizontal stabilisers. Those later variants, which are fitted the IR Hover suppression kit, nose mounted radar dome or FLIR kit, and weapon pylons will also have to be removed.

It is also a work task that has to be practiced with the right gear, which by the sounds of the INTERFET example described does not seem to be the case. It is quite a few hours for a crew trained to do this - but 24 hours suggests a first time attempt. Nevertheless, in getting a bird up into the Pacific under urgency it is a heck of a lot quicker than a self deploy over days that would take a NH90 or via the CY.

ngatimozart said:

I read that yesterday and I wouldn't ignore it because that poster is fair dinkum.

Above images from AVSIG: One of the UH-60A Design Requirements

Click to expand...

I didn't doubt what he said just wanting a confirmation on the logistical side of things if the disassembly was to that extent

Great discussion going on here about the rotary fleet and I think we all agree that the fleet is too small and significant gaps exist (esp. rapid deploy), however I'm not going to dabble on the 'whatifs' as I just can't see any obvious mandate, at a public level at least, to consider additional rotary assets at this point in time. The change of Govt is both a potential concern and a potential opportunity but with the rotary fleets all new & other long-term, high profile replacement projects reaching key phases (ie: FAMC, FASC) I don't see any immediate chance of the rotary fleets being revisited.

I would've thought this would involve more long winded capability papers, white papers etc etc so any change in rotary thinking could take years. Arguably 2-3 additional AW109 airframes could squeeze thru fairly easily but not sure I can see that or much else about to happen in the rotary space. I think Ron Mark's influence is still to be judged.

One other small project doing the rounds quietly is the ACTC (air crew training capability). No further word on this but the latest AF news does have the new Ohakea base commander saying that intro into service (IIS) of the ACTC will be the next thing for Ohakea, as no doubt it will. He says "Learning the lessons of past IIS will ensure this (ACTC) exciting step up in training capability enters service effectively an efficiently". Ok so does anyone actually know what this is going to look like yet? B200 lease expired Nov17 but one assumes it rolled over. I assume it is just more (same?) KingAirs but the difference is the on-board / training systems... is that a fair summation?

Gibbo said:

One other small project doing the rounds quietly is the ACTC (air crew training capability). No further word on this but the latest AF news does have the new Ohakea base commander saying that intro into service (IIS) of the ACTC will be the next thing for Ohakea, as no doubt it will. He says "Learning the lessons of past IIS will ensure this (ACTC) exciting step up in training capability enters service effectively an efficiently". Ok so does anyone actually know what this is going to look like yet? B200 lease expired Nov17 but one assumes it rolled over. I assume it is just more (same?) KingAirs but the difference is the on-board / training systems... is that a fair summation?

Click to expand...

I emailed the Ministry in November and the answer I received was:

ngatimozart said:

I emailed the Ministry in November and the answer I received was:

"The Ministry of Defence remains engaged in contract negotiations to source a suitable solution. As these negotiations are ongoing we’re unable to provide more information at this time."​

Click to expand...

Thanks Ngati, yeah as it's no surprise that the ACTC is to be based on the KingAir I guess it's more about the systems, possibly sensors etc so to answer my own question I guess the key difference is indeed the on-board / training systems etc - no doubt a lot are laptop interfaces for trainees these days. Whether it's a newer leased fleet of B200 / B350 or continuation of existing B200 fleet is probably immaterial to an extent - although fleet size is an interesting conjecture.

There has been talk of sensors... possibly that's why the hush-hush as they would be the point of difference between potential providers given the KingAir has been specified as the preferred platform. It's actually a project I find quite interesting - certainly makes a change to the FAMC & FASC discussion which at times seems stuck in a revolving door!