Thanks. Speedway at Western Springs was great. Maybe it's time for an Order In Council to show the lay of the land, pun intended. I notice Ron Mark mentioned the possibility that property development may be viewed as a national security risk.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
I see that Bell helicopters "... believes that the UH-1Y is suitable to replace the Kaman SH-2s that New Zealand will retire in the coming decade." Not quite sure how they see that because AFAIK the Venom doesn't have a ASW variant and the NZG / MOD will not want to be the launch customer because of risk. However, if Bell were to integrate existing ASW systems and weapons with the aircraft, then it may not be such a risky proposition. To my mind, they would have to ensure that the Venom was capable of carrying and launching two NSM, which are of similar weight to the Penguin AShM. With the Venoms and Vipers having 85% commonality then a Viper ARH acquisition may be possible. Interesting.
t68
Well-Known Member
Reading that story on how the USMC flyboys still refer to there more common name of a Cobra and Huey, just why is it that they USMC never moved on to Blackhawk and Apache, I imagine technology wise it would be on par with each other with glass cockpits etc or are the aircraft much easier to work and train on from ships at sea and FOB?
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
t68
Well-Known Member
Sorry was talking off topic was just wondering why frombthat link that NG provided that the USMC did not move over to Blackhawk and Apache and stay with UH-1 and Cobra helicopters
But in a NZ context moving to the NFH would make sence if all parts and aircraft availability problems are sorted
Last edited:
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
How long is it intended for the NH90s to be in service? The current aircraft were announced in 2006 and all delivered by 2014. If new NFH are acquired in 2028 the existing TTHs will be at half of the NZG stated 30 year life.
It makes sense then to consider an MLU of the existing airframes so past experience can be incorporated, as mooted by others here, including auto folding rotors and complete marinization. The process to acquire new frames should start sooner rather than later. Having new frames in advance would take pressure off when the older frames are out for their MLU. An increase of two additional aircraft to ten for TTH up from eight would be good too.
I also think a further group of five A/LUH should be bought. Marinized and armed with APKWS rocket pods and HMG pods to provide top cover during JATF operations.
Twenty eight choppers total, 18 NH90 derivatives and ten A109s.
It makes sense then to consider an MLU of the existing airframes so past experience can be incorporated, as mooted by others here, including auto folding rotors and complete marinization. The process to acquire new frames should start sooner rather than later. Having new frames in advance would take pressure off when the older frames are out for their MLU. An increase of two additional aircraft to ten for TTH up from eight would be good too.
I also think a further group of five A/LUH should be bought. Marinized and armed with APKWS rocket pods and HMG pods to provide top cover during JATF operations.
Twenty eight choppers total, 18 NH90 derivatives and ten A109s.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Another issue that the NZDF would encounter if a future Sea Sprite replacement was the NFH90 or a derivative is that RNZN vessels would need to be designed to accommodate the replacement helicopter. One thing the RAN found when there was the big push to consolidate helicopter types in ADF service is that the ANZAC-class frigate hangar space was realistically too small for the NH90.
What is would likely mean to the RNZN is that if NFH90's were acquired in ~2028, the Sea Sprites would still need to soldier on for several more years until the NZ Replacement Frigates enter service, and possibly new/replacement OPV's as well. Otherwise the NZDF could end up with several naval helicopters but no ship (apart from perhaps HMNZS Aotearoa) on which they could be embarked.
I read an article in microsoft news (sorry no link available ) taken from 3 news regarding the cost of repairs to our C130 and B757 aircraft being almost $100m since 2016.
RM blamed the previous government for not ordering a replacement earlier, but I blame the Clark government for not ordering them 15 years ago.
It also stated that even though they had problems that the RNZAF was still achieving higher utilization rates than anyone else and that was due to our excellent maintenance staff.
the article quoted RM as saying about the B757. 'Despite their VIP transport capability, the Defence Minister says they aren't fit for military purposes.
"People made the decision to buy a commercial airliner for use as a strategic airlift platform for the Defence Force but it's the wrong aircraft," Mark told Newshub. I had heard this some years ago from an airforce contact. However it is some time before before replacement and the pollies may decide there comfort is more important than military considerations.
RM blamed the previous government for not ordering a replacement earlier, but I blame the Clark government for not ordering them 15 years ago.
It also stated that even though they had problems that the RNZAF was still achieving higher utilization rates than anyone else and that was due to our excellent maintenance staff.
the article quoted RM as saying about the B757. 'Despite their VIP transport capability, the Defence Minister says they aren't fit for military purposes.
"People made the decision to buy a commercial airliner for use as a strategic airlift platform for the Defence Force but it's the wrong aircraft," Mark told Newshub. I had heard this some years ago from an airforce contact. However it is some time before before replacement and the pollies may decide there comfort is more important than military considerations.
I wish people would remember that VIP transport is only 1 part of what the B757 does... similarly to RAAF A330 I understand most of the B757 pax transport is deployments (exercises & operationally). It is not specifically a VIP platform.
Rather than fully marinise the entire fleet at added cost then I would rather just see the replacement NFH90s take over the role of ship to shore (as per now but obviously improved) and plan this into their future 6 sqn fleet. 5 NFH90s and 3 marinised NH90s would still be a costly project as I highly doubt we would get 1 for 1 NFHs. I don't see us requiring an all NFH90 fleet anyway as not all tasks are combat orientated vs more support based so a NFH90 vs NH90 is overkill in many instances. 6 sqn NH90s could offer more options for cross over trg/ops with 3 sqn as well as organic conversion trg freeing up the NFHs for operational tasks only.
If their main task is to work from the ships in a maritime domain then keep the operation with the SME 6 sqn and if the task is just to transport the helos to a land based op then use 3 sqn, I don't see the point or cost in gearing our entire fleet towards maritime ops when essentially we mainly just hitch a ride on ships not work from them despite what the fabled JATF would make out.
As has been pointed out obviously any replacement ships would then suit the helos, not a big ask considering they should be future proofed already not only for us but our allies. Abit like army we should'nt be buying equipment based on the size of our hercules as that's 1960s logic but operationally suited equipment and ideally air force should then realistically cater to suit as end of the day army is airs main customer and not the other way around.
Last edited:
People have been making this "decision" for quite a few decades considering the B757s replaced the B727 which in turn replaced DC6s so not quite sure what history we have to base this theory off. I think sometimes we put alittle too much overthinking into the titles of strategic and tactical when we should be more considering the roles actually performed instead as in reality both types work hand in hand and infact complement each other dependant on mission. In all honesty if Ron feels we desperately need a better suited strategic lifter then he should aqquire us the type but why then does it need to be in lieu of the well used B757 as I can guarantee it would still be just as well used for day to day ops.
Other air forces are actually seeing the benefit of airliner types and using them more and more especially for bulk troop movements (ironically a large portion of defence work). I remember in Timor before the Aussies got their airbuses they were actually alittle envious of the boeings as up until then they mainly travelled inside cargo holds as the 707s were all but gone for pax use.
You will also find the military is just like any other organisation as in everyone has their own theories, opinions and preferences for kit and obvious reasons why but sadly not everyone is in charge (or can be) so whilst we all want different things and think we know best it is not always the case, the plan, the requirement or even possible for that matter, you, me and Ron Mark included. The C17 is a perfect example and the future frigates will be the next...
Last edited:
@RegR The DCP2019 states that the Sprites will be replaced with 9 platforms. My own view is that with only 8 NH90s, the fleet is too small to be able to pick and choose which ones will be marinised and which ones aren't, especially if assets have to be surged for whatever reason. IF the NFH is chosen, then we could get somewhat canny by having 6 fully kitted out as NFH platforms and the other 3 as MTTH (Maritime Tactical Transport Helicopter) platforms, whilst converting our 8 TTH to MTTH standard. In fact, I would suggest acquiring 6 x NFH & 4 x MTTH, giving 3 Sqn 9 MTTH and 6 Sqn 6 NFH & 3 MTTH. IF we acquire a 3rd FFG then we can still operate with 6 NFH because it would be rare that we'd have all 3 FFG at sea at the same time, and we'd only have one helo afloat per FFG anyway.
Obviously the MTTH can't fly off the current OPVs, however @Novascotiaboy has a suggestion in his post that merits serious thought and expansion. It is something that both Mr C and I have considered with favour in previous posts. Nova suggests the acquisition of 5 marinised "armed & armoured A109 armed with APKWS rocket pods and HMG pods to provide top cover during JATF operations." I would expand this to include operating off the OPVs in roles that the current Sprites do with the OPVs, and increase the number to say 10, with 6 going to 3 Sqn and 4 to 6 Sqn. The 3 Sqn ones can be used for fire support training and exercising with the army, & the 6 Sqn ones used for RNZN taskings.
Seriously I have about as much chance believing numbers of platforms this far out (literally a decade out??) as much as I would believe the actual platform we "are" getting. It is still not even definite how many C130js we are getting and we have essentially commited to it now nevermind a replacement project 10 years (hopefully) away. This is also assuming we even get a specific type helo as for example I highly doubt we would have got 5 A400s or 5 C17s just because we have 5 C130s, it's all relative to options, performance and capability as no one platform is the same as the shrinking navy and smaller vehicle fleets will attest to.
Like I have said basing our future naval fleet on our legacy helicopter fleet is a pointless excersise and not futureproofing regardless of what type is chosen. A BAM OPV can operate an NH90 type now so why would we limit ourselves to a class and/or type when the otago class will by then be in its retirement phase. If we have to keep a few legacy sprites flying to cover the transition then so be it as let's be honest (and as history shows) in all likeliness will happen regardless.
If they are replaced with 9 frames then bonus and all well and good but then I would still maintain my original suggestion (just plus 1) as I still do not see the need for both 6 sqn and 3 sqn to be our maritime gurus rather than just maritime transported considering costs involved.
If we are surging helos then we obviously are in a long term op and so should have already established a shore based establishment as I cannot see why we would be constantly sea based? Just because we embark the RNZAF helos on naval ships does not now make them naval helos like the seasprites in terms of use. 3 sqn literally catches a ride to their destination just like the army pers do, we seem to be confusing ourselves with US marine ops and would therefore be reflective in our army at least before converting our entire helicopter fleet to a role we still do not even conduct comparitively often.
Ocean1Curse
Member
Humph, interesting.
So this is a question. The DCP assumes 1 or 2 LHDs by about 2035 in 15 years. On today's calculus of quantity and mix of helicopters, does that calculus include the helicopters needed to fly ops off of the LHDs when they arrive. In any case NZDF should be leaning towards a greater number of marinised helicopters.
So this is a question. The DCP assumes 1 or 2 LHDs by about 2035 in 15 years. On today's calculus of quantity and mix of helicopters, does that calculus include the helicopters needed to fly ops off of the LHDs when they arrive. In any case NZDF should be leaning towards a greater number of marinised helicopters.
Assumptions are the mother of all. If we aqquired a new naval ship then why not still give the main task of operating from (vs operating off) to the naval sqn? Possibly what ngatis mooted extra naval frame is for, to coincide with the added ship unless they have found even 8 to be inadequate for fleet duties?Pretty sure we got 10 anyway so if that was the case would'nt we just re-gen another now?
If we say did aqquire 9 replacements for the 8 sprites and they were 90s then I would still go for 5-6 NFHs and 3-4 marinised 90s for 6 sqn and use the NFHs on the replacement frigates/OPVs and the naval 90s on the sealift/tanker for ship/ship, ship/shore duties maintaining the vanilla 3 sqn NH90s as now, cargo to destination.
Operation from ships vs operation off ships are different competincies requiring differing skillsets hence the seperation of the squadrons so imo for the amount of actual maritime flying is fully marinising 3 sqn justifiable merely for transits rather than just giving the tools to the maritime experts? Currency is required even for just landing/taking off, crossdecking etc from naval ships nevermind the intricate task of landing on a moving ship, does 3 sqn have added scope for extra syllabus?
Auto folding blades/tail rotor, deck hook, marinisation etc makes it easier for constant shipboard ops but is it really required/justifiable for intermittent usage? Even the current CY rarely routinely embarks a naval helo nevermind an air force one bar major exs and certain ops.
I just think if it was that important or financially viable than we would be converting the fleet or even a portion (rather than just 3 with flotation) fully now as the added sealift has already been announced so would make sense to be prepped prior to arrival and perfecting off CY now before the big spend up (Poss LHD) renders it near impossible to finance in the future or at the least gain a mention in future projects for a timeline.
As I have mentioned before I just see any possible added lift ie any extra NH90s, added as part of the replacement maritime helicopter fleet as a package deal especially if this added lift is more aimed at the JATF/added sealift anyway. Obviously I would love to see more helos for everyone and all fully specced but the inner financier in me sees an already expensive fleet requiring replacement along with a surprising big ticket spend (added sealift) in the pipeline and "assumes" cost WILL be a factor, as per always.
Last edited:
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Er, HMNZS Canterbury was also stated as having accommodation for up to 4 NH90, Indeed three have been seen doing HADR role with cyclone Pam, Winston, and other roles off Canterbury in recent years? HMNZS Mana wanui has been stated by navy as being NH90 capable too, albeit without a hangar.The proposed LPD also were mentioned in the Defence capability plan has having that.
Hell I think we all understand that, I was just poking some cr-p at the pollies
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
I strongly believe that an island nation needs all of its aircraft to have a high degree of marinization if and when they are expected to operate from naval vessels or tropical areas. Having marinized A/LUHs able to operate from the "minor" vessels such as the OPVs and SOPV would allow SAR and VERTREP capability when away from New Zealand. As noted, these aircraft could offer an armed capability beyond the pintle FN MAG when situations require.
From an Army support role these can act as escorts for the TTHs able to send down 70 mm rockets and HMG fire. Even the likes of such aircraft would be more than an adversary in the SP could deal with.
From an Army support role these can act as escorts for the TTHs able to send down 70 mm rockets and HMG fire. Even the likes of such aircraft would be more than an adversary in the SP could deal with.
I do not know whether to put you in the naughty kids corner or not. You should not insult that which exits the rear end of a sheep by associating it with pollies. At least that which exits the rear end of a sheep can be put to good use.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
If 2028 is the timeline for the acquisition for new naval helicopters maybe a model other than the NFH 90 would be more appropriate. The Airbus H160M would offer a platform optimized for naval operations. It could also be acquired for use in support of the SAS and other army support roles. Due to start initial deliveries to three elements of the French Armed forces in 2026 this would be a mature yet new aircraft similar in size and capability to the Sprites and the A/LUHs currently in service.
A purchase of twenty, I know I am dreaming, with all twenty having the folding blades would allow all aircraft to deploy from a ship. Half would have the naval capabilities of ASW / ASuW while the remaining ten would be marinized support aircraft for general support to government. The current A/LUHs would continue to serve in their training capacity along with utility roles when required. Being designed as a military helicopter with weapons mounts would allow this aircraft to come armed and ready to support Army operations.
This may be a better direction and more affordable than the NFH90 which will likely break the bank.
HIL Programme
A purchase of twenty, I know I am dreaming, with all twenty having the folding blades would allow all aircraft to deploy from a ship. Half would have the naval capabilities of ASW / ASuW while the remaining ten would be marinized support aircraft for general support to government. The current A/LUHs would continue to serve in their training capacity along with utility roles when required. Being designed as a military helicopter with weapons mounts would allow this aircraft to come armed and ready to support Army operations.
This may be a better direction and more affordable than the NFH90 which will likely break the bank.
HIL Programme