Or in other words the blending of both. What Joseph Nye coined as Smart Power.
Peter Fraser the NZ wartime PM comes to mind for his handling of the wartime situation.
My understanding was at the completion of the US-NZ Mutual Agreement in 1946 that the US had supplied aid to the value of
Well that was reverse lend-lease and it kick started a few industries here like canning and the automotive industry. We also supplied grenades to the US Pacific forces. We made our own .303 ammo at ICI in Auckland. So all of those 500 odd aircraft that were cut up Ruakuria after the war we owned and should have kept some in service rather than buying pommy stuff, except for the Mosquitoes. Then we could've gone straight to Canberras and CAC Sabres in the 1950s.
Arnold of the Black budget of 1958 when he heavily lifted the taxes on beer and baccy and lost his party the government benches the next election. My father always kept on mentioning that til the day he passed like it was a travesty against the people and a well deserved own goal.
My information was from an article I read in the defence library in the 1970's in which if memory serves me correctly (not always the case) The poms owed us 89m pounds at the end of WW2 which was written off and due to reverse lend lease and we were not allowed to return equipment to the US as other countries had as the balance was in our favor so we wound up owning it. Due to memory failure I named the wrong person as minister of finance in WW2 as it was in fact Walter Nash.
Deal with the easy one first. The ex RAN S-70-B2 Seahawks are shagged, so no real advantage going there.
So on one hand you acknowledge the effects of covid-19 on major projects yet with the other suggest introducing a new (old) fleet of helos?? Not really sure that's how cutting back works.
Reg, to quote the famous world renown and wise philosopher Sgt Oddball: "why the negative thoughts Moriaty? Think positive thoughts."
When have we been short of NH90 frames though? What taskings have not been met due to lack of available NH90s or A109s? I have not heard of 3 Sqn burning through their annual hours and falling short, in fact quite the opposite. Actually for a time there they where even short of crewman to even man what they had so just like navy it's more than just a case of throwing more ships (in this case helicopters) at the problem until you solve the manning/funding issues in the first place otherwise what exactly is being solved? Just like the IPVs where they originally envisaged 6 crews to run the 4 ships and in the end could barely keep 2 at sea. The 90s are no different in that I think they need at least 12 full crews to operate effectively so even adding 2 more to just the NH90 fleet would require at least another 3 full crews + corresponding techs, support, infrastructure, funding allocation etc etc it all adds up and like I said are they actually "short" in the first place? When have we ever needed all 8 NH90s and 5 A109s on task at once? or even 4 NH90s and 3 A109s for that matter? Rarely? Like I said if/when they deploy in support of a "major" op then that is usually the main sqn focus at that time regardless which also requires other trades/support from on base and even wider air force in general. It is not only our fleets that are small as generally the supporting trades are limited as well plus still have to support all sqns not just helos so just like them have to prioritise tasks accordingly. It is not just a case of merely adding more helicopters.Reg, to quote the famous world renown and wise philosopher Sgt Oddball: "why the negative thoughts Moriaty? Think positive thoughts."
We have a problem of not enough rotary wing assets for the taskings and we will end thrashing our assets just like we did with the SH-2G(NZ) Super Seasprite. When both the NH90 and A109 were acquired, the GOTD went with the absolute minimum of numbers, whilst NZDF required a mininim of 10 NH90 to enable it to achieve the Govts policy objectives without creating future problems such as occurred with the first Seasprites. So unfortunately we still have the impacts of previous short sighted policy.
We do need to increase our rotary wing capability and there are different options for increasing it:
That's the four options as I see it. As you note I haven't mentioned numbers yet, but if either of Option 2 or 3 were chosen, by necessity numbers would have to be somewhat larger than the current NH90TTH fleet. So I don't believe that your concern about another small fleet would necessarily apply.
- Acquire more NH90. There is now a MTTH variant - a Marinised Troop Transport Helicopter. We could acquire x number of these and retroactively refit our current NH90TTH to NH90MTTH standard.
- Advantages:
- This ensures fleet commonality.
- When it comes to replacement we are able to undertake it in two tranches.
- Disadvantages:
- This is the most expensive option.
- Ongoing parts logistics problems from manufacturer.
- Uncertainty of delivery.
- Acquire new build S-70 marinised utility helos.
- Advantages:
- A known platform in service with USN and other navies as MH-60S.
- Possibly can be acquired through FMS .
- NOTE:Whilst the MH-60S is no longer built, LM off its equivalent as part of the S-70 series.
- Disadvantages.
- Second most expensive option.
- Introducing a new platform type into NZDF rotary wing fleet.
- Acquire used SH / UH-60 aircraft ex Boneyard and refurbish to NZ specs. These aircraft would be marinised and given modern glass cockpits. They would be basic no frills utility aircraft and spread across the RNZAF and RNZN.
- Advantages.
- More helicopters for buck.
- Increased numbers take pressure off existing NZDF fleet.
- Aircraft can be permanently allocated to Aotearoa and Canterbury. In case of Canterbury the number on board can be increased if missions require such.
- When ESV arrives already have rotary wing assets available for it.
- Disadvantages.
- Increasing a new platform type into NZDF rotary wing fleet.
- The aircraft will have a limited service life compared to new builds.
- Do nothing.
- Advantages.
- No need to spend money.
- No need to spend political capital.
- Doesn't upset the PRC.
- Doesn't upset the peace groups and other left wing groups.
- For the current government, looks good politically and adheres to their long term Party Policy.
- For the National Party, adheres to their neoliberal economic policy platform - cut govt spending.
- Keeps Treasury happy.
- Disadvantages.
- Leaves NZDF under equipped.
- Creates a false economy of sshort-term gain.
- Causes long-term very expensive problems.
- Prevents NZDF from fully meeting govt policy requirements.
- Creates safety problems as NZDF tries to implement govt policy requirements with a lack of serviceable assets.
- Reduces NZDF effectiveness to perform its function of defending NZ and its Realm.
- Reduces NZDF ability to operate with its sole ally and its coalition partners.
My own recommendation is for Option 3 because that gives us the greatest versatility. I would be tempted to acquire another 2 NH90TTH for 3 Sqn to bring them up to strength, but I would be looking at a fleet made up from Option 3 to undertake a lot of utility work especially with the RNZN.
We will be replacing the current Seasprites in about 6 years and odds on their replacement will be the MH-60R. We know that it's an expensive acquisition and the GOTD will not be keen on buying 9 or 10 of them. However if we work on the principle of 3 frigates then that's 6 Romeos and the other flight decks could be covered by Option 3 aircraft. That's a significant cost saving.
That's my 1 cents worth.
I didn't think of the fifth option of leasing but in this particular case I think we would strike some problems because we really require a MUH that's not going to cost a lot to acquire and is marinised so that we can send it to sea as a utility helo. Whilst the AW139 is really nice I cannot find any reference for it being marinised, so I presume that it doesn't have folding rotors and tail boom, deck securing system, and the corrosion prevention measures required for naval aircraft. So unless a lessor is willing to pick up the costs for that (rather doubtful) then we either fund it (expensive) or forget about it completely. That's why I believe we can achieve our aim with Option 3.