NZDF - Now and the Future.

[Markus40]

I think the NZ government will get more numbers than 8 NH90s if we bought the Blackhawks off Australia. As for commonality, the Australians know this particular helicopter having operated it before they will have the technical know how and operational requirements for this type.

You might be right about the maintenance costs but this might be off set with the purchase price in any case.

Why purchase Blackhawks when Aus is getting rid of theirs? The MRH-90 will fly more often with less maintenance. Plus by sticking with the NH-90 you get greater payload and commonality with the ADF.

 

[Aussie Digger]

With the Australians selling their Blackhawks, New Zealand could gain from purchasing this type. It might be a bit late now with the purchase of the new NH90, but we may have been able to purchase more numbers of Blackhawks, without blowing the budget allocated to the Helicopter purchase.

The blackhawk can operate from a MRV and would be able to operate in most sea states as the sea sprite.

Our Blackhawks are just about stuffed. They have serious air frame issues (cracking) where the ESSS attaches to the fuselage, and operating them in maritime environments has proved less than successful due to the lack of a folding rotor and any real marinisation of the airframe.

Corrosion has thus been a major factor and no doubt heavily influenced the decision to consolidate ADF tactical helo forces on the MRH-90.

The Blackhawks would have to undergo substantial upgrades (probably to the UH-60M standard) to be suitable to operate off the MRV for any length of time and would still lack lift capacity compared to MRH-90.

Add these tactical limitations to the enormous costs that would be involved in upgrading the platform and Blackhawks aren't looking like much of a bargain to NZ, in my opinion...

 

[Markus40]

The previous posting was based on the blackhawks having some frame integrity for some years to come, however if they are about to fall apart then yes, forget them. I wasnt aware that they were that far gone. I cant believe that a relatively new helicopter could wear out in the time it has.

What would the cost be to reframe them?

Our Blackhawks are just about stuffed. They have serious air frame issues (cracking) where the ESSS attaches to the fuselage, and operating them in maritime environments has proved less than successful due to the lack of a folding rotor and any real marinisation of the airframe.

Corrosion has thus been a major factor and no doubt heavily influenced the decision to consolidate ADF tactical helo forces on the MRH-90.

The Blackhawks would have to undergo substantial upgrades (probably to the UH-60M standard) to be suitable to operate off the MRV for any length of time and would still lack lift capacity compared to MRH-90.

Add these tactical limitations to the enormous costs that would be involved in upgrading the platform and Blackhawks aren't looking like much of a bargain to NZ, in my opinion...

 

[KH-12]

I think it is the right decision to purchase new hardware rather than someone elses hand offs , especially as they will probably have to serve for something like 40 years (based on the UH-1H experience, not to mention Hercs and Onions), buying and refurbing the Blackhawks would only be putting off the inevitiable, would be interesting to know what the current fleet utilisation is like for the UH-1H (as they are nearing the end of their life I suspect that maintenance levels are high), I suspect that alot of training is actually taking place with these aircraft which is limiting their "operational hours"

 

[Whiskyjack]

Unless the NZDF wants to operate an orphan regionally, it really has to go with something that is roughly the same as the ADF to share logistics and even training.

The issue is what are the minimum numbers of NH90 needed by the NZDF to maintain an operational deployment.

First lets assume that the LUH will conduct local SAR operations, so the NH90 will not be needed by the NZDF for day to day NZ based ops (it may well be needed for major disaster relief).

So how many to deploy, the MRV can carry 4, that would allow for a minimum of 3 available at any one time and probably all 4 for much of the time. 3 can carry up to 60 troops in a lift (I am not sure how the number of troops per aircraft will be effected by packs, heavy weapons and supplies so it could be as low as 50 in 3 NH90s) . This is not ideal as it is less than half a reinforced infantry company (my estimate is around 150-160 troops in a reinforced coy with heavy weapons). But it is still a significant increase over the UH1.
For 4 on deployment then 8 is the minimum, with two in maintenance and two training.

Ideally the NZDF will need 4 NH90s available ALL the time for lift operations, which means 5 deployed. So 10 would be needed.

to provide a company lift then 16 would be required.

I guess it is up to the govt now, they have decided what sort of force they want, it is now up to them to fund it.

But lets not forget how the RNZAF ended up with its original 14 A4s!!

 

[KH-12]

But lets not forget how the RNZAF ended up with its original 14 A4s!!

Did'nt they want 20 F4's ?

Looks like it would be a surprise if more than 8 NH90's are ordered, so they will be a precious commodity and I suspect the LUH force once selected will be pretty busy, 4 NH90's on the MRV will match the cost of the MRV !

Is there a role for an intermediate type like the EC145/AW139 with say a smaller numer of EC120's for pure training ?

 

[Whiskyjack]

Did'nt they want 20 F4's ?

Looks like it would be a surprise if more than 8 NH90's are ordered, so they will be a precious commodity and I suspect the LUH force once selected will be pretty busy, 4 NH90's on the MRV will match the cost of the MRV !

Is there a role for an intermediate type like the EC145/AW139 with say a smaller numer of EC120's for pure training ?

originally the RNZAF, when it was told A4 or nothing, put together a very large report that went through why 24 (around that number) was needed to maintain operational deployability etc. It got to cabinet (Kirk I think) and was never opened Kirk asked how many were wanted, was told, thought about it and said 'we'll give them 14'.

The problem is that the intermediate type do not really have a combat lift capability. IMO the govt needs to bite the bullet and put the money into 8, end of story, they defined the capability to a great extent, they can't now say sorry to expensive, based on a budget that is 3 years old, and even when the NH90 was selected they never bothered to hedge the NZ$.

 

[Sea Toby]

I remembered when New Zealand acquired the used Leanders from the United Kingdom in 1982. In six short years, New Zealand was ordering two Anzac class frigates for delivery 10 years later.

Instead of buying the used A-4 Skyhawks from Australia in the late 1970s, New Zealand could have acquired new F-16s, which would have been sold quickly whereas the Skyhawks sale has been delayed considerably. To top it off, it has cost New Zealand more to acquire the used Skyhawks and upgrading them than buying the F-16s to begin with in the late 1970s.

However, there are exceptions to buying used equipment. For example, the wonderful conversion of a cream puff Stalwart class AGOS to a AGOR. The ship was only a few years old when purchased used, the ship was designed to last 30 years, and the only reason why the American navy discarded her was the mission she was built for was no longer required. New Zealand acquired a fairly new hydrographic ship for half the price Australia paid for a new one.

Right now New Zealand can't buy new Orions and have no choice but to upgrade them. On the other hand New Zealand can buy new Hercules aircraft, however their price is approaching US $150 million each. For that amount New Zealand is upgrading their fleet of 5 Hercules to last another 15 years.

However, in 15 years New Zealand will be looking at replacing both types of aircraft for much more than the price of the new helicopters. Hopefully, New Zealand won't be buying any new equipment at that time. Its best to stretch out the acquisition process so everything don't become obsolete at the same time.

If New Zealand buys used helicopers now, than they will be looking at buying new Hercules, Orions, and helicopters at the same time. Ouch. New Zealand needs to think in these terms for their very expensive acquisition programs:

1990- 2 frigates
1998- APCs, LOVs, patrol vessels
2006- Helicopters and life extension upgrades
2014- Hercules and Orions
2020- 2 frigates
2028- APCs, LOVs, patrol vessels
2034- Helicopters and life extensions
2040- Hercules and Orions

These dates are an approximation, give or take a few years, but should give an idea how these expensive military items should be stretched out over a period of thirty years. This way a nation can avoid block obsolescence.

Buying used equipment in my opinion creates block obsolescence later. Any used equipment purchased should be cream puffs only.

 

[KH-12]

originally the RNZAF, when it was told A4 or nothing, put together a very large report that went through why 24 (around that number) was needed to maintain operational deployability etc. It got to cabinet (Kirk I think) and was never opened Kirk asked how many were wanted, was told, thought about it and said 'we'll give them 14'.

The problem is that the intermediate type do not really have a combat lift capability. IMO the govt needs to bite the bullet and put the money into 8, end of story, they defined the capability to a great extent, they can't now say sorry to expensive, based on a budget that is 3 years old, and even when the NH90 was selected they never bothered to hedge the NZ$.

I thought it was Holyoak ?

Fair call on the numbers, by the time we actually have to pay for the aircraft the rate against the Euro may well be more favourable anyway or they can adopt a hedge position between now and 2009. May be some money coming up when they flog off Whenuapai for infill housing :wah

 

[Lucasnz]

I remembered when New Zealand acquired the used Leanders from the United Kingdom in 1982. In six short years, New Zealand was ordering two Anzac class frigates for delivery 10 years later.

Instead of buying the used A-4 Skyhawks from Australia in the late 1970s, New Zealand could have acquired new F-16s, which would have been sold quickly whereas the Skyhawks sale has been delayed considerably. To top it off, it has cost New Zealand more to acquire the used Skyhawks and upgrading them than buying the F-16s to begin with in the late 1970s.

However, there are exceptions to buying used equipment. For example, the wonderful conversion of a cream puff Stalwart class AGOS to a AGOR. The ship was only a few years old when purchased used, the ship was designed to last 30 years, and the only reason why the American navy discarded her was the mission she was built for was no longer required. New Zealand acquired a fairly new hydrographic ship for half the price Australia paid for a new one.

Right now New Zealand can't buy new Orions and have no choice but to upgrade them. On the other hand New Zealand can buy new Hercules aircraft, however their price is approaching US $150 million each. For that amount New Zealand is upgrading their fleet of 5 Hercules to last another 15 years.

However, in 15 years New Zealand will be looking at replacing both types of aircraft for much more than the price of the new helicopters. Hopefully, New Zealand won't be buying any new equipment at that time. Its best to stretch out the acquisition process so everything don't become obsolete at the same time.

If New Zealand buys used helicopers now, than they will be looking at buying new Hercules, Orions, and helicopters at the same time. Ouch.

I absolutely agree here. The purchase of the Wellington (A excellent ship once refitted) and Southland (Grade A dog), were one of the worst defence decisions ever made by NZ, once you take in the cost of increased cost of crewing, fuel and refitting over there NZ service life any benefit in buying second hand was lost.
Long and the short avoid second hand like the Elboa virus - though I'd make an exception for F16 or JAS39

The problem with New Zealands Capital Purchases since the 1960's is that they have all been bunched together resulting in governments having to compromise on spending choices (ignoring the political bent of some parties). The LTDP goes some way to over come this, but for NZ to recover for the neglect of the 1980's (upgraded A4 vs the requested F16, Upgraded Leander vs the requested frigates). For NZ to recover the capabilities loss (Air Combat and 2 Frigates is going to take a very long time unless a significant capital injection is made.

If NZ was to buy less than 8 NH 90 6 would be the min 4 for deployment, 1 for training and 1 for Maint. That would mean that we would have to buy around 10-12 LUH with a min lift of 7 troops (Section size for NZ infantry now with the LAV's in), which might rule out the EC635.

 

[Sea Toby]

Since the LUHs are so much cheaper, buy the minimum of 8 NH90s and buy more EC-135s than planned. At least the EC-135s are useful, they are capable of some trooplift, and training. Use the Seasprites for search and rescue missions.

If you can't afford 10 NH90s and 8 EC-135s, surely it would be better on the budget to buy 8 NH90s and 10-12 EC-135s.

 

[KH-12]

Maybe you outsource the basic helicopter training to a 3rd party and go with something like the AS 565 UB which can haul 8-10 troops and would be pretty useful in SAR functions also ? you could probably have quite a useful fleet with say 8-10 of these freeing up the NH90 for the big stuff. The EC145 is also a bit larger than the EC135/EC635 and has a uesful paylod (up to 10 pax)

 

[Whiskyjack]

IMO the govt has given NH Industries the number and capabilities required of the LUH and told them to provide them with the NH90. NHI has come back and said it will need another $100m.

So the reason there is no LUH info is because no one knows or cares! it is just going to arrive.

The govt has released the info on the extra $100 for one of two reasons:

1. to gauge public opinion before it decides to spend an extra $100m
2. prepare the way for not going ahead with a full number of choppers

1 is good because apart from one news item there has been not public reaction, 2 is just bad.

My take on it.

 

[Lucasnz]

IMO the govt has given NH Industries the number and capabilities required of the LUH and told them to provide them with the NH90. NHI has come back and said it will need another $100m.

So the reason there is no LUH info is because no one knows or cares! it is just going to arrive.

The govt has released the info on the extra $100 for one of two reasons:

1. to gauge public opinion before it decides to spend an extra $100m
2. prepare the way for not going ahead with a full number of choppers

1 is good because apart from one news item there has been not public reaction, 2 is just bad.

My take on it.

I emailed MOD this morning about both projects and their reply was, about the LUH...

Once a decision is made, the light utility helicopter project will then proceed.

That would suggest that the projects have been separated.

 

[KH-12]

I don't think the general public has a great deal of cognisance re: additional $100M, people are more concerned about crisis in the health sector and the continuance of a reliable electrical supply

Since the government used the line it was disbanding the combat arm of the RNZAF to focus on the important areas of transport / logistics support it would be a hard one to swallow to then say it was only investing in a severely reduced Helicopter force (especially in light of the current focus on Civil Defence) , then again I'm not sure the opposition defence spokespeople are that sharp at the moment to pick up on it.

 

[Whiskyjack]

IMO the Govt needs to do two things.
1. Decide what it wants the NZDF to do e.g.;
a. if it wants to deploy frigates then it needs another frigate;
b. if it wants to be able to deploy troops into the Pacific and wider region in low to medium threat conditions then it needs to fund the lift and fire power.
c. let the NZDF and MoD get on with it.
2. The govt needs to follow the Aussie example and commit to a 5-10 years increase of the defence budget of 3%-5% + cover the cost of inflation so the budget can grow in real terms in a sustainable way.
3. If there are big ticket items that need to be funded then capital injection e.g. $1b over 5 years will not break the bank (or even effect it), but would pay for a third surface combatant and 12 NH90 (including existing funding)

The above is not necessarily exactly the way to go but a general path.

 

[Markus40]

Yes, and a pity they didnt keep them. At least we would have had something substantial in the RNZAF!

Has anyone thought about whether 1 or 2 NH90s might be needed in the Antarctic on scientific duties? I am still convinced that we are operating less than the minimum number needed, by at least 2 NH90s and despite their operational abilities being better than than UH-1 the NZDF will have their resources stretched should the need come to deploy.

Unless the NZDF wants to operate an orphan regionally, it really has to go with something that is roughly the same as the ADF to share logistics and even training.

The issue is what are the minimum numbers of NH90 needed by the NZDF to maintain an operational deployment.

First lets assume that the LUH will conduct local SAR operations, so the NH90 will not be needed by the NZDF for day to day NZ based ops (it may well be needed for major disaster relief).

So how many to deploy, the MRV can carry 4, that would allow for a minimum of 3 available at any one time and probably all 4 for much of the time. 3 can carry up to 60 troops in a lift (I am not sure how the number of troops per aircraft will be effected by packs, heavy weapons and supplies so it could be as low as 50 in 3 NH90s) . This is not ideal as it is less than half a reinforced infantry company (my estimate is around 150-160 troops in a reinforced coy with heavy weapons). But it is still a significant increase over the UH1.
For 4 on deployment then 8 is the minimum, with two in maintenance and two training.

Ideally the NZDF will need 4 NH90s available ALL the time for lift operations, which means 5 deployed. So 10 would be needed.

to provide a company lift then 16 would be required.

I guess it is up to the govt now, they have decided what sort of force they want, it is now up to them to fund it.

But lets not forget how the RNZAF ended up with its original 14 A4s!!

 

[Whiskyjack]

I don't think the general public has a great deal of cognisance re: additional $100M, people are more concerned about crisis in the health sector and the continuance of a reliable electrical supply

Since the government used the line it was disbanding the combat arm of the RNZAF to focus on the important areas of transport / logistics support it would be a hard one to swallow to then say it was only investing in a severely reduced Helicopter force (especially in light of the current focus on Civil Defence) , then again I'm not sure the opposition defence spokespeople are that sharp at the moment to pick up on it.

The crying shame of it is that many of the items can be sold in the duel military/civil support context and would have no meaningful political or public opposition some examples:

· Choppers
· air transport
· LPDs
· UAVs for fishery and EEZ surveillance

 

[mug]

Maybe you outsource the basic helicopter training to a 3rd party and go with something like the AS 565 UB which can haul 8-10 troops and would be pretty useful in SAR functions also ? you could probably have quite a useful fleet with say 8-10 of these freeing up the NH90 for the big stuff. The EC145 is also a bit larger than the EC135/EC635 and has a uesful paylod (up to 10 pax)

I agree re the training issue. I don't understand why such a significant capital expenditure is (partly) based around the need to provide training helos.

I would have thought that contracting out basic helo training to civilian operators would provide a little more flexibility in purchasing options ie not a jack-of-all-trades type machine

 

[Markus40]

Actually thats a good point you raise. Why have a LOH as a sole use for heli training for the Air Force and Navy. Why not use the NH90 and expand the numbers for operations?

I agree re the training issue. I don't understand why such a significant capital expenditure is (partly) based around the need to provide training helos.

I would have thought that contracting out basic helo training to civilian operators would provide a little more flexibility in purchasing options ie not a jack-of-all-trades type machine