NZDF - Now and the Future.

[Whiskyjack]

AU$550M for 59. So NZ$8-9M a pop.

From memory that was a sweatheart deal where the Aussies only paid for the upgrade of the M1s and a few odds and sods. Happy to be corrected.

 

[machina]

Don't know, that came up in the papers. It was a good time to buy I think, the US has Abrams to spare and the Lima plant had nearly run out of work.

 

[mug]

I posted this on the Project Protector thread, but it's probably just as relevant here.

There's a doco series starting 4 July on RNZN JOCT called "Snotties."

Ten episodes, 10.30pm Tuesdays, TV2.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Great to see, but concider this.

This requirement became hot in 1995/96 when NZ deployed to Bosnia and the troops in their M113s had a run in with a tank (which belonged to one of the factions, can't remember which one), so from the time it was needed to the time operational 11-12 years. That is for a NZ$26m purchase, which in the scheme of the Defence budget (even in NZ) is minor.

AFAIK, NZ had and still does have the Carl Gustav 84mm RCL in-service, so it's not like they were completely helpless against an armoured threat and certainly not against the tank threat they would have found in Bosnia (which I cannot imagine was particularly high as far as tanks go).

What they needed was a longer ranged weapon as the Charlie G ain't much chop at more than 500m's...

 

[Stuart Mackey]

snip
What they needed was a longer ranged weapon as the Charlie G ain't much chop at more than 500m's...

I think that was the problem..outranged by what the opposition had.

 

[Whiskyjack]

AFAIK, NZ had and still does have the Carl Gustav 84mm RCL in-service, so it's not like they were completely helpless against an armoured threat and certainly not against the tank threat they would have found in Bosnia (which I cannot imagine was particularly high as far as tanks go).

What they needed was a longer ranged weapon as the Charlie G ain't much chop at more than 500m's...

To clarify, as much as my memory allows, it was at long distance and only one. However it only takes one tank to ruin the day of any M113 platoon!

 

[KH-12]

With the EADS consortium winning the US LUH competition with the UH-145 does this increase the possibility that NZ may opt with this as a co-purchase with the NH90, there may be some cost advantages due to the large production run (out of the US), it may make sense to opt for this model rather than the smaller EC135, it means there will be good logistical support for the aircraft.

 

[Whiskyjack]

With the EADS consortium winning the US LUH competition with the UH-145 does this increase the possibility that NZ may opt with this as a co-purchase with the NH90, there may be some cost advantages due to the large production run (out of the US), it may make sense to opt for this model rather than the smaller EC135, it means there will be good logistical support for the aircraft.

It would be nice to see, I am happy with either the 145 or 635, both are ideal. I am just worried that the NZDF will end up with something small and single engined (like a Robinson (?)). All the info, even the conflicting stuff, seems to point to July as the date it is announced so we will have to wait and see.

 

[KH-12]

It would be nice to see, I am happy with either the 145 or 635, both are ideal. I am just worried that the NZDF will end up with something small and single engined (like a Robinson (?)). All the info, even the conflicting stuff, seems to point to July as the date it is announced so we will have to wait and see.

An R22 :dodgy the embarassment would be too great to bear ! (the sioux would be better)

With the potential to cross large amounts of water plus SAR duties the hope would be for a 2 engine design, I dont believe the government would opt for the EC635 with its offensive ability, it would only point to questions as to why the air combat wing was disbanded when you are indicating that you need an armed helicopter. The US LUH competition specified an FAA approved model rather than a defined military model, I could see parallels with the NZ requirement, also you would achieve a degree of commonality with US forces (for when NZ becomes a member of NATO).

 

[Whiskyjack]

An R22 :dodgy the embarassment would be too great to bear ! (the sioux would be better)

With the potential to cross large amounts of water plus SAR duties the hope would be for a 2 engine design, I dont believe the government would opt for the EC635 with its offensive ability, it would only point to questions as to why the air combat wing was disbanded when you are indicating that you need an armed helicopter. The US LUH competition specified an FAA approved model rather than a defined military model, I could see parallels with the NZ requirement, also you would achieve a degree of commonality with US forces (for when NZ becomes a member of NATO).

Well I guess all that is left to do is wait with baited breathe

 

[KH-12]

Well I guess all that is left to do is wait with baited breathe

Indeed, will be interesting to see the eventual timelines, initially it was slated that the Sioux replacement should be in service from 2006, and the NH90 from 2009.

 

[mug]

Would the EC145 qualify as a LUH or a MUH?

 

[KH-12]

Would the EC145 qualify as a LUH or a MUH?

In the US it has been classified as a LUH (with the Blackhawk as the Medium, and presumably the Chinook as Heavy) , likewise the NH90 in RNZAF service would be in the Medium category. In reality it has similar lifting performance to the UH-1H, but faster (and less noisy )

 

[Whiskyjack]

Would the EC145 qualify as a LUH or a MUH?

Its lift capability is limited to around 1500kgs the NH90 at 4000kgs. If it does qualify in NZ service as a MUH it would be a crime!

 

[mug]

So there's absolutely no chance of any overlap in roles between EC145 and NH90? If that's the case, then it can't be discounted as an option. It would certainly provide another significant increase in helo lift for the NZDF.

I would assume that, were we to get the EC145, then we would get even less numbers than we would have for the EC135 due to the increased cost?

 

[KH-12]

I would assume that, were we to get the EC145, then we would get even less numbers than we would have for the EC135 due to the increased cost?

The US is paying approx $US3 Billion for 352 aircraft so that works out at around $NZ14 M each (includes full logistics costs etc), so maybe we could afford about 8 to put that aspect of the project at around the $110 M mark and the rest on the NH90. I doubt that there would be a huge price differential between the EC135 and the EC145, the bigger internals of the EC145 should be attractive in the utility role. Apparently the flying characteristics are pretty straight forward so the training role should fit OK.

 

[Whiskyjack]

The US is paying approx $US3 Billion for 352 aircraft so that works out at around $NZ14 M each (includes full logistics costs etc), so maybe we could afford about 8 to put that aspect of the project at around the $110 M mark and the rest on the NH90. I doubt that there would be a huge price differential between the EC135 and the EC145, the bigger internals of the EC145 should be attractive in the utility role. Apparently the flying characteristics are pretty straight forward so the training role should fit OK.

Does the US buy include any ECM etc...? That will effect the price. Based on the news report of a $100m blow out I wouls say they are looking at 8 + 8? Comments?

 

[KH-12]

Does the US buy include any ECM etc...? That will effect the price. Based on the news report of a $100m blow out I wouls say they are looking at 8 + 8? Comments?

Can't find any mention of ECM, the US military may install that outside the EADS contract, looks like a standard civilian comprehensive avionics suite (inc NVG (published info anyway)), the logistics component may be substantial, the RNZAF should be able to economise there, so that would certainly put it around the $100M mark, 8 + 8 certainly seems to be the way it is stacking up.

Maybe you could have a guy with his head out the back who throws out a magnesium flare when he sees a MANPAD launch

 

[oldsoak]

Can't find any mention of ECM, the US military may install that outside the EADS contract, looks like a standard civilian comprehensive avionics suite (inc NVG (published info anyway)), the logistics component may be substantial, the RNZAF should be able to economise there, so that would certainly put it around the $100M mark, 8 + 8 certainly seems to be the way it is stacking up.

Maybe you could have a guy with his head out the back who throws out a magnesium flare when he sees a MANPAD launch

- dont laugh, it has been done ! In the abscence of proper IRCM being fitted in time !

 

[NZLAV]

The RNZAF really needs some type of strike ability asap. I think gunships would be the best. Does anyone here want to send a letter to the government explaining risks?