Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ngatimozart]

Yes saw that, either someones exagerating or someones mis-informed. Possibly from wo to go ie landing, shutdown, folding, stowage and securing all up may take 1 hour 15 as it looks like a tight fit reversing back down into the hanger (there's actually a hanger behind the hanger) therefore a slower process vs taking out forwards and setting up.

I too would be interested to see a comparison with naval sprite set up vs RNZAF NH90 set up. I would assume the sprite would be quicker due to type, size, currency etc but unsure?

The techos would've have practise the evolution many times ashore before they did it on the flight deck to ensure that they had a good operating procedure down pat. That is SOP especially for new gear. Onboard a flight deck at sea is not a place to figure out your SOPs.

 

[RegR]

The techos would've have practise the evolution many times ashore before they did it on the flight deck to ensure that they had a good operating procedure down pat. That is SOP especially for new gear. Onboard a flight deck at sea is not a place to figure out your SOPs.

I'm not saying to do it on a ship, obviously you train before you do something like this but would be still interesting to see the different groups times with the different types. I'm sure the guys posted to 6 will still be more proficient at this procedure because it is their feed plus the sprite is smaller, lacks the tail etc. Naval ops does this procedure a whole lot more than air force ops.

On ship the 90 is still a bigger beast to maneavure remotely into the hanger regardless therefore on ship would equate to time.

 

[Zero Alpha]

On ship the 90 is still a bigger beast to maneavure remotely into the hanger regardless therefore on ship would equate to time.

Probably not, the Mantis isn't fussy about aircraft size. Tighter clearances might slow it down some, but not significantly.

Initial launch time isn't likely to be tactically relevant 99% of the time, I don't think it's really a big deal.

What I find interesting is that in the detailed planning for the LSS in the 1980s, the decision was a made that a dedicated naval transport helicopter was required (rather than using the land-based choppers aboard ship). 3 aircraft were to be used to support two on one ship. I've got some of the staff papers I picked up from National Archives.

I really think that NH90 is being unfairly criticised. Operating at sea was never part of the original requirements set. If it was, then we'd have ended up with a different spec aircraft (probably like the MRH90).

 

[recce.k1]

What I find interesting is that in the detailed planning for the LSS in the 1980s, the decision was a made that a dedicated naval transport helicopter was required (rather than using the land-based choppers aboard ship). 3 aircraft were to be used to support two on one ship. I've got some of the staff papers I picked up from National Archives.

I really think that NH90 is being unfairly criticised. Operating at sea was never part of the original requirements set. If it was, then we'd have ended up with a different spec aircraft (probably like the MRH90).

Yes you raise a valid point - I don't recall the NH90 having a requirement to operate at sea either. (Granted though, a valid question could be asked of "why wasn't it"? Although even that question seems daft in light of how many NH90's were bought, which was barely enough to sustain Army land operations let alone reserving some for Naval taskings).

So perhaps the NZDF had another Naval transport helo in mind for operating at sea on HMNZS Canterbury, perhaps even along the lines of the original 1980's LSS requirements but it would have to wait until a later date when the situation became more favourable.

That is, indirectly, could it be also that some 10-15 years ago when various NZDF capabilities were at risk of being chopped (apparently the P-3 Orions and Frigates?), perhaps the NZDF thought it prudent to also "save" the new Seasprites and thus not advocate for a dedicated ship borne naval transport helo at that point in time for the then new sealift vessel HMNZS Canterbury (instead opting for the Seasprite as her primary ship borne helo). After all even the initial F-model Seasprites being leased from Kaman proved invaluable only a couple of years earlier during the East Timor crisis tracking surface vessels. I could see the Seasprite as being deemed a too valuable capability to potentially lose.

 

[40 deg south]

A few recent links from FlightGlobal that may be of interest.

RIAT: UK’s Seedcorn MPA project renewed for a further three years - 7/20/2015 - Flight Global

RAF's Seedcorn project farming out aircrew to countries that still have an MPA capability extended for another three years. NZ presumably pleased to have some specialist aircrew on hand.

RIAT: Boeing’s maritime surveillance aircraft heads for Nordic demonstration - 7/20/2015 - Flight Global

Boeing's 'cut-rate P-8' is on the move, showing they are serious about selling it. Basically, it is the surveillance systems from a P-8 packed into a business jet, and lacking the weapons capability. Likely P-3 replacement by a government that includes the Greens?

RIAT: RAF gets set for next A400M deliveries - 7/20/2015 - Flight Global

The A400 programme seems to e recovering quickly from the recent crash in Spain. Suspect RNZAF will be watching this closely.

Japanese P-1 MPA to make first international trip to UK and Djibouti - 7/7/2015 - Flight Global
RIAT: Japanese P-1 to reach full capability by September - 7/20/2015 - Flight Global

Couple of links on Japan's enigmatic P-1 MPA, on overseas display in the UK for the first time ever. There is some video footage of it at RIAT if you google around.

 

[RegR]

Probably not, the Mantis isn't fussy about aircraft size. Tighter clearances might slow it down some, but not significantly.

Initial launch time isn't likely to be tactically relevant 99% of the time, I don't think it's really a big deal.

What I find interesting is that in the detailed planning for the LSS in the 1980s, the decision was a made that a dedicated naval transport helicopter was required (rather than using the land-based choppers aboard ship). 3 aircraft were to be used to support two on one ship. I've got some of the staff papers I picked up from National Archives.

I really think that NH90 is being unfairly criticised. Operating at sea was never part of the original requirements set. If it was, then we'd have ended up with a different spec aircraft (probably like the MRH90).

Yes actual movement of them not the issue just size, it's just like moving anything large into a confined space you cannot go as fast ie sprite would still be easier to hanger vs NH90.

To a degree they still have the 3 'naval' transports as 3 of the 8 90s are fitted with flotation rig therefore these would be first choice for embarkation and over water ops. Although still not fully marinised per se at least the consideration is still there somewhat.

Interestingly our ones were flying with aus versions fitted with the system in the TS15 pics (you can see the 4 light grey coloured 'bags') so not sure if these were army MRHs or possibly the RAN ones.

Oh I agree, movement by sea is more for the pure transport of 3 sqns NH90s and not nescessarily for them to become naval helos in their own right, we already have naval helos and due to the size of our current fleet onboard facilities the sprite is still the best (and in some cases only) option we have. Perhaps in the future if Navy wanted an organic fulltime transport version then it would be planned into future naval vessels and pursued accordingly when the sprites are replaced ie a mix of NFH/NH or 60R/60S.

Swerve supposedly the main point of us deploying NH90 by sea in numbers would be to support army overseas ops in the first place therefore the justification for numbers are still relevant as most likely for us this would be main effort for all services anyway dependant on size. Timor 99 deployed a battalion group (for NZ the largest land force we could deploy and sustain, although still a strain and not likely to be repeated in a hurry) and to support initial ops 3 sqn sent 6 UH1H reducing to 4 once the bn was settled into the AO. Now if you equate this into NH90 terms this would be 3 90s and a 109 (or just 4 90s) initially, taking into account lift and availability, with the option to drop down to 2 90s, 1 109 (or 3 90s) once it's all shaken out (I've put in 109 for greater flexibility vs pure lift) therefore as you see the fleet is actually still somewhat relevant regardless of the drop in actual numbers on paper as the benefit of the 90s was increased capability for less effort. Aus army must follow a similar policy as in timor II when it 'quietened' down after the initial surge they supported their bn gp (along with our guys) with a detachment of 3 blackhawks.

If we ever did conduct another Timor type deployment we would actually be in a better position in regards to helo ops as along with the added sprites we will have extra flexibility of types (NH90, A109, SH2G) for this kind of op taskings along with the obvious utilisation of CY.

 

[John Newman]

To a degree they still have the 3 'naval' transports as 3 of the 8 90s are fitted with flotation rig therefore these would be first choice for embarkation and over water ops. Although still not fully marinised per se at least the consideration is still there somewhat.

Interestingly our ones were flying with aus versions fitted with the system in the TS15 pics (you can see the 4 light grey coloured 'bags') so not sure if these were army MRHs or possibly the RAN ones.

Reg,

I'm a little confused, I've seen the suggestion a couple of times here in the RNZAF thread that when there is talk of the 'flotation' devices on the Kiwi NH-90's that 'only' three of the eight 90's are fitted, correct?

I maybe reading this wrong, but I'm getting the feeling that it is being suggested that those three 90's fitted with the flotation device is somehow 'permanent' and it's 'only' just on those three 90's and not the other five.

As I've always understood it here in Oz, the (eventual) 46 MRH-90's in the ADF inventory are all the same configuration and that the airframes for Army and Navy are shared from the same common pool (hence the reason for the identical paint job, the only difference is 'navy' painted on some and 'army' painted on the others).

And that the 'flotation' devices on the Navy birds are not a permanent fixture, as obviously if and when airframes are 'rotated' in and around the 'pool' then the flotation device can be removed from a nominal 'navy' airframe and then fitted to an 'army' airframe and then it can be used in Navy service. (As a side note, it will be interesting, eventually, when a full complement of Army MRH-90's get to operate off the LHD's if they in fact will be also fitted with the flotation device when serving at sea).

Anyway back to the Kiwi birds, not questioning what you are saying that three of the eight 90's in NZ service are currently fitted with flotation devices (maybe that's just how they were delivered?), but I'd be surprised if somehow that was 'permanent' and the other five airframes couldn't also be fitted if an when necessary, eg, during a heavy maintenance period, or if airframes have to be rotated or re tasked.

If you can clarify this for me, I'd appreciate it.

Cheers,

 

[RegR]

Reg,

I'm a little confused, I've seen the suggestion a couple of times here in the RNZAF thread that when there is talk of the 'flotation' devices on the Kiwi NH-90's that 'only' three of the eight 90's are fitted, correct?

I maybe reading this wrong, but I'm getting the feeling that it is being suggested that those three 90's fitted with the flotation device is somehow 'permanent' and it's 'only' just on those three 90's and not the other five.

As I've always understood it here in Oz, the (eventual) 46 MRH-90's in the ADF inventory are all the same configuration and that the airframes for Army and Navy are shared from the same common pool (hence the reason for the identical paint job, the only difference is 'navy' painted on some and 'army' painted on the others).

And that the 'flotation' devices on the Navy birds are not a permanent fixture, as obviously if and when airframes are 'rotated' in and around the 'pool' then the flotation device can be removed from a nominal 'navy' airframe and then fitted to an 'army' airframe and then it can be used in Navy service. (As a side note, it will be interesting, eventually, when a full complement of Army MRH-90's get to operate off the LHD's if they in fact will be also fitted with the flotation device when serving at sea).

Anyway back to the Kiwi birds, not questioning what you are saying that three of the eight 90's in NZ service are currently fitted with flotation devices (maybe that's just how they were delivered?), but I'd be surprised if somehow that was 'permanent' and the other five airframes couldn't also be fitted if an when necessary, eg, during a heavy maintenance period, or if airframes have to be rotated or re tasked.

If you can clarify this for me, I'd appreciate it.

Cheers,

Unlike the old hueys and the current A109s where the flotation was/is bolted on to the skids/frame as and when needed, for the 90s it is built into the frame and wheel housing and in doing so more of a process. Unsure whether these can be easily 'moved' between helos easily but definately not as easily as just sticking on the outside like the others. I'm not saying these are dedicated for all time just currently, and with ease of use in mind 3 of ours have them fitted and I have seen them from day dot (not just for TS15) so for us at least seem 'permanent' in that regard. As with any military kit of the same family interchangeable parts are of benefit and cost effective but depending on degree of complexity, effort and availability would we actually do it is again another question, for example we have some NZLAV fitted with HD recovery winchs and obstacle blades and whilst the basic hull is the same we would not swap this kit around unless absoloutlely nesscessary whereas other ancillary kit is not so much of an issue. Makes sense for us anyway as 3 frames is a good 'max' number for our forces to cover any larger deployment (and below), initially anyway, therefore a good base number to keep fitted out should the need arise to deploy urgently. The system is definitely not fitted to all 8 anyway.

There are pics floating around for an idea and that is where I saw the Aus MRH with the same system ex TS15. Even army MRH would have ones with flotation fitted as they are handy for all overwater ops not just shipbourne (our hueys used them to transit to the south island occasionally along with immersion suits) and this could form the 'pool' of generic MRH but realistically would this really be a common occurrence anyway between army and navy as either way someone will be left short (unless you guys have dedicated spares of course?) and each would just work it out within their current fleets unless obviously an urgent requirement or replacing a loss.

 

[RegR]

Here's a link for some pics of both.

Air Queensland.blogspot: Talisman Saber 2015 - RNZAF NH90's arrive at Rockhampton Airport.

You can clearly see the patches where the flotation pods are.

 

[John Newman]

Unlike the old hueys and the current A109s where the flotation was/is bolted on to the skids/frame as and when needed, for the 90s it is built into the frame and wheel housing and in doing so more of a process. Unsure whether these can be easily 'moved' between helos easily but definately not as easily as just sticking on the outside like the others. I'm not saying these are dedicated for all time just currently, and with ease of use in mind 3 of ours have them fitted and I have seen them from day dot (not just for TS15) so for us at least seem 'permanent' in that regard. As with any military kit of the same family interchangeable parts are of benefit and cost effective but depending on degree of complexity, effort and availability would we actually do it is again another question, for example we have some NZLAV fitted with HD recovery winchs and obstacle blades and whilst the basic hull is the same we would not swap this kit around unless absoloutlely nesscessary whereas other ancillary kit is not so much of an issue. Makes sense for us anyway as 3 frames is a good 'max' number for our forces to cover any larger deployment (and below), initially anyway, therefore a good base number to keep fitted out should the need arise to deploy urgently. The system is definitely not fitted to all 8 anyway.

There are pics floating around for an idea and that is where I saw the Aus MRH with the same system ex TS15. Even army MRH would have ones with flotation fitted as they are handy for all overwater ops not just shipbourne (our hueys used them to transit to the south island occasionally along with immersion suits) and this could form the 'pool' of generic MRH but realistically would this really be a common occurrence anyway between army and navy as either way someone will be left short (unless you guys have dedicated spares of course?) and each would just work it out within their current fleets unless obviously an urgent requirement or replacing a loss.

Hi Reg, thanks for that!

Yes I have seen the photo's of the NZ birds with the flotation devices, appears to be the same as all the photo's I've previously seen of the RAN's birds fitted with them too.

As for how easy (or not) it is to fit the flotation kits from one airframe to another I wouldn't have a clue either, maybe it very complex or it could be as simple as removing the 'blank' panel from the airframe and replacing it with a panel that has the flotation kit build into the replacement panel, and maybe it's just a matter of 'plug and play' as to connecting the flotation device to the avionic 'systems' of the airframe too (of course that is all speculation on my behalf).

I actually just sent an email to Airbus Defence here in Australia (via their website), to ask if there was any 'publically' available information on the flotation device and asked about the complexity or not of fitting and refitting the flotation system.

If and when I get a reply, I'll post the results here!

 

[htbrst]

If some Chinese salespeople are to be believed, NZ is vaguely interested in purchasing Chinas new AG600 amphibious martitime patrol aircraft.

"Some countries with many islands, such as Malaysia and New Zealand, have expressed interest in the AG-600, and we are in contact with them," said Qu during a ceremony in Zhuhai to mark the beginning of the assembly of the plane.

Beijing building world's largest amphibious aircraft amid South China Sea tensions

I guess with a first flight of 2016, it could technically be in the running for the P-3 replacement and arguably could be useful getting into some pacific islands where there is a lack of runway infrastructure (as per the Sunderland's the P-3 replaced )

 

[kiwi in exile]

If some Chinese salespeople are to be believed, NZ is vaguely interested in purchasing Chinas new AG600 amphibious martitime patrol aircraft.

Beijing building world's largest amphibious aircraft amid South China Sea tensions

I guess with a first flight of 2016, it could technically be in the running for the P-3 replacement and arguably could be useful getting into some pacific islands where there is a lack of runway infrastructure (as per the Sunderland's the P-3 replaced )

I doubt the accuracy of this. While I'm not philisophically opposed to buying Chinese kit providing its right for the requirement, there will probably be a few on this forum who will rubbish the idea.

I like the idea of us having amphibs (I prefer the proven ShinMaywa US-2), AFAIK there is no plan/requirement for NZDF to have these. And financially we will have enough trouble credibly replacing a number of big platforms we allready operate over the next few years.

 

[Goknub]

Given the geopolitical games going on these days plus New Zealand's place in ANZUS I'd say there's a snowballs chance of Chinese kit making its way into NZ.

It'd be probably the last time NZ got invited to Talisman Sabre.

Apart from the politics I doubt it would be of much use given the limited funds available.
For China, this aircraft can make sense. They need to service their new outposts and not all have airstrips. For New Zealand there is less need. Most Pacific neighbours have decent airstrips and for those that don't, it would be safer to go by boat. The ranges this would need to fly are quite long and if there is no one at the other end with an amphibious refuelling capability they could be in trouble.

 

[kiwi in exile]

I'm sure I've read/seen photos of a NZ NH90 lifting an Pinzgauer LOV. I was wondering if anyone else had see/read this too, and could provide a link or attach an image.

Thanks
K.I.E

 

[RegR]

I have seen pics from the trials at Raumai but can't find now. RNZAF news, June 2013, issue 148 also makes mention.

 

[kiwi in exile]

I have seen pics from the trials at Raumai but can't find now. RNZAF news, June 2013, issue 148 also makes mention.

Thanks for that. I'll have a look
K

 

[ngatimozart]

I see that a certain well known kiwi aviation forum has some users on it trying to resurrect the rumours of the RNZAF acquiring C17s. The latest idea is that they will acquire the last white tail and that the USAF will sell them a used one. IMHO that isn't going to happen because the USAF will be wanting to hold on to all their C17s. The proposition of C17s wearing kiwi roundels has passed into history and I think people need to accept that.

What will make interesting reading, will be the air transport study when it is completed. That will give an indication of the direction that they are leaning towards. Whilst we all have ideas of what the structure of the air transport component should be, the study and the DWP will hopefully detail it. Hence it's a game of wait and see.

 

[t68]

I see that a certain well known kiwi aviation forum has some users on it trying to resurrect the rumours of the RNZAF acquiring C17s. The latest idea is that they will acquire the last white tail and that the USAF will sell them a used one. IMHO that isn't going to happen because the USAF will be wanting to hold on to all their C17s. The proposition of C17s wearing kiwi roundels has passed into history and I think people need to accept that.

What will make interesting reading, will be the air transport study when it is completed. That will give an indication of the direction that they are leaning towards. Whilst we all have ideas of what the structure of the air transport component should be, the study and the DWP will hopefully detail it. Hence it's a game of wait and see.

Only way I can see that working is by a C17 in NZ colours as part of RAAF 36 Squadron and the crews rotate throughout RAAF assets and tasking allocated through the normal chain which does not mean the RNZAF C17 is used.

Long shot but who knows, when RAN leased the Skyhawks off NZ for traing at Nowra under whose administration where the under?

Could be a way forward with the single white tail, not ideal but feasable?

 

[recce.k1]

I see that a certain well known kiwi aviation forum has some users on it trying to resurrect the rumours of the RNZAF acquiring C17s. The latest idea is that they will acquire the last white tail and that the USAF will sell them a used one. IMHO that isn't going to happen because the USAF will be wanting to hold on to all their C17s. The proposition of C17s wearing kiwi roundels has passed into history and I think people need to accept that.

What will make interesting reading, will be the air transport study when it is completed. That will give an indication of the direction that they are leaning towards. Whilst we all have ideas of what the structure of the air transport component should be, the study and the DWP will hopefully detail it. Hence it's a game of wait and see.

Trouble is NM, the source on the other forum is very reputable (and doesn't get into fantasy discussions), so it does look like the RNZAF is quite serious about this, although the main let down would be if the MoD/Govt couldn't achieve an agreement with Boeing and the US Govt etc. Although it all does fit in with what the DefMin was alluding to when the last 4 whitetails sale was announced a while back so I guess we'll have to wait and see what does eventuate, if anything.

Frankly even if the NZG scooped up the last whitetail only, I cannot see why NZ couldn't work in closely with the RAAF's 36 Sqn as T68 mentions. Closer air transport resourcing between the two countries is one of the pollies favourite talking points, so it would be good to see them walk the talk for a change!

Even 1x C-17 would be a significant game changer for NZG's joint Antarctic support programme (only 1 a/c would be required in conjunction with the USAF's C-17's) so that could be what pushes a purchase over the line (as opposed to the pure military needs, which would obviously be a bit deficient).

This all still leaves the door open for A400M purchases for when the C-130's are eventually retired.

 

[ngatimozart]

Trouble is NM, the source on the other forum is very reputable (and doesn't get into fantasy discussions), so it does look like the RNZAF is quite serious about this, although the main let down would be if the MoD/Govt couldn't achieve an agreement with Boeing and the US Govt etc. Although it all does fit in with what the DefMin was alluding to when the last 4 whitetails sale was announced a while back so I guess we'll have to wait and see what does eventuate, if anything.

I have had some dealings with the source and have no reason to doubt him. However he is depending upon something that has been passed on by someone on the Sqn and there is no real way of checking the veracity of that info. What the Sqn and maybe some of the higher echelons of the RNZAF may want, is not necessarily what is what's best for the service, NZDF, or more importantly what the pollies will be willing to fund.

Frankly even if the NZG scooped up the last whitetail only, I cannot see why NZ couldn't work in closely with the RAAF's 36 Sqn as T68 mentions. Closer air transport resourcing between the two countries is one of the pollies favourite talking points, so it would be good to see them walk the talk for a change!

That's to logical for the pollies and the bureaucrats and the pollies wouldn't do it because it would mean that they would be accountable and it's not a vote catcher.

Even 1x C-17 would be a significant game changer for NZG's joint Antarctic support programme (only 1 a/c would be required in conjunction with the USAF's C-17's) so that could be what pushes a purchase over the line (as opposed to the pure military needs, which would obviously be a bit deficient).

This all still leaves the door open for A400M purchases for when the C-130's are eventually retired.

I actually strongly believe that if the NZG was really serious about acquiring the C17, they would have done so when two aircraft were available earlier in the year. They were aware that the whitetails would go quickly once interest was shown and the last one was progressing towards the end of the production line.

I think that the fleet will be a mix of A400Ms and C295s which would be good if the mix is right. The C295s being built now have the winglets and upgraded engines, plus I see from footage shot at RIAT some have AAR probes mounted by the cockpits, so range can definitely be extended. However until the DWP and the Study are released we have no real idea what the thinking is.