Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Novascotiaboy]

After so many years of speculation on this site and others I am becoming restless waiting for some kind of announcement on the eventual outcome. I still find the KC390 to be a fine product from an excellent manufacturer but as others have noted the half a century of Hercules experience I think will carry the decision. The new SOF version ticks far too many boxes to not see the likely outcome especially with only four replacements for the Orions.

With the focus on the big three aircraft replacements over the next seven years that leaves a decision on the B200 replacement to be made soon as well. I wonder which aircraft replacement will be confirmed first?

 

[MrConservative]

Agreed, this is why i initially supported A400 M, in the strategic role, it would have allowed more time for it to mature in service and hopefully many of the issues it has been facing would be resolved bythe 2025 time frame, the cost of C2 does make it more appealing, but as both aircraft are similar sized I wonder if RNZAF would be able to fund the flight hours for an all C2 or A400M solution for both tactical and strategic role.

Even more than ten years ago the A400M was well and truly factored in the future of force structure of the RNZAF along with the P-8A. It had all this promise as the ideal aircraft for the NZDF - solved the tactical/OS and strategic roles all on one platform, go back to the Cabinet Docs prior to the DWP10 from 9 years ago it pencils in the A400. Ironically it even was originally promised as affordable. The C-130J was regarded as old hat.

However in the last few years the star has fallen on the A400M and the C-130J has got better and has developed into a multi-role platform beyond being just a familiar and reliable medium airlifter. There maybe some matrix where the KC-390 has an edge and for some air forces that are geographically continentally orientated like Brazil, Portugal or the Czech Republic that simply want a medium transport with A2A then fine, however there are a couple of points in which the C-130J context really resonates as the ideal solution for the NZDF. 1. Interoperability with our main AFIC partners 2. The facilities and infrastructure required to maintain the aircraft will not require development and cost changes from the current C-130H 3. In the 12-14 tonne payload - range matrix it actually is superior to the KC-390 (2,730 nm) versus C-130J (3070 nm) 4. The Operational Environment Factors that the aircraft has to endure in NZDF service are proven in both high mountain, tropical, desert and polar conditions. 5. It is able to put down and take off with 16000kg payloads on short (under 1500m) coral strips with low CBR ratings found in the Pacific which is significant to getting positive HADR outcomes. 6. Training and doctrine not just for the RNZAF but NZSOF community and wider NZDF on the C-130 platform is well established 7. It is the platform of choice for SOF insertions amongst the tier 1 FVEY's operators (Note that the Supacat Extenda and Bushmaster PMV can be C-130 air transported) 8. LM's established and global support lines with the added benefit that 60% of the current spares and parts stocks already exist within C-130H inventories 9. It is multi-role like none of the others are anywhere close and can support and broaden the FASC all within LM's COTS range of ISR/Sigint/Commint not withstanding direct combat applications. 10. It is likely to be the cheapest and fastest to acquire and IOC as well as operate WoL especially if the NZDF (as it will most likely do) add to ongoing USAF/USCG production orders and if we actually had a medium utility helicopter like the UH-60V we could chuck one in the back we could save ourselves a lot of time and money.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Report that Sweden is sidelining nine of its NH90TTH due to high operating costs equivalent to $25000 US per hour compared to UH60 costs of $4500 per hour.

Sweden's New Helicopters Clobbered as 'Biggest Procurement Blunder'

Another one off Euro blunder that hasn't worked as originally promoted. Tried and true equipment manufacturers maybe don't meet all the boxes in grandiose specifications but they get the job done.

 

[ngatimozart]

Report that Sweden is sidelining nine of its NH90TTH due to high operating costs equivalent to $25000 US per hour compared to UH60 costs of $4500 per hour.

Sweden's New Helicopters Clobbered as 'Biggest Procurement Blunder'

Another one off Euro blunder that hasn't worked as originally promoted. Tried and true equipment manufacturers maybe don't meet all the boxes in grandiose specifications but they get the job done.

Swedish article (in Swedish) supporting the above story. We may have made a self inflicted faux pas acquiring the NH90 but what's done is done. I would have to caution though that Swedish defence accounting practices may differ from that of other NH90 users.

 

[ngatimozart]

It is pretty strange when an armed service has to consider acquisitions with an equal or greater weighting to vip comfort rather than war fighting capability and capacity. That is a failure in leadership I think.

I was being sarcastic.

 

[Todjaeger]

Swedish article (in Swedish) supporting the above story. We may have made a self inflicted faux pas acquiring the NH90 but what's done is done. I would have to caution though that Swedish defence accounting practices may differ from that of other NH90 users.

The specific figures might be off, but the ratio does match up with that reported by the ANAO when looking at per flight hour costs for the ADF's MRH90 vs. S-70A-9 Black Hawk. I think I had linked that report in either the Australian Army, or perhaps the general ADF thread within the past month or so. IIRC one of the other key figures was the # of maintenance hours per flight hour required for the MRH90, with it having been 'improved' to ~27 maintenance hours per flight hour. Prior to the 'improvement' it had been ~90+ maintenance hours per flight hour.

Realistically, while the idea is unpalatable, I could see the NZDF looking to add something like the UH-60M into the inventory due to high costs associated with operating the NH90. I do not know if the serviceability experience of Kiwi NH90's has been similar that of Oz MRH90's, but if it has, then NZ might well need to increase the size of the NH90 fleet to ensure that there will be sufficient numbers to have some available for service and operations.

Another option, also unlikely to be palatable but potentially a wise/necessary option, would be to retire & sell the Kiwi NH90's and replace them with UH-60M's or something else with similar characteristics.

 

[MrConservative]

The specific figures might be off, but the ratio does match up with that reported by the ANAO when looking at per flight hour costs for the ADF's MRH90 vs. S-70A-9 Black Hawk. I think I had linked that report in either the Australian Army, or perhaps the general ADF thread within the past month or so. IIRC one of the other key figures was the # of maintenance hours per flight hour required for the MRH90, with it having been 'improved' to ~27 maintenance hours per flight hour. Prior to the 'improvement' it had been ~90+ maintenance hours per flight hour.

Realistically, while the idea is unpalatable, I could see the NZDF looking to add something like the UH-60M into the inventory due to high costs associated with operating the NH90. I do not know if the serviceability experience of Kiwi NH90's has been similar that of Oz MRH90's, but if it has, then NZ might well need to increase the size of the NH90 fleet to ensure that there will be sufficient numbers to have some available for service and operations.

Another option, also unlikely to be palatable but potentially a wise/necessary option, would be to retire & sell the Kiwi NH90's and replace them with UH-60M's or something else with similar characteristics.

Personally I would go with the keep the eight NH90 option as we have sunk $700m into them but work in with the regenerated US Army UH-60V programme to build rotary fleet capacity.

 

[Todjaeger]

Personally I would go with the keep the eight NH90 option as we have sunk $700m into them but work in with the regenerated US Army UH-60V programme to build rotary fleet capacity.

My preference would be to have a group of analysts sit down and run a range of cost projections covering various rotary lift options, then selecting the option which has the lowest cost for the greatest amount of capability. If that were to turn out to be an all NH90, or a mixed UH-60/NH90 fleet, so be it.

What I do not want to see (but fear will be the case) is for the concern to be ignored or dismissed in the name of politics and/or not tarnishing the reputations of those who made the decision.

I would also hope such a study could be completed prior to the NZDF investing further funding in the NH90 apart from what is normally needed to operate the helicopter and conduct routine maintenance, and certainly before any additional units might be ordered or substantial upgrades done. No sense spending good money after bad, if that were to be the way the study turns out.

 

[ngatimozart]

If we were looking to acquire some UH-60s, would it not be better to refurbish SH-60Bs including installing digital cockpits? That would give us a modern marinised fleet.

 

[Shanesworld]

I was being sarcastic.

Apologies didntd pick up on that But i assert that we will have an unneeded excess capacity to fly politicians in their desired level of comfort before we get an adequate levellof combat capability and capacity. And that is wrong.

 

[MrConservative]

If we were looking to acquire some UH-60s, would it not be better to refurbish SH-60Bs including installing digital cockpits? That would give us a modern marinised fleet.

Not really necessary. Further corrosion protection during the remanufacturing stage of the UH-60 will do that anyway. The UH-60 is deck qualified, has manual folding blades for the occasional circumstances it may need to travel shipborne and an emergency floatation kit can be retro-fitted. Stored SH-60B's as EDA's are more likely to be transferred out of the USSecNav care into navies that wish to use them on Frigates for their ASW/ASuW capabilities thus I suggested that the strong US Navy preference would be for them to remain unmolested. There is a current US Army / DoD UH-60V regeneration project which is low risk.

 

[John Fedup]

The NH90, Merlin, CH-149 (CDN SAR Cormorant), and CH-148 cyclone are all larger than the Blackhawk. The link below shows the Cormorant’s cost as $32k/hr which is about $25k USD so Sweden’s cost estimate seems reasonable. Canada wanted a larger helicopter so the Blackhawk lower operating cost was irrelevant to the RCN/RCAF. I wonder if the Swedes actually wanted a larger machine or was buying Euro more important?

It will be interesting to see the operating cost difference between our Cormorants and Cyclones. If the latter is much higher it will mean blow back on junior’s Liberal Party.

RCMP to be charged for CH-149 Cormorant

 

[Todjaeger]

If we were looking to acquire some UH-60s, would it not be better to refurbish SH-60Bs including installing digital cockpits? That would give us a modern marinised fleet.

If the versions acquired were MH-60S 'Sierra's then perhaps. The standard SH-60B Seahawk has a folding tail and removes the left side door that is found on UH-60 Black Hawks. If the RNZAF were to looking to augment or replace some of the lift capability that had been supplied by the Hueys and was to be provided by the NH90's, then I would consider only having a single side door a negative characteristic as that can impact rapid ingress/egress of personnel.

Honestly for me this is sort of one of those moments when I want to bang my head against a wall due to hindsight.

Whilst not a fan of 'what if' situations, in part due to engaging in contingency planning, consider the following alternate chain of events which the NZDF, RNZAF and RNZN could have followed.

When the issues with having such a small fleet like in the SH-2G(NZ) in terms of availability, spares, etc. reached the point where it was felt that replacement was the best option, instead of NZ ordering 10 of the SH-2G(I), an order was placed for nine or ten MH-60R 'Romeo' helicopters. This would have gotten the NZDF a modern, highly capable naval helicopter that is in service with friends and allies in the region and a design that is likely to see a fairly long service life. From here, if/when potential issues with the serviceability of the NH90 became apparent, then adding or replacing utility lift capability with additional examples from the UH-60/MH-60/SH-60 Black Hawk/Seahawk family could be easier, due to having significant commonality already in NZDF service.

 

[ngatimozart]

How-about Chinooks instead of Blackhawks? Say four chooks would add quite a bit of capability to the fling-wing fleet. Also add to the A109 fleet as well.

 

[t68]

How-about Chinooks instead of Blackhawks? Say four chooks would add quite a bit of capability to the fling-wing fleet. Also add to the A109 fleet as well.

Needs to be air transportable via C130, other than that yes you could do with CH-47F IMHO

 

[ADMk2]

Needs to be air transportable via C130, other than that yes you could do with CH-47F IMHO

Not really. A Chinook is far too big to fit into any C-130, probably too large to fit into an A400m (at least without significant dismantling) and will only fit into a C-17A with the rotors and rotor mast, completely dismantled. It’s not the sort of asset you would seek to regularly or rapidly airlift because of it’s sheer size. NZ might as well give up heavy engineering plant too if C-130 airlifting capability is essential...

In the NZ context unless spare strategic airlifter can be ‘borrowed’ or leased, such will never occur and it will be deployed by maritime transit only.

But that doesn’t mean these assets won’t significantly enhance your capability.

 

[t68]

Not really. A Chinook is far too big to fit into any C-130, probably too large to fit into an A400m (at least without significant dismantling) and will only fit into a C-17A with the rotors and rotor mast, completely dismantled. It’s not the sort of asset you would seek to regularly or rapidly airlift because of it’s sheer size. NZ might as well give up heavy engineering plant too if C-130 airlifting capability is essential...

In the NZ context unless spare strategic airlifter can be ‘borrowed’ or leased, such will never occur and it will be deployed by maritime transit only.

But that doesn’t mean these assets won’t significantly enhance your capability.

Yes I know it wont fit in a C130, the whole debate is via Mr C original requirement for a utility helicopter that can be transported quickly via C130 which is the aircraft most likely be procured under FAMC, that was the context of my post. I have advocated CH-47's for NZ for a long time

 

[MrConservative]

There is a shortfall in tactical rotary numbers within the RNZAF. Chinooks would be nice but when has perfection ever eventuated and it would not solve the immediate priority capability gap in the right way. There is an old sailing adage - When sinking it is best to plug the holes in the boat first than think about trying to make the boat go faster.

The 2003 T/LUH capability definition evaluation recommended to Cabinet that six A109’s and a simulator be acquired in 2006 but they only got five due to six being over their brightline cost level. That provided only sufficient airframes for rotary training and limited local light utility tasks. In the T/LUH study (option 5C) the evaluation found that having ten A109’s would enable the optimum mix to meet all key operational requirements enabling overseas deployment and to provide an effective mix for humanitarian aid and disaster relief operations and usage of the A109 for intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance roles.

The MUH capability definition phase recommended that ten NH90’s be acquired and again this exceed the brightline maximum cost (as did even the 8 acquired in any place). I have always regarded that ten MUH helicopters are required to meet and achieve our key operational requirements as per the capability definition.

Essentially we are 7 “tactical” helicopters short of what the 2003 capability definition evaluation estimated. Nearly 15 years on one can rationally argue that even that is not sufficient now let alone for the next couple of decades.

We do not have enough A109’s to deploy overseas. We have enough for training requirements. The NH90 cannot be rapidly air deployable. Buying another 5 A109’s and two more NH90’s wont really solve our capability issues and is likely to cost more than for example 8 regenerated UH-60 Victors, which I believe to be a realistic and conservative solution.

I have read screeds of information over the years on this and on the FAMC requirements. My take and this has not been explicitly documented but is extrapolated from reading and inferences made is that when the C-130 SLEP was decided the overall RNZAF Operational Concept Working Document had already conceptually forecast the NH90 and the A400M. The A400M and AN-27 were even considered as early in the 2001 fixed wing capability definition phase alongside the C-130J and the SLEP. Their thinking at the time being the C-130 SLEP would be all done by 2009 and the NH90 by June 2011. With the expectation that the SLEP would buy time for the A400M and its ability to air transport the by then in service NH90 entering service about now!! Furthermore when considering the concurrent T/LUH capability definition happening around that time there would have been the view that they would have maybe ten LUH's to at least be able to be air transportable for HADR / Light Utility SASO duties up into the Pacific until the A400M's and NH90s deployment duo arrived.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

MrC at US$12 million a copy for an AW109LUH kitted out the same as the current five is an expenditure of US$60 million. The training and maintenance tails are in place already and the aircraft are fully integrated in NZ operations. This is such a paltry sum that there must be funds available. I realize it doesnt have the greatest lift but it is reasonable and when you have nothing its amazing. I know two NH90 will cost far more and it is here that I would introduce the MH47F. As Ngati says four should do nicely. Self deployable by inflight refueling from the new tactical transports to the islands or via Canterbury. Fully interoperable with key allies. One of a kind capability when you need it most.

 

[Rob c]

There is a shortfall in tactical rotary numbers within the RNZAF. Chinooks would be nice but when has perfection ever eventuated and it would not solve the immediate priority capability gap in the right way. There is an old sailing adage - When sinking it is best to plug the holes in the boat first than think about trying to make the boat go faster.

The 2003 T/LUH capability definition evaluation recommended to Cabinet that six A109’s and a simulator be acquired in 2006 but they only got five due to six being over their brightline cost level. That provided only sufficient airframes for rotary training and limited local light utility tasks. In the T/LUH study (option 5C) the evaluation found that having ten A109’s would enable the optimum mix to meet all key operational requirements enabling overseas deployment and to provide an effective mix for humanitarian aid and disaster relief operations and usage of the A109 for intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance roles.

The MUH capability definition phase recommended that ten NH90’s be acquired and again this exceed the brightline maximum cost (as did even the 8 acquired in any place). I have always regarded that ten MUH helicopters are required to meet and achieve our key operational requirements as per the capability definition.

Essentially we are 7 “tactical” helicopters short of what the 2003 capability definition evaluation estimated. Nearly 15 years on one can rationally argue that even that is not sufficient now let alone for the next couple of decades.

We do not have enough A109’s to deploy overseas. We have enough for training requirements. The NH90 cannot be rapidly air deployable. Buying another 5 A109’s and two more NH90’s wont really solve our capability issues and is likely to cost more than for example 8 regenerated UH-60 Victors, which I believe to be a realistic and conservative solution.

I have read screeds of information over the years on this and on the FAMC requirements. My take and this has not been explicitly documented but is extrapolated from reading and inferences made is that when the C-130 SLEP was decided the overall RNZAF Operational Concept Working Document had already conceptually forecast the NH90 and the A400M. The A400M and AN-27 were even considered as early in the 2001 fixed wing capability definition phase alongside the C-130J and the SLEP. Their thinking at the time being the C-130 SLEP would be all done by 2009 and the NH90 by June 2011. With the expectation that the SLEP would buy time for the A400M and its ability to air transport the by then in service NH90 entering service about now!! Furthermore when considering the concurrent T/LUH capability definition happening around that time there would have been the view that they would have maybe ten LUH's to at least be able to be air transportable for HADR / Light Utility SASO duties up into the Pacific until the A400M's and NH90s deployment duo arrived.

Well put, I think that increasing the AW 109 numbers is a must and should be early cab off the rank should additional funds be come available. NZ armed forces have always suffered from not having the right numbers of major equipment to achieve what is expected of them and rotary is no exception to this. I remember when I was at DEF HQ the minister ordered a review of UH1 numbers, ( from memory one of the criteria was to transport a company a set distance in a set time, there was a lot more which I have forgotten.) The min number was said to be 20 and some work was done towards this achieving this number. be for the project was scrapped.
A significant increase in AW 109's would also improve the availability of the NH90 as they are often used in tasks that their size is not needed. Mr C do you have any info on how the NH90 is going in RNZAF service as what I have heard locally is generally fairly positive.
I was interested in your comments in regard to the C 130 SLEP in allowing time for the A 400 project to mature. It would appear that the RNZAF was moving away from the C 130 J at that time. However it must be remembered that the J was experiencing significant problems then, with a low availability to add to this, these problems have since been solved.