Royal New Zealand Air Force

[dave_kiwi]

Hmmm

At last something I am qualified to comment on

When I worked in 3 Sqn some 20 years ago, we used to attach "pump" up wheels to the skids of the Huey's. Simple hydraulic pumps allowed us to raise the skids off the ground, and then the Huey's could be towed / wheeled around as required. (Wheels fitted near or on the C of G). We could either use a tractor or man handle the Huey ...

As for landing on the decks of RNZN ships - I believ the Huey's have "operated" off the Endeavour -- though I am not sure if this is still current practise

 

[dave_kiwi]

This may be of interest:

http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/MRV.asp

Third paragraph down:

The hangar to house the ships SEASPRITE Helicopter was also left open and shows the workshops off to one side and the forward doors through which 5 MRH-90 transport helicopters can be stored.

One would assume that the model maker would have access or have been provided the necessary information to build an accurate model

 

[stray_kiwi]

My understanding of composite structures (CRP / GRP / Kevlar) is that they are fine up until the point when their structural limit is reached at which point there will be a catastrophic failure, so they don't have a fatigue life as such, flying a composite aircraft on a regular basis this is always on my mind when performing high G manuovres or flying in strong turbulance

Thats the main reason why I will not fly composite aircraft.
I hope that the public can be persuaded that these aircraft will require replacement much sooner than 40 years.

 

[KH-12]

Im pretty sceptical guys about the NZ Huey operating off a MRV prior to the NH90s coming into service. Unless of course they were stored and flew to a LZ or base elsewhere for operations. The reason being is that the Huey have a skid landing, and in a rough sea state might cause considerable damage to the deck of the MRV and the Huey(s). I really dont think this would be practable. Especially if they had to be tied down to the deck.

The US Marines also operate their Cobras of ships and they employ skid landing gear also, and I believe the Italians have also flown Huey derivatives off their ships for many years.

 

[KH-12]

Thats the main reason why I will not fly composite aircraft.
I hope that the public can be persuaded that these aircraft will require replacement much sooner than 40 years.

I really can't see these aircraft being replaced much sooner, the US Army is looking to keep its AH-64's in service for a similar period of time, as long as they can be updated and still perform their mission why replace. If you don't want your composite structure to break don't exceed the airframe limits, its as simple as that (there is normally a reasonable safety margin anyway), at least with composites you can see when they are broken its not some insidious process as with metal alloys. I feel much safer flying in a composite aircraft than a metal one that has done 30,000 pressurization cycles.:fly

 

[Whiskyjack]

While I agree the UH-1 is not going to be the ideal chopper to fly off the MRV, it will be the only chopper available, with the exception of the Seasprites, for four years 2007-2011 (while the first NH90 arrives 2010 I can't see it on board operationally before 2011, maybe even 2012!

The other main issue to consider is that the UH-1 is not going to provide the lift needed off the MRV, 2 UH-1s off the back will carry 10 fully equipped troops! And underslung load will not be flash either.

So while I am sure the UH-1 will be transported and used on the MRV, realistically for 4-5 years the aviation lift capability from the MRV will be minimal at best IMHO.

Another thing I was wondering and this probably belongs in the Protector thread, but can the MRV carry Chinooks? While they may fit in the main hanger can they pass through the Seasprite hanger?

 

[KH-12]

While I agree the UH-1 is not going to be the ideal chopper to fly off the MRV, it will be the only chopper available, with the exception of the Seasprites, for four years 2007-2011 (while the first NH90 arrives 2010 I can't see it on board operationally before 2011, maybe even 2012!

The other main issue to consider is that the UH-1 is not going to provide the lift needed off the MRV, 2 UH-1s off the back will carry 10 fully equipped troops! And underslung load will not be flash either.

So while I am sure the UH-1 will be transported and used on the MRV, realistically for 4-5 years the aviation lift capability from the MRV will be minimal at best IMHO.

Another thing I was wondering and this probably belongs in the Protector thread, but can the MRV carry Chinooks? While they may fit in the main hanger can they pass through the Seasprite hanger?

Interesting you should raise the Chinook issue I was wondering whether we might have been better off getting say 3 Chinooks and another aircraft of say AW139 size, with the Chinooks providing the heavy lift. I would think the height might be an issue in terms of stowage through the Hangar entrance, The NH90 is 5.23m while the Chinook is 5.8m and I suspect there is'nt much clearance on the NH90.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Interesting you should raise the Chinook issue I was wondering whether we might have been better off getting say 3 Chinooks and another aircraft of say AW139 size, with the Chinooks providing the heavy lift. I would think the height might be an issue in terms of stowage through the Hangar entrance, The NH90 is 5.23m while the Chinook is 5.8m and I suspect there is'nt much clearance on the NH90.

I think when any country looks at defence purchases there is a critical mass, which a c country must meet before it is worth while. When it comes to the Chinook, I think 6 is around the number, 3 is not going to meet the critical mass.

 

[KH-12]

I think when any country looks at defence purchases there is a critical mass, which a c country must meet before it is worth while. When it comes to the Chinook, I think 6 is around the number, 3 is not going to meet the critical mass.

Yes 6 would be good but Australia managed with only 4 for a number of years and we have only 2 757's (probably a bad example ), 3 should still give you 2 aircraft available for deployment at any point in time.

The self-deployment capability of the NH90 has been hailed as amajor advantage by the defence minister in the last few days, saying that it can self-deploy to most of the major pacific islands. From what I can work out this would be accomplished by flying over water legs in excess of 4 hours duration and at the limit of its range (with additional fuel carried) with not alot of safety margin. Is this just a notional capability for selling to the public or is it likely to be a operational option that is used on a regular basis (or is it to cover up problems with getting it in the back of a C-130), would be keen to hear peoples perspective.

 

[KH-12]

The EADS press release is confirming the number of ordered airframes at 9,
http://www.eads.com/web/lang/en/1024/content/OF00000000400004/5/82/40820825.html

What exactly does 9 to provide 8 operational aircraft mean, is the 9th aircraft kept in a box at the back of Ohakea incase of an attrition loss, or does this just reflect the loss of an airframe due to routinue manitenance cycles ?

 

[Lucasnz]

The EADS press release is confirming the number of ordered airframes at 9,
http://www.eads.com/web/lang/en/1024/content/OF00000000400004/5/82/40820825.html

What exactly does 9 to provide 8 operational aircraft mean, is the 9th aircraft kept in a box at the back of Ohakea incase of an attrition loss, or does this just reflect the loss of an airframe due to routinue manitenance cycles ?

The recent wings Magazine did an article on the SH-2G where they said that at anytime they can deploy 3 out of 5 helicopter. That would allow for 1 in Deep Maintenance and 1 for training. Maybe they're looking at two operational flights of 4 aircraft (1 Deployed & 1 in training for deployment) and 1 aircraft in deep maint. My view on the matter anyway. At least we got a spare.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Yes 6 would be good but Australia managed with only 4 for a number of years and we have only 2 757's (probably a bad example ), 3 should still give you 2 aircraft available for deployment at any point in time.

The self-deployment capability of the NH90 has been hailed as amajor advantage by the defence minister in the last few days, saying that it can self-deploy to most of the major pacific islands. From what I can work out this would be accomplished by flying over water legs in excess of 4 hours duration and at the limit of its range (with additional fuel carried) with not alot of safety margin. Is this just a notional capability for selling to the public or is it likely to be a operational option that is used on a regular basis (or is it to cover up problems with getting it in the back of a C-130), would be keen to hear peoples perspective.

The problem IMO is that to the deployed force will have maintenance requirements, which will mean that at any one time only, for the sake of argument. 80% of deployed assets will be available. So to deploy 2 will mean 1.6 are available. While at home there will be a need for deep base level maintenance and training, both crew and operational training with the army and navy.

There is also basic economics of a force size.

Of course this depends on the type of mission where two or one may be perfectly acceptable to the mission requirements.

However in say a ET scenario where you are generating sorties to move considerable amounts of troops and equipment you would want more platforms available.

So IMHO if you are the NZDF and you were looking at the Ch-47 (given the NH90 is signed up this is hypothetical) then you would be looking at 6. The ability to deploy 3 with another 3 at home in maintenance and training.

 

[Whiskyjack]

The recent wings Magazine did an article on the SH-2G where they said that at anytime they can deploy 3 out of 5 helicopter. That would allow for 1 in Deep Maintenance and 1 for training. Maybe they're looking at two operational flights of 4 aircraft (1 Deployed & 1 in training for deployment) and 1 aircraft in deep maint. My view on the matter anyway. At least we got a spare.

amen to that!

 

[KH-12]

Have been having a look at the potential self deployment option for the NH90 through to the Pacific Islands looks like the most likely route would be via Raoul Island in the Kermadecs, would require a refuelling base there with a reasonable capacity, from there the next hop is to Tonga, one sector to the east is Niue and one sector to the west is Fiji. The other option via Norfolk Island takes alot longer. All quite long sectors of about 1000km. I presume with the additional long range tanks the payload is negligible.

Back in March a Mil 17 did the trip to Raoul in about 5 hours to pick up the met service people , quite a trek over open water.

 

[Markus40]

If Raoul Island didnt have an active volcano this would make a good base for a self deployment option. Its extremely doubtful based on the geology of the Island that the government would want to invest any base infrasture there. Niue is a far better option. BTW the range for the NH90 is 800km. The closest point departing NZ at a NNE direction is 1100 km.

Have been having a look at the potential self deployment option for the NH90 through to the Pacific Islands looks like the most likely route would be via Raoul Island in the Kermadecs, would require a refuelling base there with a reasonable capacity, from there the next hop is to Tonga, one sector to the east is Niue and one sector to the west is Fiji. The other option via Norfolk Island takes alot longer. All quite long sectors of about 1000km. I presume with the additional long range tanks the payload is negligible.

Back in March a Mil 17 did the trip to Raoul in about 5 hours to pick up the met service people , quite a trek over open water.

 

[Whiskyjack]

If Raoul Island didnt have an active volcano this would make a good base for a self deployment option. Its extremely doubtful based on the geology of the Island that the government would want to invest any base infrasture there. Niue is a far better option. BTW the range for the NH90 is 800km. The closest point departing NZ at a NNE direction is 1100 km.

yes I am a bit sceptical of this self deployment talk. Technically possible I am sure, but I can't see it as an operational reality from NZ. The vast percentage of deployments from NZ will be by ship. That doesn't mean that they can't deploy better within a theatre of ops though.

 

[Gibbo]

If Raoul Island didnt have an active volcano this would make a good base for a self deployment option. Its extremely doubtful based on the geology of the Island that the government would want to invest any base infrasture there. Niue is a far better option. BTW the range for the NH90 is 800km. The closest point departing NZ at a NNE direction is 1100 km.

NH-90 is slated at 1200km ferry range (additonal tanks, no payload)

http://www.nhindustries.com/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?arbo=3&noeu_id=10012&lang=EN

1100km NNE = is this Norfolk Island? Yeah 1100km still too afr if you can only push out to 12ookm. IMHO these babies will not self-deploy often - the MRV will do the lion's share of this, with a the odd C-130 deploy. I guess it depends on what is meant by the MRV will carry the 4 x NH-90's "on the vehicle deck". If it's not at flight-deck level then loading / unloading could be damned difficult, esp. via LCM.

Granted there will be occassions only 1-2 will be deployed but guess we just gotta wait & see! Groan - doesn't 2010 seem so far way!?!

 

[Whiskyjack]

NH-90 is slated at 1200km ferry range (additonal tanks, no payload)

http://www.nhindustries.com/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?arbo=3&noeu_id=10012&lang=EN

1100km NNE = is this Norfolk Island? Yeah 1100km still too afr if you can only push out to 12ookm. IMHO these babies will not self-deploy often - the MRV will do the lion's share of this, with a the odd C-130 deploy. I guess it depends on what is meant by the MRV will carry the 4 x NH-90's "on the vehicle deck". If it's not at flight-deck level then loading / unloading could be damned difficult, esp. via LCM.

Granted there will be occassions only 1-2 will be deployed but guess we just gotta wait & see! Groan - doesn't 2010 seem so far way!?!

I believe that the NH90s will have access to the flight deck from the same level.

Agree that 2010 is still a long time away and then think that the actual operational deployment date will probably be 2 years from that.

Still on the bright side Aussie and the Europeans will have been operating them for a while by that stage so it should make things smoother for the NZDF.

 

[KH-12]

If Raoul Island didnt have an active volcano this would make a good base for a self deployment option. Its extremely doubtful based on the geology of the Island that the government would want to invest any base infrasture there. Niue is a far better option. BTW the range for the NH90 is 800km. The closest point departing NZ at a NNE direction is 1100 km.

Raoul might be an active volcanoe (well semi) but we have full time DOC staff based there so would'nt be a problem to have a fuel supply and landing area does'nt have to be a huge investment (or manned) parts of the island are OK and a reasonable distance from the craters. Strategically it is in the right place as a refueling stop and fits inside the 1200km ferry range of the NH90 (1084km, am assuming the 1200km incorporates std reserve). This allows a one stop deployment to our region of interest. The alternate route is quite time consuming (via Norfolk), if the aircraft was required in region quickly and you did'nt want to disassemble to put in the back of a C130 or wait for the MRV deployment it is certainly an option.

 

[Gibbo]

Has anyone actually heard what's been officially shortlisted for LUH?