Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Gibbo]

Well there is a vacant hanger at OH in the old 3 sqn hanger which is essentially a clone of the current 40 sqn hanger in WH and with 5 sqn buiding a purpose built facility means it is still up for grabs. There was talk years ago of moving just the boeings down to make use of the hanger and be nearer their primary customer but I guess the idea of splitting the squadron out weighed that logic but I think once 5 sqn does begin the transition (if not earlier) then the prospect of closing WH will again become a serious debate.

I'm sure someone on this forum mentioned that the old 3sqn hangar has steel stabilising rods running across the inside at a level slightly above hangar door height...meaning the hangar couldn't take anything large without a substantial rebuild (ie: replacement). Mind you that would then be included in the project budget.

edit: hmmm, now I think maybe I'm dreaming that!?!

 

[ngatimozart]

Sierras would only be good for use off the support ships and not as a direct replacement for the sprites. A split purchase of 5 romeos and 3 sierras could work saving the 5 romeos for the frigates and OPVs covering the "combat" role with the 3 sierras doing the logistical/training work and would be be still cheaper than an all romeo fleet as well.

Reg I wasn't talking about replacing the sprite in the ASW/ ASuW role. I was specifically talking to the NH90 MRH role in the RAN and the non ASW/ASuW roles in the RNZN.

 

[MrConservative]

Sierras would only be good for use off the support ships and not as a direct replacement for the sprites. A split purchase of 5 romeos and 3 sierras could work saving the 5 romeos for the frigates and OPVs covering the "combat" role with the 3 sierras doing the logistical/training work and would be be still cheaper than an all romeo fleet as well.

The SH-2G(I) replacement project is earmarked for nine airframes. Thus I would be more inclined to add a further Romeo than a S-70i Advanced + airframe.

Reasoning being that at this stage the DCP 19 planning was seeking hull for hull replacements of the two Anzacs and the two OPV's. The two OPV's will be replaced by 2032 with more capable vessels that also have sealift and advance force capabilities. They will be able to provide security for advance force operations take place ahead of a sealift ship arriving to ensure forces can be landed safely. The DCP19 has prospective funding for these two vessels of up to NZD$1B (Ref: GOV-18-MIN-0086).

 

[Rob c]

I'm sure someone on this forum mentioned that the old 3sqn hangar has steel stabilising rods running across the inside at a level slightly above hangar door height...meaning the hangar couldn't take anything large without a substantial rebuild (ie: replacement). Mind you that would then be included in the project budget.

edit: hmmm, now I think maybe I'm dreaming that!?!

Which hangar are we talking about at Ohakea, one of the concrete ones? and when were the steel stabilising rods fitted.? My understanding was from a lecture by the designer back in the 60's was that the front facade of these hangars carrying the doors was non structural in regard to the structure of the hangar.

 

[RegR]

The SH-2G(I) replacement project is earmarked for nine airframes. Thus I would be more inclined to add a further Romeo than a S-70i Advanced + airframe.

Reasoning being that at this stage the DCP 19 planning was seeking hull for hull replacements of the two Anzacs and the two OPV's. The two OPV's will be replaced by 2032 with more capable vessels that also have sealift and advance force capabilities. They will be able to provide security for advance force operations take place ahead of a sealift ship arriving to ensure forces can be landed safely. The DCP19 has prospective funding for these two vessels of up to NZD$1B (Ref: GOV-18-MIN-0086).

Yes, guess it all depends where they will place the emphasis, supporting the combat roles or the added logistics role and how much money they are willing to throw at the project overall.

Whilst I would love to believe we will add a frame to the fleet too many past capabilty requests for numbers have let me down so I will wait until the contracts signed for confirmation as I can see the usual low-medium-high options scenario coming into play and with govt not well known for ticking the high box I will not hold my breath.

Hopefully we also do not base the future naval helo fleet on the limitations of the current legacy fleet in terms of hanger space as that would be a mistake in my eyes (unless it is the best helo option of course) and instead take into account the future ship replacements abilty to handle the appropriate helo. Due to the timframes this could either mean holding onto the sprites for a few years longer (which tbh we usually do with anything anyway) or bringing forward the frigate/OPV replacements a few years earlier to coincide. Could be another expensive period to cover off so we may need to get another Ron Mark type in to push the goals across the line.

 

[RegR]

I'm sure someone on this forum mentioned that the old 3sqn hangar has steel stabilising rods running across the inside at a level slightly above hangar door height...meaning the hangar couldn't take anything large without a substantial rebuild (ie: replacement). Mind you that would then be included in the project budget.

edit: hmmm, now I think maybe I'm dreaming that!?!

Could be, but the 2 hangers at OH are identical to the 2 at WH so you would think if one needed strengthening for any reason then so would the other 3 meaning the Auckland ones would be unusable for C130, P3K and 757s as well. Could have been a measure to assist with the doors or some sqn specific add on but I'm sure it would be an easy remediation back to standard if any stabiliser was retro-fitted to no2 hanger considering the others do not have the feature.

Tbh have not been inside the hanger for a few moons now and did not look up to notice any differences at the door even when I was in there so could not say for certain.

The other option could be to move 42 sqn and the "extras" into no2 and put 40 sqn into no3 hanger but that would mean moving them away from the air terminal building so not logistically ideal.

 

[t68]

Reg I wasn't talking about replacing the sprite in the ASW/ ASuW role. I was specifically talking to the NH90 MRH role in the RAN and the non ASW/ASuW roles in the RNZN.

While I like the idea of NZ piggy backing on any potential future RAN utility helicopter buy, one also has to take into account the future planed sealift ships there's no point in getting MH-60s if you only have room for a couple of aircraft like CY does now for air operations. you would be better off with additional NFH in the ASW role and trying to secure an extra couple of utility cabs if you can get to 12 all the better in the NH-90 fleet

The ADF is not buying additional Romeo so you will get no savings there and depending on price as the ADF birds are utility helicopters they could in theory also move to Bell UH-1Y the engines are the same as Romeo in theory we could go all bell with tiger replace with either AH-1Z or I don't really know how advanced the Bell 360 Invictus is but I imagine Bell would be looking for a good deal

 

[Todjaeger]

While I like the idea of NZ piggy backing on any potential future RAN utility helicopter buy, one also has to take into account the future planed sealift ships there's no point in getting MH-60s if you only have room for a couple of aircraft like CY does now for air operations. you would be better off with additional NFH in the ASW role and trying to secure an extra couple of utility cabs if you can get to 12 all the better in the NH-90 fleet

The ADF is not buying additional Romeo so you will get no savings there and depending on price as the ADF birds are utility helicopters they could in theory also move to Bell UH-1Y the engines are the same as Romeo in theory we could go all bell with tiger replace with either AH-1Z or I don't really know how advanced the Bell 360 Invictus is but I imagine Bell would be looking for a good deal

Not really, at least not if the data about availability rates, maintenance per flight hour and cost per flight hour is accurate. The current information suggests that the MH-60R has greater availability than the NH90 based helicopters, requires less maintenance time per flight hour, and also costs less per flight hour. On those points alone, there is potential value in the NZDF selecting the MH-60R as the replacement naval helicopter for the Seasprite in place of NFH90's. If one factors in that both the USN and RAN operate MH-60R's, then not only is there an existing supply chain in the Pacific for parts, etc. there is also a user base to share/spread future development with. One (potential) problem I have observed with NFH90 orders, is that the actual fitout is different for each nation. Because each NFH90 configuration is different, there is really no commonality between the different NFH90 variants and different nations would either need to run their own, individual upgrade programme, or manage to agree on a set of common sensors and avionics to upgrade to a standardized NFH90 version.

The other this is that the future sealift ship IMO would be more apt to have lift/transport helicopters embarked. Not naval helicopters with an ASW/ASuW role. Those would be more likely to be embarked aboard escorting RNZN warships which would be screening the sealift vessel.

 

[ngatimozart]

While I like the idea of NZ piggy backing on any potential future RAN utility helicopter buy, one also has to take into account the future planed sealift ships there's no point in getting MH-60s if you only have room for a couple of aircraft like CY does now for air operations. you would be better off with additional NFH in the ASW role and trying to secure an extra couple of utility cabs if you can get to 12 all the better in the NH-90 fleet

The ADF is not buying additional Romeo so you will get no savings there and depending on price as the ADF birds are utility helicopters they could in theory also move to Bell UH-1Y the engines are the same as Romeo in theory we could go all bell with tiger replace with either AH-1Z or I don't really know how advanced the Bell 360 Invictus is but I imagine Bell would be looking for a good deal

The Canterbury has hangarage for 4 medium helos with spots on the flight deck. I never mentioned anything about acquiring Romeos with the ADF, so actually read what I wrote before bursting into print. I said that if the RAN acquired the SIERRA then we should consider a combined acquisition with them.

The other point is that the Enhanced Sealift Vessels will not have the limitations of Canterbury, so we can presume that they will have at least the capability of a minimum of 4 medium helo spaces in the hangar.

 

[t68]

Not really, at least not if the data about availability rates, maintenance per flight hour and cost per flight hour is accurate. The current information suggests that the MH-60R has greater availability than the NH90 based helicopters, requires less maintenance time per flight hour, and also costs less per flight hour. On those points alone, there is potential value in the NZDF selecting the MH-60R as the replacement naval helicopter for the Seasprite in place of NFH90's. If one factors in that both the USN and RAN operate MH-60R's, then not only is there an existing supply chain in the Pacific for parts, etc. there is also a user base to share/spread future development with. One (potential) problem I have observed with NFH90 orders, is that the actual fitout is different for each nation. Because each NFH90 configuration is different, there is really no commonality between the different NFH90 variants and different nations would either need to run their own, individual upgrade programme, or manage to agree on a set of common sensors and avionics to upgrade to a standardized NFH90 version.

The other this is that the future sealift ship IMO would be more apt to have lift/transport helicopters embarked. Not naval helicopters with an ASW/ASuW role. Those would be more likely to be embarked aboard escorting RNZN warships which would be screening the sealift vessel.

All that makes perfect sense from a budgetary view point over a number of years but doesn't makes sense with airframe numbers with future ships, the RAN has 24 R's for a future ship role strength of12 ships will to perform the ASW role that's two aircraft per ship. NZ will have a grand total of two ships fit for role. whilst the Romeo can dual role in utility its bloody expensive for as a knockabout workhorse

 

[t68]

The Canterbury has hangarage for 4 medium helos with spots on the flight deck. I never mentioned anything about acquiring Romeos with the ADF, so actually read what I wrote before bursting into print. I said that if the RAN acquired the SIERRA then we should consider a combined acquisition with them.

The other point is that the Enhanced Sealift Vessels will not have the limitations of Canterbury, so we can presume that they will have at least the capability of a minimum of 4 medium helo spaces in the hangar.

But the current fleet dual hats in the ASW/utility role, that's being rather naïve if you think NZGov will spring for marinized helicopters just in the utility role to operate of perhaps 4 ships at the most and cannot function in the same role as the current sprites, unless the future sealift ship is guaranteed to be more compatible with the future JATF 35. I could understand it if the future JATF ships( Endurance 170 LHD?) will be with spots for up to 5 aircraft for concurrent land and sea operations and hanger at least 10 aircraft

As for CY its my understanding that the size of the hanger is capable for 4 medium size helicopters for ferry operations only but fit for purpose of 2 aircraft for flight operations off CY

 

[Todjaeger]

All that makes perfect sense from a budgetary view point over a number of years but doesn't makes sense with airframe numbers with future ships, the RAN has 24 R's for a future ship role strength of12 ships will to perform the ASW role that's two aircraft per ship. NZ will have a grand total of two ships fit for role. whilst the Romeo can dual role in utility its bloody expensive for as a knockabout workhorse

Again, no. The RAN had a requirement for 8 naval helicopters available for deployment, which is why 24 were purchased to ensure that maintenance and training cycles as well as pre- and post-deployment workups could be accommodated. These 8 naval helicopters were the anticipated needs from across the RAN fleet of escorts which at the time was projected to be a dozen. Again, following the rule of thirds, there was the potential that ~four vessels would be unavailable for deployment if/when needed, leaving 8 ships which could benefit from an embarked naval helicopter at any one time.

As for the future RNZN naval helicopter need, that is something which the NZDF would need to work out though I would suggest that at a minimum a one for one replacement of the current SH-2G(I) Seasprite would be in order. More might be called for if new/upcoming RNZN vessels end up wanting/needing an embarked naval helicopter. One thing which is being overlooked is the potential value in expanding the sensor footprint and situational awareness for a naval helicopter or TF, this includes more than just ASW ops.

Another thing which seems to have been overlooked or misunderstood is that relative cost of having an embarked NFH90 compared with an MH-60R, at least in terms of operations. Based off the costs for the NH90, it costs ~4x as much to use the NH90 compared with an MH-60, and I would assume that ratio would be fairly similar with an NFH90. Which means that as expensive as it might be to have a RNZN vessel embark an MH-60 for operations, it would still be significantly less than doing so using an NFH90.

Now if one is talking about a utility helicopter for personnel/cargo movement and/or a ship-to-shore connector, then one would not be talking about using a naval helicopter like an MH-60R or NFH90, so suggesting the NFH90 as a solution would be moot. Further, there would remain the issue of which RNZN vessels could actually embark the NFH90, if for some reason they were selected. As it currently stands, both the frigates and OPV's in RNZN service have hangars which are too small to fit and support the NH90. Canterbury has a hangar which can fit four helicopters, and two landing spots which should mean that a pair of helicopters could be landing or taking off at a time, with the remaining two helicopters either still in the hangar, or already deployed away from the ship.

 

[ngatimozart]

But the current fleet dual hats in the ASW/utility role, that's being rather naïve if you think NZGov will spring for marinized helicopters just in the utility role to operate of perhaps 4 ships at the most and cannot function in the same role as the current sprites, unless the future sealift ship is guaranteed to be more compatible with the future JATF 35. I could understand it if the future JATF ships( Endurance 170 LHD?) will be with spots for up to 5 aircraft for concurrent land and sea operations and hanger at least 10 aircraft

As for CY its my understanding that the size of the hanger is capable for 4 medium size helicopters for ferry operations only but fit for purpose of 2 aircraft for flight operations off CY

I am not being naive at all. We know that the DCP states that 9 aircraft will be acquired to replace the Seasprites. However it does not state that they will all be ASW & ASuW capable.

Also a DWP is due next year and there will be a subsequent DCP in 2023. The international situation has dramatically changed since the last DWP, Defence Policy Statement, and DCP. This means that there will be changes to the current defence policy and DCP. What those changes will be we do not know, but the type of changes will depend upon the results of the 19/9/2020 General Election. The Seasprite replacement has been slated for 2026, bought forward from 2028. The next DWP and DCP will inform that replacement project.

 

[RegR]

But the current fleet dual hats in the ASW/utility role, that's being rather naïve if you think NZGov will spring for marinized helicopters just in the utility role to operate of perhaps 4 ships at the most and cannot function in the same role as the current sprites, unless the future sealift ship is guaranteed to be more compatible with the future JATF 35. I could understand it if the future JATF ships( Endurance 170 LHD?) will be with spots for up to 5 aircraft for concurrent land and sea operations and hanger at least 10 aircraft

As for CY its my understanding that the size of the hanger is capable for 4 medium size helicopters for ferry operations only but fit for purpose of 2 aircraft for flight operations off CY

You just have to look at what our current sprites do routinely to gain an understanding of what they do regularly (if they even deploy on a ship to begin with that is). The ships that mostly embark sprites are the 2 frigates and there is no real requirement for ASW/ASuW for re-supplying a DOC island or HADR from OPV or MRV as recent concurrent deployments of NH90 has shown, the lift and internal space is literally more beneficial in these instances than a $million sensor package. A marinised version of either (sierra or 90) is surely an easier supplement for use off a ship than an air force 90 and alot cheaper than a dedicated romeo or NFH.

I just do not think we need 9 fully capable maritime helos such as romeos or NFHs for essentially 2 frigates, possibly 2 OPVs and potentially 2 support ships considering the costs involved especially when, wrt the support ships, a sierra or even marinised NH90 would in fact serve them better, cost less and provide a cheaper training lead in to the primary romeo/NFH as well.

All this would change and numbers would adjust if we say aqquired a 3rd frigate or more capable OPVs but then I would hope we would adjust total numbers to suit rather than any type split.

Any support ship would deploy with an escort if required and this would embark the ASW/ASuW helo leaving the support ship(s) to embark either stowed air force helos or working naval helos for any deployment.

 

[KiwiRob]

Well there is a vacant hanger at OH in the old 3 sqn hanger which is essentially a clone of the current 40 sqn hanger in WH and with 5 sqn buiding a purpose built facility means it is still up for grabs. There was talk years ago of moving just the boeings down to make use of the hanger and be nearer their primary customer but I guess the idea of splitting the squadron out weighed that logic but I think once 5 sqn does begin the transition (if not earlier) then the prospect of closing WH will again become a serious debate.

WH should be closed, in a perfect world the Govt would stump up for the second runway at AKL and build a military annex as part of the deal to build the runway. Selling off WH to developers would cover a significant part of the development cost.

 

[RegR]

WH should be closed, in a perfect world the Govt would stump up for the second runway at AKL and build a military annex as part of the deal to build the runway. Selling off WH to developers would cover a significant part of the development cost.

Agreed, with WH losing 5 sqn and the corresponding support trades the argument to keep the base will no doubt come back into the spotlight again, or limelight depending who's looking, operational for defence and financial for govt.

 

[Rob c]

WH should be closed, in a perfect world the Govt would stump up for the second runway at AKL and build a military annex as part of the deal to build the runway. Selling off WH to developers would cover a significant part of the development cost.

I did read a proposal some years ago when Labour were going to move the Air force out of WH, that they were considering turning WH into a domestic airfield to take the load off AI and as the runways and taxiways have been upgraded this would make sense and is what happens in large cities else were in the world, that have more than one airport.

 

[MrConservative]

I did read a proposal some years ago when Labour were going to move the Air force out of WH, that they were considering turning WH into a domestic airfield to take the load off AI and as the runways and taxiways have been upgraded this would make sense and is what happens in large cities else were in the world, that have more than one airport.

Yes Bob Harvey was driving that when he was the Mayor out West Auckland way.

One or two people have suggested moving 6 Sqd to a defence heliport out on the Whangaporoa Peninsula at Army Bay. Defence land, plenty of room - no close neighbours, right on the Hauraki Gulf, still close to Auckland.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Give urban sprawl time... give it time ... it will be there in a few years after any move...

 

[40 deg south]

German Air Force to convert two Airbus A321neoLR for troop transport

Delivery to the Luftwaffe is scheduled for 2022.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

In terms of performance (i.e. passengers/range), I understand the A321 is a fairly close equivalent to the B757, to the extent that Airbus has made sales to replace retiring 757s. This is the first time I have seen reference to a troop/medivac conversion, but it isn't an area I follow closely.

Something along these lines would probably be an adequate substitute for the 757 in the VIP, passenger and medivac roles, but I very much doubt anyone has (or will) certify a 'combi' version that lets you switch between passenger and cargo loads. That would leave a significant capability gap for NZDF, unless they think the new C-130 fleet will be enough to cover all freight-hauling tasks.

In any case, all the signals are that the 757s will soldier on for at least another five years, so the dreams of snapping up a post-COVID bargain in the form of a new/lightly-used civilian transport are probably no more than fodder for an entertaining but pointless argument.