Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Rob c]

The point I would make is that routine servicing is based on probability and how critical components are flight critical. the question of economics comes into non flight critical components, in that it is assessed if it cheaper to service regularly or simply replace on failure. Only rarely does the failure of a component lead to a fleet wide inspections and most of these are carried out during servicing inspections, it is even more rare for a grounding and total fleet inspection to be required.
The RNZAF has traditionally operated most of its aircraft over it's history at a higher availability and lower loss rate than other operators. The main reason being that when you lack resources, you have to make the best use of what limited resources you have. You will also see the same tradition in both the Army and the Navy.
I would add a caveat to that, as when the army got into aviation in the late 1960's, having 6 Bell 47's to start with, their pilots crashed the lot in short order and ended the Army's brief flirtation's with aviation

 

[Shanesworld]

The point I would make is that routine servicing is based on probability and how critical components are flight critical. the question of economics comes into non flight critical components, in that it is assessed if it cheaper to service regularly or simply replace on failure. Only rarely does the failure of a component lead to a fleet wide inspections and most of these are carried out during servicing inspections, it is even more rare for a grounding and total fleet inspection to be required.
The RNZAF has traditionally operated most of its aircraft over it's history at a higher availability and lower loss rate than other operators. The main reason being that when you lack resources, you have to make the best use of what limited resources you have. You will also see the same tradition in both the Army and the Navy.
I would add a caveat to that, as when the army got into aviation in the late 1960's, having 6 Bell 47's to start with, their pilots crashed the lot in short order and ended the Army's brief flirtation's with aviation

At least 1 of those crashes was worth it for the story alone.

 

[chis73]

To my mind, it's a pretty academic argument. Even if the CAF says they are 'reviewing' the NH90, - there is no money to replace them anyway. So we're stuck with them. The last government just recently invested in a flight simulator suite for them. The incoming government are looking to cut spending. The queue of overdue replacement equipment projects already stretches round the block, across the road and back down a side street for a couple of miles. Lets see: Currently they have deferred the Southern Ocean Patrol Vessel and scaled back the EMAC project (to a data fusion effort) - which probably means both were declined by Cabinet to make the budget numbers look better; we have market surveys (not even RFTs yet) out for new Maritime Helicopters, a near-complete replacement Naval Fleet, and Unimog truck replacements. There is no news of any progress on the 757 replacement, and the Frigate replacement (the costliest single project by far) is coming due (the lives of the current Frigates have been extended out into the never-never).

Seriously, the only way the RNZAF's NH90s are getting replaced in the short term is if there is a fatal accident - one that kills either a senior politician (of the ruling party), a member of the royal family, or a troop of girl guides on a picnic, and perhaps it would take all three to occur at once for anyone to take action.

I'd also be pretty sceptical of At Lakes suggestion the Koreans will be offering up AW159s. They currently have a fleet of over 20 Lynxes and 8 Wildcats. Several of their ships don't look large enough (e.g. the Incheon [FFG-1] class, 6 ships, first commissioned in 2013) to take a Seahawk or a Surion. The Daegu [FFG-2] class frigates (8 ships, first commissioned 2018), about the same size as an ANZAC, currently they have Lynx or Wildcat, and their oldest Destroyers [DDH-1 class] (3 ships, first commissioned 1998) take 2 Lynxes (maybe both of these classes could take a Seahawk or Surion with some jiggery-pokery). So if the ROKN were offering anything up I expect it would be Super Lynx rather than Wildcat.

Also, there isn't a working proper naval variant of the Surion as yet (although such a thing has been been offered to Malaysia). There is a Marine (maritime utility) variant though.

 

[south]

To put old faithful’s argument another way: assume an aircraft either performs with acceptable reliability with probability r or exhibits a serious fault (probability 1 - r). The probability that a fleet gets by without the fault ever being encountered (and all aircraft perform with acceptable reliability) = 1 - r ** n ( r raised to the power of n, the number of aircraft flown by the service).

if r is .98 and n is 8 then the probability of encountering the fault is .15
if r is .98 and n is 40 then the probability of encountering the fault is .55

if we use old faithful‘s implied reliability rate of r = .95 (2 of 40 soles falling off shoes) then the chance of encountering the fault is about .33 for 8 and .87 for 40 aircraft.

If the fault is one that grounds a fleet (noting Rob c’s reservation on that point that significant problems affect individual aircraft) then 40 aircraft becomes zero aircraft more often than 8 aircraft becomes zero (and availability rates decline in the larger fleet).

Using arbitrary statistics does not indicate or strengthen any indication on why the RNZAF have apparently (I’ll keep saying apparently, as it’s difficult to compare or establish what are the actual factors in play unless you really break it down) have had a higher level of serviceability/availability, because it demonstrates lack of awareness of what are the true factors in aircraft fleet groundings.

Truth is that fleet wide grounding are as often as not driven by a major issue where there is usually information sharing across sovereign fleets; for example an issue discovered on a European MRH/NH-90 could just as easily lead to grounding of RNZAF MRH-90 as it’s a common issue with critical widget X.

If it’s not a common issue causing a larger grounding it’s just either a unique component (rare) or more likely a maintenance issue; which could be driven by any number of things to include training, supervision, process, or documentation.

In truth the apparent success of the RNZAF wrt MRH-90, when compared to the ADF could be caused by any number of factors, environmental (heat/cold/humidity/salt water/dust/storage), operational employment, loading/tasking, maintenance (training/morale/facilities/planning/execution/resource), reporting (what constitutes mission capable?), regulatory framework, or sparing/logistics.

 

[Armchair]

Using arbitrary statistics does not indicate or strengthen any indication on why the RNZAF have apparently (I’ll keep saying apparently, as it’s difficult to compare or establish what are the actual factors in play unless you really break it down) have had a higher level of serviceability/availability, because it demonstrates lack of awareness of what are the true factors in aircraft fleet groundings.

I don’t have any statistics on this matter so I am not using any. I just put old faithful argument in probabilistic terms. Pretty happy with it but it is not a thread on probability so I won’t add further.

 

[ngatimozart]

At least 1 of those crashes was worth it for the story alone.

Was that the one where said army aviator tried to fly the Sioux into a hangar?

 

[Hone C]

Was that the one where said army aviator tried to fly the Sioux into a hangar?

Jameson's shed. Quite the story, suspect it's grown in the telling over the years but fun nonetheless.

 

[ngatimozart]

Jameson's shed. Quite the story, suspect it's grown in the telling over the years but fun nonetheless.

Be typical military story; much embellished over the years

 

[Shanesworld]

Be typical military story; much embellished over the years

The Mostly successful transit of shed by Army officer.

 

[recce.k1]

Looks like Leonardo will display a AW159 Wildcat helicopter at the Wings over Wairarapa airshow this weekend (although today's event has been cancelled due to the weather).

A foot in the door for the maritime helicopter replacement project, so presumably it will also "call in" to Wellington or the RNZAF bases for the top brass to take a closer look? Maybe something for DT's Auckland based forumites to look out for at Whenuapai if it heads that way?

Home

AviationSource News is one of the fastest growing Aviation outlets in the world serving over 3 Million readers each month on our site

aviationsourcenews.com

 

[chis73]

Looks like Leonardo will display a AW159 Wildcat helicopter at the Wings over Wairarapa airshow this weekend

No such joy recce.k1. According to the official Leonardo UK press release, it was a model (presumably of the plastic variety) of a AW159 Wildcat (link). There was a company educational team there that has been touring NZ schools promoting STEM subjects.

If, and I stress if, we went with the Wildcat, I hope we ask (and get) something better than the stock RN model. If I recall, it has/had some issues:
a) no Link 16 datalink (may have been remedied now (link), but wasn't fielded initially due to budget caps [see here]). The korean export variant does have Link 16.
b) not plumbed for external fuel tanks if I recall. Can't find the video now, but apparently the design work for 'wet wings' (ie external auxiliary fuel tanks) was done, but cut again by UK Gov as a cost-saving measure. I believe the Wildcat can carry an internal auxiliary tank in place of or underneath the rear cabin seats, as per the Lynx). The range of the Wildcat is less than the current Seasprite.
c) the Sea Venom missile still isn't in operational service. The smaller Martlet (LMM) seems to have fared better though, and South Korea has the Spike NLOS fitted and live-fire tested.
d) the production line was closed for several years (after GKN the airframe builder went out of business). However, it has apparently restarted with an order of 3 for an undisclosed north african operator (link). So if we are going to order, we had better get cracking.

As a sidenote, I'd love to see Leonardo fit a chin turret to the UK Army variant. Nothing too complicated or ostentatious, maybe just a 7.62mm minigun (using one of the old Huey Cobra mounts - Emerson TAT-102 single or the TAT-141 twin mount [aka the M28 Armament Subsystem]). Call it the Bobcat!

 

[ADMk2]

No such joy recce.k1. According to the official Leonardo UK press release, it was a model (presumably of the plastic variety) of a AW159 Wildcat (link). There was a company educational team there that has been touring NZ schools promoting STEM subjects.

If, and I stress if, we went with the Wildcat, I hope we ask (and get) something better than the stock RN model. If I recall, it has/had some issues:
a) no Link 16 datalink (may have been remedied now (link), but wasn't fielded initially due to budget caps [see here]). The korean export variant does have Link 16.
b) not plumbed for external fuel tanks if I recall. Can't find the video now, but apparently the design work for 'wet wings' (ie external auxiliary fuel tanks) was done, but cut again by UK Gov as a cost-saving measure. I believe the Wildcat can carry an internal auxiliary tank in place of or underneath the rear cabin seats, as per the Lynx). The range of the Wildcat is less than the current Seasprite.
c) the Sea Venom missile still isn't in operational service. The smaller Martlet (LMM) seems to have fared better though, and South Korea has the Spike NLOS fitted and live-fire tested.
d) the production line was closed for several years (after GKN the airframe builder went out of business). However, it has apparently restarted with an order of 3 for an undisclosed north african operator (link). So if we are going to order, we had better get cracking.

As a sidenote, I'd love to see Leonardo fit a chin turret to the UK Army variant. Nothing too complicated or ostentatious, maybe just a 7.62mm minigun (using one of the old Huey Cobra mounts - Emerson TAT-102 single or the TAT-141 twin mount [aka the M28 Armament Subsystem]). Call it the Bobcat!

The fitout of the helicopter is customer dependant. Link16 for the aircraft as well as video downlinks have been developed and integrated, as have active dipping sonar and auxiliary fuel systems. The UK going cheap is not a slight against the aircraft in my book, but it’s a strange choice nonetheless. They’d literally have to de-spec the datalink equipped radios it is fitted with as standard… Lol

https://helicopters.leonardo.com/documents/16114711/0/BROCHURE+AW159-Mk-0922.pdf?t=1689577922287

 

[ngatimozart]

No such joy recce.k1. According to the official Leonardo UK press release, it was a model (presumably of the plastic variety) of a AW159 Wildcat (link). There was a company educational team there that has been touring NZ schools promoting STEM subjects.

If, and I stress if, we went with the Wildcat, I hope we ask (and get) something better than the stock RN model. If I recall, it has/had some issues:
a) no Link 16 datalink (may have been remedied now (link), but wasn't fielded initially due to budget caps [see here]). The korean export variant does have Link 16.
b) not plumbed for external fuel tanks if I recall. Can't find the video now, but apparently the design work for 'wet wings' (ie external auxiliary fuel tanks) was done, but cut again by UK Gov as a cost-saving measure. I believe the Wildcat can carry an internal auxiliary tank in place of or underneath the rear cabin seats, as per the Lynx). The range of the Wildcat is less than the current Seasprite.
c) the Sea Venom missile still isn't in operational service. The smaller Martlet (LMM) seems to have fared better though, and South Korea has the Spike NLOS fitted and live-fire tested.
d) the production line was closed for several years (after GKN the airframe builder went out of business). However, it has apparently restarted with an order of 3 for an undisclosed north african operator (link). So if we are going to order, we had better get cracking.

As a sidenote, I'd love to see Leonardo fit a chin turret to the UK Army variant. Nothing too complicated or ostentatious, maybe just a 7.62mm minigun (using one of the old Huey Cobra mounts - Emerson TAT-102 single or the TAT-141 twin mount [aka the M28 Armament Subsystem]). Call it the Bobcat!

I think that regardless of the type to replace the Seasprite, it has to be US weapons and such as the Mk-54 LWT, depth charges and non US weapons Spike LR and NSM. The Spike LR & NSM would give compatibility with RAN weapons. We would have to pay for integration of course.

WRT a chin turret I would like a 30mm gun because that has far greater hitting power and range than the 7.62mm, 12.7mm, 20mm, and 25mm rounds. Evidence from Ukraine suggests that such range and bang are required.

 

[ADMk2]

I think that regardless of the type to replace the Seasprite, it has to be US weapons and such as the Mk-54 LWT, depth charges and non US weapons Spike LR and NSM. The Spike LR & NSM would give compatibility with RAN weapons. We would have to pay for integration of course.

WRT a chin turret I would like a 30mm gun because that has far greater hitting power and range than the 7.62mm, 12.7mm, 20mm, and 25mm rounds. Evidence from Ukraine suggests that such range and bang are required.

Any chin turret would have to be fitted to the AH-1 battlefield variant. The maritime variant has a stonking great AESA radar mounted under the chin…

Plus it comes standard with a decent gun already…

 

[ngatimozart]

Any chin turret would have to be fitted to the AH-1 battlefield variant. The maritime variant has a stonking great AESA radar mounted under the chin…

Plus it comes standard with a decent gun already…View attachment 50979

I love the 50 cal but as a main gun it doesn't have the range and kill bang required. It's great as a door gun but that's it. Yes any chin turret would have to go on the army version. I think that best option is fixed 30mm guns.

 

[Todjaeger]

I think that regardless of the type to replace the Seasprite, it has to be US weapons and such as the Mk-54 LWT, depth charges and non US weapons Spike LR and NSM. The Spike LR & NSM would give compatibility with RAN weapons. We would have to pay for integration of course.

WRT a chin turret I would like a 30mm gun because that has far greater hitting power and range than the 7.62mm, 12.7mm, 20mm, and 25mm rounds. Evidence from Ukraine suggests that such range and bang are required.

Or NZ could just purchase an in production naval helicopter that is already in service in the Pacific in numbers, with US weapons already integrated and with a nearby friendly (depending on how the last cricket and/or rugby match went...) nation already having a number of them in service.

BTW Australia is going to be getting the Spike LR2 ATGM but AFAIK that is only for use from the Boxer CRV which means it would not be in RAN service. Instead the RAN uses the AGM-114N Hellfire launched from MH-60R Seahawk 'Romeo' naval helicopters. NSM is being brought into Australian service, but the present plan has it replacing the ship-launched RGM-84 Harpoon AShM launchers fitted to ANZAC-class frigates and Hobart-class destroyers. AFAIK no heli-bourne version of the NSM has been developed.

I would certainly like to see NZ get a standoff missile into service, I just do not anticipate there being one which would be worthwhile fitting to helicopters.

 

[ADMk2]

I love the 50 cal but as a main gun it doesn't have the range and kill bang required. It's great as a door gun but that's it. Yes any chin turret would have to go on the army version. I think that best option is fixed 30mm guns.

At this stage there isn’t even a requirement for something like AH1 within RNZAF as far as I am aware? Though it’s an easy argument to make that if AW159 were chosen for the maritime helicopter role, then the AH1 would likely prove an excellent replacement for the A109 in order to consolidate types within the fleet.

 

[ngatimozart]

At this stage there isn’t even a requirement for something like AH1 within RNZAF as far as I am aware? Though it’s an easy argument to make that if AW159 were chosen for the maritime helicopter role, then the AH1 would likely prove an excellent replacement for the A109 in order to consolidate types within the fleet.

No there isn't and it is something that should be seriously considered in order to provide airborne battlefield fire support for the NZ Army.

 

[ADMk2]

Or NZ could just purchase an in production naval helicopter that is already in service in the Pacific in numbers, with US weapons already integrated and with a nearby friendly (depending on how the last cricket and/or rugby match went...) nation already having a number of them in service.

BTW Australia is going to be getting the Spike LR2 ATGM but AFAIK that is only for use from the Boxer CRV which means it would not be in RAN service. Instead the RAN uses the AGM-114N Hellfire launched from MH-60R Seahawk 'Romeo' naval helicopters. NSM is being brought into Australian service, but the present plan has it replacing the ship-launched RGM-84 Harpoon AShM launchers fitted to ANZAC-class frigates and Hobart-class destroyers. AFAIK no heli-bourne version of the NSM has been developed.

I would certainly like to see NZ get a standoff missile into service, I just do not anticipate there being one which would be worthwhile fitting to helicopters.

Around 4-5 years ago Kongsberg was activey pitching NSM-HL and there was some talk India wanted such for it’s MH-60R’s.

Since 2019 basically all talk on the matter has ceased completely and the proposal isn’t even being raised any longer at trade shows and the like. Much in the vein of submarine launched NSM which has also gone quiet…

Just seeing NZ getting an air-to surface missile firing helicopter replacement would be nice. I know SeaSprite technically has Penguin (if those weapons still have much shelf life) but a replacement helicopter won’t be cheap, even if they shop at the lower end rather than the higher end of the market.

Will be interesting to watch. I believed somewhere around December 2023 there was supposed to be some news on this?

 

[ADMk2]

No there isn't and it is something that should be seriously considered in order to provide airborne battlefield fire support for the NZ Army.

Agree completely… Something with inherent manned and unmanned team capability too, I should think…

Could offset a lot of ‘lack of strike’ issues that way…