Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Redlands18]

Others have answered but Harvest Hawk hose and drogue AAR isn't compatible with the flying boom AAR receptacles that our C130J-30s are being fitted with.

One will be there because the USAF C-130Js have it fitted and our ones are the same standard variants in all aspects. Same with the P-8As which are the same standard variants as USN and RAAF P-8As.
WRT the B752 replacement, my vote has always been the A300MRTT AND the KHI C2 or the Airbus A400M.

I take it you meant the A330 not the A300. If the RNZAF is going for an airliner replacement for the 757, then the A330 would be a very strong contender anyway, with 1600 and still counting built, you would pick up a couple with low cycles on them fairly easily. Whether the NZG would be prepared to convert them to MRTT is another question.

 

[ngatimozart]

I take it you meant the A330 not the A300. If the RNZAF is going for an airliner replacement for the 757, then the A330 would be a very strong contender anyway, with 1600 and still counting built, you would pick up a couple with low cycles on them fairly easily. Whether the NZG would be prepared to convert them to MRTT is another question.

Yes I meant the A330MRTT. My apologies and I have corrected it.

 

[RegR]

Have really been enjoying reading everyone get their panties twisted over the whole NH90 drama, well to be more specific Australias drama. yes 4 countries are moving on from the 90 early, but then in the same vein we seem to forget 10 are not, and in fact Germany decided to buy another 31 in a new configuration, not really something you would do if you are THAT dis-satisfied with them I would have thought? and of those 4 countries Belgium is actually keeping half the fleet anyway (so half a faulty fleet?), Sweden already operates a large fleet of new build blackhawks due to delivery delays (so actually makes sense to just get more anyway) and alot of Australias issues were literally by their own making in the form of their in-house parts accounting and inventory computer system which is by their own admission flawed, cumbersome and funnily enough, costly, so not exactly the types fault is it? Perhaps Aus should have taken NZs lead and turned at least a few into spares (apparently there were enough parked anyway) or at least the free one anyway??

The whole numbers thing is abit of a have as well as RNZAF operate their fleet from a single base in a single unit whereas Aus operates them across 5 bases via 5 units so in theory those 5 sites should each just operate like 3 Sqn (x 5), and their rates should of been similar right, but no 2 completely differing outcomes, but then again we already know its because both forces operate differently (I've worked with my Australian counterparts on numerous ops) regardless of how close we are and there in lies the then discrepencies, good and bad, but if anyone can afford to pay the difference (ie x5) then it is no doubt Australia and obviously 40+ examples are inevitably going to "cost" more to operate/maintain than 8, that's just basic math no matter which way you slice it. It's akin to acting shocked that a NH90 costs 2.5 times more to operate than a huey! I mean seriously?? a twin engine modern medium with power to burn vs a single engine 1960s era underpowered type that is literally half the size!! I mean I cant even tell if that is a serious unknown consideration in the first place as I assumed people just understood the basic concept of 2 engines costing twice as much as a single engined equivalent (in this case lesser)? Its like comparing a mack truck to a toyota corolla and wondering which is going to cost more, in all metrics! According to some logic it would then be "easier, more cost effective and less problematic" for NZ to run a small fleet of 8 F-35 if RNZAF were inclined to get back into the fast jet game? I would say it actually would'nt in all honesty but thats just my opinion.

If NZ 90s are reaching hours quicker than any other NH90 then they should theoretically be coming up against problems quicker as well through increased wear and tear so guess it all comes down to how they are handled, solved and mitigated as to any downtime, limitations and costs to then rectify but then as has been stated our NH90s are part of a wider international fleet and any problem/issue/grounding typically affects users on a worldwide scale and not just any particular nation individually, that's aviation in general.

I just wonder when certain nations are going to take ownership of some, admittedly not all, but most certainly a good proportion of the supposed problems with the NH90 platform when as has been stated a few countries seem to be having them, but then alot more don't? (well at least not to the point of total abandonment anyway). If the ongoing "problems" were the same, or at least similar in terms of availability rates, costs pfh, accidents/incidents etc then that would at least point towards a trend but the end results are so wide and varied to the point we cant even make valid comparisons so there is no baseline? and "problems" like supposed weak floors are nothing new and actual easy fixes, even our tough as nuts hueys had spreader boards in them for as long as I can remember, seats can be strenghthened, blackhawks are not any roomier inside, ramps used etc etc ie alot of mole hills.... and if we are being completely honest, this is not the first helo type to have caused Australia to walk away right? Coincidence??

 

[Todjaeger]

I just wonder when certain nations are going to take ownership of some, admittedly not all, but most certainly a good proportion of the supposed problems with the NH90 platform when as has been stated a few countries seem to be having them, but then alot more don't? (well at least not to the point of total abandonment anyway). If the ongoing "problems" were the same, or at least similar in terms of availability rates, costs pfh, accidents/incidents etc then that would at least point towards a trend but the end results are so wide and varied to the point we cant even make valid comparisons so there is no baseline? and "problems" like supposed weak floors are nothing new and actual easy fixes, even our tough as nuts hueys had spreader boards in them for as long as I can remember, seats can be strenghthened, blackhawks are not any roomier inside, ramps used etc etc ie alot of mole hills.... and if we are being completely honest, this is not the first helo type to have caused Australia to walk away right? Coincidence??

TBH until more is known about what the specific problems certain current/former NH90 operators experienced, then it becomes essentially impossible to determine either the source(s) of the problem(s), what/how said problem(s) could/should be mitigated, or even determine 'ownership' of the problem.

In a similar fashion, we do not know if the different nations have observed similar cpfh's which I do know was reported as an issue by the ANAO in a report back in 2014. TBH the cost differential from that report alone IMO would have justified Australia retiring/selling the NH90 fleet. Having a helicopter fleet which notionally has twice the per helicopter lift capacity, but as a practical matter can only lift/land the same number of battle-laden troops as what it was to replace, but at 5x the cpfh, it not a winning proposition from my POV. Particularly since it was noted in that ANAO report that the cost of 5x was after some significant cost reduction efforts which also shrunk the man-hours of maintenance per flight hour from 97 to 27.

One thing which would also be interesting to note is how some of the different operators actually utilize their NH90's in a TTH configuration. I rather doubt that NZ for instance conducts NH90 air assaults, simply because NZ has so few helicopters which would make it quite difficult to achieve the degree of mass in order to be effective. If this is accurate, then the per helicopter flight profile could be quite different from those which had been serving in the Australian Army.

 

[Maranoa]

NHIndustries has formally admitted fault and promised to do better with the NH90, rectify the known faults and vastly improve their sustainment support. But Australia had had a gutful by then and wanted out of Euro helos/engines/gearboxes. Maybe the RNZAF could benefit from this, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[RegR]

TBH until more is known about what the specific problems certain current/former NH90 operators experienced, then it becomes essentially impossible to determine either the source(s) of the problem(s), what/how said problem(s) could/should be mitigated, or even determine 'ownership' of the problem.

In a similar fashion, we do not know if the different nations have observed similar cpfh's which I do know was reported as an issue by the ANAO in a report back in 2014. TBH the cost differential from that report alone IMO would have justified Australia retiring/selling the NH90 fleet. Having a helicopter fleet which notionally has twice the per helicopter lift capacity, but as a practical matter can only lift/land the same number of battle-laden troops as what it was to replace, but at 5x the cpfh, it not a winning proposition from my POV. Particularly since it was noted in that ANAO report that the cost of 5x was after some significant cost reduction efforts which also shrunk the man-hours of maintenance per flight hour from 97 to 27.

One thing which would also be interesting to note is how some of the different operators actually utilize their NH90's in a TTH configuration. I rather doubt that NZ for instance conducts NH90 air assaults, simply because NZ has so few helicopters which would make it quite difficult to achieve the degree of mass in order to be effective. If this is accurate, then the per helicopter flight profile could be quite different from those which had been serving in the Australian Army.

Yes I'm not exactly sure why the ADF is not putting the infometrics out for, literally, the world to see? Considering they are definately getting rid of them and their replacements already on the way then in all honesty I don't see the need to withhold any/all details anymore as they do not owe NHI anything and would not be losing anything by divesting the pertinent info. TBH they have been bagging the type so much for so long I actually think it would be the least they can do especially WRT the accidents if only for every ither users peace of mind rather than their own. I'm sure the international users do collaborate, compare and share info amongst each other that they would not nesscessarily then make public but then there are still the extreme differences and I doubt the models are THAT different from each other in at least basic day to day operations in fact if anything I thought the Aus and NZ models were one of the closest to each other for obvious reasons, main reason, commonality, otherwise we may well have just went blackhawks ourselves. A lot of guys feel we don't have enough as the optimal pathway was for 10 frames so I believe we would of at least got that in UH-60, but then IMO that would have only been because that types optimal pathway would probably have been for 12 all things being relative.

I'm not sure what the amount of air assaults has to do with costs pfh? Do they cost more to conduct than say rappelling, moving stores or lifting guns? Per flight hour is based on hours flown per frame isn't it not tasks completed per fleet??

Any links to that ANAO? I for one would be interested to read thanks, it's literally like pulling hens teeth to get any direct info other than the generic, high cost, low availability, doesn't work rhetoric which I would understand if I didn't already know the RNZAF isn't flush with funding, numbers or support yet somehow manages to still get it done? On cost I actually already assumed they would cost more to operate, even more than the blackhawk and most definately more than the Iroqois (I still chuckle at how that is/was even a"finding") and assumed it was a no brainer just based on on paper capability, technology and power alone, obviously not to the degree it originally came out at (especially the Aus army figures!) but still, more, which is why I'm alittle miffed by the apparent shock.

 

[RegR]

NHIndustries has formally admitted fault and promised to do better with the NH90, rectify the known faults and vastly improve their sustainment support. But Australia had had a gutful by then and wanted out of Euro helos/engines/gearboxes. Maybe the RNZAF could benefit from this, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

They are working to bring down the operating and sustainment costs for the type via updates, procedures and workings but then isnt that like any new toy on the block? The F-35 is another example of these (higher than expected) operating costs and is incrementally being brought down in the same fashion. New tech costs an arm and a leg these days it would seem.

Funnily enough Australia retiring its fleet early would help the remaining fleets (RNZAF included) as now there will be 46 full sets of spares available to utilise considering one of the big problems affecting availability and flying hours was/is indeed parts availability and timely access to said parts. This should give NHI a buffer in the stores arena at least. Who knows NZ may even take up the oppourtunity to aqquire a couple of extra frames on the cheap, to use either operationally or as attrition, as apparently these particular ones dont work as well so ADF cant expect to get top $ after all the bad press

 

[Todjaeger]

Yes I'm not exactly sure why the ADF is not putting the infometrics out for, literally, the world to see? Considering they are definately getting rid of them and their replacements already on the way then in all honesty I don't see the need to withhold any/all details anymore as they do not owe NHI anything and would not be losing anything by divesting the pertinent info. TBH they have been bagging the type so much for so long I actually think it would be the least they can do especially WRT the accidents if only for every ither users peace of mind rather than their own. I'm sure the international users do collaborate, compare and share info amongst each other that they would not nesscessarily then make public but then there are still the extreme differences and I doubt the models are THAT different from each other in at least basic day to day operations in fact if anything I thought the Aus and NZ models were one of the closest to each other for obvious reasons, main reason, commonality, otherwise we may well have just went blackhawks ourselves. A lot of guys feel we don't have enough as the optimal pathway was for 10 frames so I believe we would of at least got that in UH-60, but then IMO that would have only been because that types optimal pathway would probably have been for 12 all things being relative.

I'm not sure what the amount of air assaults has to do with costs pfh? Do they cost more to conduct than say rappelling, moving stores or lifting guns? Per flight hour is based on hours flown per frame isn't it not tasks completed per fleet??

Any links to that ANAO? I for one would be interested to read thanks, it's literally like pulling hens teeth to get any direct info other than the generic, high cost, low availability, doesn't work rhetoric which I would understand if I didn't already know the RNZAF isn't flush with funding, numbers or support yet somehow manages to still get it done? On cost I actually already assumed they would cost more to operate, even more than the blackhawk and most definately more than the Iroqois (I still chuckle at how that is/was even a"finding") and assumed it was a no brainer just based on on paper capability, technology and power alone, obviously not to the degree it originally came out at (especially the Aus army figures!) but still, more, which is why I'm alittle miffed by the apparent shock.

The ANAO report had been linked to previously, I believe in this thread and perhaps in the Australian Army thread, but here is a link to it as well.

Reading back through the report, it appears that when a number of the selection decisions were made leading to the entry into service of the MRH90 Taipan, it appears that a number of the systems which Australia felt were needed in a tactical lift helicopter, were not finished and out of development, which in part led to cost increases later on.

As a side note, whilst I did mention that heli-lift to conduct air assaults might be an issue, that was referring to the potential additional stresses the flight maneuvers associated with a rapid descent and hover, then rapid lift, might be inflicted upon an individual airframe over and above what 'normal' flight ops might inflict. This might or might not be an issue, but given some of the other design and production issues which have proven either problematic or indicative of what I would refer to as poor thought processes, I do not dismiss the potential for the designer to have made certain assumptions about how the helicopter would be operated, which might not be accurate. One of the design issues I am referring to is the fact that the position of the door gunners hampers ingress/egress from the helicopter's side doors. This suggests to me some rather poorly considered assumptions, given that door gunners have operated aboard battlefield helicopters since at least the Vietnam War.

 

[RegR]

The ANAO report had been linked to previously, I believe in this thread and perhaps in the Australian Army thread, but here is a link to it as well.

Reading back through the report, it appears that when a number of the selection decisions were made leading to the entry into service of the MRH90 Taipan, it appears that a number of the systems which Australia felt were needed in a tactical lift helicopter, were not finished and out of development, which in part led to cost increases later on.

As a side note, whilst I did mention that heli-lift to conduct air assaults might be an issue, that was referring to the potential additional stresses the flight maneuvers associated with a rapid descent and hover, then rapid lift, might be inflicted upon an individual airframe over and above what 'normal' flight ops might inflict. This might or might not be an issue, but given some of the other design and production issues which have proven either problematic or indicative of what I would refer to as poor thought processes, I do not dismiss the potential for the designer to have made certain assumptions about how the helicopter would be operated, which might not be accurate. One of the design issues I am referring to is the fact that the position of the door gunners hampers ingress/egress from the helicopter's side doors. This suggests to me some rather poorly considered assumptions, given that door gunners have operated aboard battlefield helicopters since at least the Vietnam War.

Thanks for that. Im sure our infantry would still do it albeit on a smaller and more relative scale, especially the Enhanced Infantry Company at the least. Our SAS also routinely use the 90s to support their lifestyle as do STG as well as things like the annual mountain flying quals and with it being such a small fleet they do then get used. Will be interesting to see the effects on the airframes over use and time.

Yes agreed the door gunner siting is an obvious issue but I'm sure countries are at least addressing it for the wider collective, France and their proposed SF version for example, and hopefully they get it squared away and we can leverage the outcome.

 

[Milo]

Others have answered but Harvest Hawk hose and drogue AAR isn't compatible with the flying boom AAR receptacles that our C130J-30s are being fitted with.

One will be there because the USAF C-130Js have it fitted and our ones are the same standard variants in all aspects.

While some USAF C-130J variants like the AC-130J and MC-130J have the AAR receptacle fitted, to the best of my knowledge, it is not standard fitment for USAF C-130J. There was also no mention of it in the DSCA notification-

New Zealand – C-130J Aircraft | Defense Security Cooperation Agency (dsca.mil)

 

[Volkodav]

I fingered the wrong link and went back to the first page of this topic, 2006 and it was about cost over runs of the NZ NH90 procurement and whether another type would have been better value for money.

There have been issues with the type since well before deliveries anywhere, lots of wishful things and good intentions but considering how other capabilities have been criticised or savaged, I don't get why there is so much good will to the NH90.

 

[John Fedup]

They are working to bring down the operating and sustainment costs for the type via updates, procedures and workings but then isnt that like any new toy on the block? The F-35 is another example of these (higher than expected) operating costs and is incrementally being brought down in the same fashion. New tech costs an arm and a leg these days it would seem.

Funnily enough Australia retiring its fleet early would help the remaining fleets (RNZAF included) as now there will be 46 full sets of spares available to utilise considering one of the big problems affecting availability and flying hours was/is indeed parts availability and timely access to said parts. This should give NHI a buffer in the stores arena at least. Who knows NZ may even take up the oppourtunity to aqquire a couple of extra frames on the cheap, to use either operationally or as attrition, as apparently these particular ones dont work as well so ADF cant expect to get top $ after all the bad press

Buying ADF NH90s for spares is probably a good idea if the price is right. Canada payed $164 million for 7 VH71 (presidential helicopter based on EH101), a program that got cancelled. This helped support our CH-149 fleet.

 

[Milo]

Any links to that ANAO? I for one would be interested to read thanks, it's literally like pulling hens teeth to get any direct info other than the generic, high cost, low availability, doesn't work rhetoric...

I believe this is the first ANAO report from 2014-

Multi-Role Helicopter Program | Australian National Audit Office (ANAO)

This is a summary of the project from 2021 which shows progress against the remaining issues-

2019-20 Major Projects Report | Multi-Role Helicopter (anao.gov.au)

 

[Rob c]

It looks like the P8's may be moving into their new hangars now as I have seen 2 parked outside of the new facilities today when passing Ohakea. There does still appear to be work still going on in the area.

 

[Aerojoe]

‘Embarrassing’ broken Air Force plane troubles PM's trans-Tasman trip | The Post

Any likelihood that this will prompt a decision sooner rather than later on the replacement. I'm guessing MRTT out of question if he is talking about leasing. Interesting that before the election the ex-CEO of AirNZ saw no need for the 757 fleet.

 

[ADMk2]

Have really been enjoying reading everyone get their panties twisted over the whole NH90 drama, well to be more specific Australias drama. yes 4 countries are moving on from the 90 early, but then in the same vein we seem to forget 10 are not, and in fact Germany decided to buy another 31 in a new configuration, not really something you would do if you are THAT dis-satisfied with them I would have thought? and of those 4 countries Belgium is actually keeping half the fleet anyway (so half a faulty fleet?), Sweden already operates a large fleet of new build blackhawks due to delivery delays (so actually makes sense to just get more anyway) and alot of Australias issues were literally by their own making in the form of their in-house parts accounting and inventory computer system which is by their own admission flawed, cumbersome and funnily enough, costly, so not exactly the types fault is it? Perhaps Aus should have taken NZs lead and turned at least a few into spares (apparently there were enough parked anyway) or at least the free one anyway??

The whole numbers thing is abit of a have as well as RNZAF operate their fleet from a single base in a single unit whereas Aus operates them across 5 bases via 5 units so in theory those 5 sites should each just operate like 3 Sqn (x 5), and their rates should of been similar right, but no 2 completely differing outcomes, but then again we already know its because both forces operate differently (I've worked with my Australian counterparts on numerous ops) regardless of how close we are and there in lies the then discrepencies, good and bad, but if anyone can afford to pay the difference (ie x5) then it is no doubt Australia and obviously 40+ examples are inevitably going to "cost" more to operate/maintain than 8, that's just basic math no matter which way you slice it. It's akin to acting shocked that a NH90 costs 2.5 times more to operate than a huey! I mean seriously?? a twin engine modern medium with power to burn vs a single engine 1960s era underpowered type that is literally half the size!! I mean I cant even tell if that is a serious unknown consideration in the first place as I assumed people just understood the basic concept of 2 engines costing twice as much as a single engined equivalent (in this case lesser)? Its like comparing a mack truck to a toyota corolla and wondering which is going to cost more, in all metrics! According to some logic it would then be "easier, more cost effective and less problematic" for NZ to run a small fleet of 8 F-35 if RNZAF were inclined to get back into the fast jet game? I would say it actually would'nt in all honesty but thats just my opinion.

If NZ 90s are reaching hours quicker than any other NH90 then they should theoretically be coming up against problems quicker as well through increased wear and tear so guess it all comes down to how they are handled, solved and mitigated as to any downtime, limitations and costs to then rectify but then as has been stated our NH90s are part of a wider international fleet and any problem/issue/grounding typically affects users on a worldwide scale and not just any particular nation individually, that's aviation in general.

I just wonder when certain nations are going to take ownership of some, admittedly not all, but most certainly a good proportion of the supposed problems with the NH90 platform when as has been stated a few countries seem to be having them, but then alot more don't? (well at least not to the point of total abandonment anyway). If the ongoing "problems" were the same, or at least similar in terms of availability rates, costs pfh, accidents/incidents etc then that would at least point towards a trend but the end results are so wide and varied to the point we cant even make valid comparisons so there is no baseline? and "problems" like supposed weak floors are nothing new and actual easy fixes, even our tough as nuts hueys had spreader boards in them for as long as I can remember, seats can be strenghthened, blackhawks are not any roomier inside, ramps used etc etc ie alot of mole hills.... and if we are being completely honest, this is not the first helo type to have caused Australia to walk away right? Coincidence??

Which would all be fair, if we suffered similar problems with -D and -F model Chinooks, S-70A and S-70B2 Blackhawks and Sea Hawks, MH-60R, Eurocopter Tiger or our Eurocopter EC-135 fleet…

Except of course we don‘t and haven’t.

The other helicopter you allude to I presume is the Kaman SeaSprite which didn’t even reach RAN service. Are you seriously going to suggest that an in-service fleet suffering a variety of maintenance, capability and development issues is in anyway akin to the developmental problems that hindered a completely different helicopter type from even entering service?

On top of which, at least according to the Australian Army, we have flown MRH-90 more than any other user and that includes Germany and France and certainly more than the RNZAF. Our aircraft have more hours on them than any other fleet of NH-90 based aircraft in existence…

A couple of points routinely overlooked I notice, when someone wishes to blame poor management on the user…

 

[RegR]

Which would all be fair, if we suffered similar problems with -D and -F model Chinooks, S-70A and S-70B2 Blackhawks and Sea Hawks, MH-60R, Eurocopter Tiger or our Eurocopter EC-135 fleet…

Except of course we don‘t and haven’t.

The other helicopter you allude to I presume is the Kaman SeaSprite which didn’t even reach RAN service. Are you seriously going to suggest that an in-service fleet suffering a variety of maintenance, capability and development issues is in anyway akin to the developmental problems that hindered a completely different helicopter type from even entering service?

On top of which, at least according to the Australian Army, we have flown MRH-90 more than any other user and that includes Germany and France and certainly more than the RNZAF. Our aircraft have more hours on them than any other fleet of NH-90 based aircraft in existence…

A couple of points routinely overlooked I notice, when someone wishes to blame poor management on the user…

But, you do, and you are, kinda the whole point.

The seasprites didn't enter Australian service because Australia canned the project all together after years of trying and billions of dollars, again that was an Australian call not Kamans. The US had been using seasprites for decades and the RNZAF are using them now, funnily enough the exact same ones even, and you are still trying to say it's the type?? Seriously? Your claim would make some kind of sense if no one was using them before and the fact that someone is using them now is only further de-bunking your myth.

RNZAF was the first user in the world to reach 2000 hours on the NH90 and has one of the best availability rates bar none so not sure where you are getting your info from re Australia? A major excuse is your low availability rates for the type so how does that then equate to flying them "more" than anyone else, including RNZAF?? Are you comparing the flight hours to date combined of all 47 ADF 90s to the single NZ 90 with 2000 hours? Ironically if you had flown the type more then obviously your availability rates would be comensurate or are you suggesting users like RNZAF have hit the 2000 hour mark and then parked up their fleets?

You are replacing the tiger early as well due to "similar problems" so no, I wouldn't exactly consider that any kind of success story, at all. You would only like to hope 4 out of 7 types of helicopter fleets in service work otherwise it would really be a difficult to overlook and not entirely sure how you can't blame poor management on the user with those kinds of stats!

 

[Volkodav]

But, you do, and you are, kinda the whole point.

The seasprites didn't enter Australian service because Australia canned the project all together after years of trying and billions of dollars, again that was an Australian call not Kamans. The US had been using seasprites for decades and the RNZAF are using them now, funnily enough the exact same ones even, and you are still trying to say it's the type?? Seriously? Your claim would make some kind of sense if no one was using them before and the fact that someone is using them now is only further de-bunking your myth.

RNZAF was the first user in the world to reach 2000 hours on the NH90 and has one of the best availability rates bar none so not sure where you are getting your info from re Australia? A major excuse is your low availability rates for the type so how does that then equate to flying them "more" than anyone else, including RNZAF?? Are you comparing the flight hours to date combined of all 47 ADF 90s to the single NZ 90 with 2000 hours? Ironically if you had flown the type more then obviously your availability rates would be comensurate or are you suggesting users like RNZAF have hit the 2000 hour mark and then parked up their fleets?

You are replacing the tiger early as well due to "similar problems" so no, I wouldn't exactly consider that any kind of success story, at all. You would only like to hope 4 out of 7 types of helicopter fleets in service work otherwise it would really be a difficult to overlook and not entirely sure how you can't blame poor management on the user with those kinds of stats!

The Australian Super Seasprite was a very different beast, it had a new flight control system and avionics to allow it to operate with a two person, instead of three person crew. This never worked properly and once it was determined the type would never meet evolving requirements the project was cancelled and a project initiated to replace them and the SH-60B.

The airframes were returned to standard, i.e. three crew, for sale to NZ.

 

[RegR]

The Australian Super Seasprite was a very different beast, it had a new flight control system and avionics to allow it to operate with a two person, instead of three person crew. This never worked properly and once it was determined the type would never meet evolving requirements the project was cancelled and a project initiated to replace them and the SH-60B.

The airframes were returned to standard, i.e. three crew, for sale to NZ.

Exactly, and that was an Australian call correct? This is the point I am trying to make, the way Australia implements, adapts and uses these (or at least tries to anyway) directly affects the overall outcome. So then effectively that is then Australian caused "problems" and not nesscessarily type related as we would be led to believe.

Again, others have, are, and will continue to use these helicopters clocking up hours, availability rates and use so then the question needs to be asked what exactly are they doing differently to get such different results? If they were all the same/similar then yes fine, it's a helicopter issue, but they quite clearly are not so like I say when do we then take alittle responsibility as a user for any shortcomings/failings/limitations implied or actual?

 

[Volkodav]

Exactly, and that was an Australian call correct? This is the point I am trying to make, the way Australia implements, adapts and uses these (or at least tries to anyway) directly affects the overall outcome. So then effectively that is then Australian caused "problems" and not nesscessarily type related as we would be led to believe.

Again, others have, are, and will continue to use these helicopters clocking up hours, availability rates and use so then the question needs to be asked what exactly are they doing differently to get such different results? If they were all the same/similar then yes fine, it's a helicopter issue, but they quite clearly are not so like I say when do we then take alittle responsibility as a user for any shortcomings/failings/limitations implied or actual?

MRH was an NHI caused problem, massive efforts from the ADF and Airbus were unable to produce a viable capability. What is a viable capability? A viable capability is reliability and maintainability delivering the required availability, or more to the point, a minimum number of airframes are able to their job when needed.

What is their job and when is it needed?

Training evolutions, well Army needed to lease other types to cover some of this.

Exercises and deployments, problematic, but pretty mostly achieved with a massive effort from the parties concerned.

HADR? Nowhere near good enough with an MRH even starting a major bush fire. This us a big thing, Australia has regular major fires, cyclones and serious destructive storms including deviating floods are now pretty much an annual event. The ADF is a heavy lifter in HADR throughout the region and their gear needs to be up for it, most if it is, MRH wasn't.

The Army transitioned to MRH from Blackhawk so knew what good looked like. Chinook is an expensive complex platform, Seahawk (both types) is a very complex capability, Tiger is also very complex, as well as being a much smaller fleet, so logically harder to support. ADF did very well with all of these over decades.

So every other platform, each as complex or more complex than MRH is operated with great success by the ADF but the MRH is the ADFs fault?