Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Todjaeger]

Starting point is really what does the fleet look like.
Composition and numbers.
How many are aviation capable vessels ?

Going forward it’s basically a clean slate to build a fleet but for the refuelling ship Aotearoa.
So how many helicopters?


Answer. How many ships

There is a bit more to it though. The number of vessels, especially if the fleet size is increased over all like many of us believe is necessary, can have an impact, but it is not automatically so. If one looks at the current RNZN fleet composition there are six ocean-going vessels able to embark helicopters in commission, however only two of them would really be able to make full use of the capabilities a naval helicopter could provide. The CMS and comms fitout for four of the vessels are effectively not able to receive or display the sensor data a naval helicopter could collect. Making this even worse is that at least three of the vessels lack a hangar magazine, which in turn means that any embarked naval helicopter would be effectively unarmed as well. Not sure about whether Aotearoa was designed/built with a hangar magazine or not.

So then any questions considering the future size of the RNZN fleet also would need to consider what capabilities would be designed into future fleet vessels. For instance, if (big IF) a SOPV does get added back into the list of vessels for the RNZN of the future, how flexible and/or how capable will the design be? If the intention is to obtain a patrolling vessel suitable for the ice and sea conditions near Antarctica in the Southern Ocean, then a minimal armament and more importantly, less expensive and capable sensor, comms, and CMS fitout, one lacking the ability to make much use of datalinks, would be fitted. In a similar fashion, if new OPV's are purchased to replace the Project Protector OPV's and are of similar shipboard electronics capabilities then much of the potential benefit from an embarked helicopter would be lost.

To further complicate the question, there might also be some value in NZ having a few operational land-based naval helicopters that could provide an airborne surveillance and response capability close to NZ proper.

Hence my comment on the NZDF needing to determine how many helicopters would be needed operationally and then working from there to determine the order size.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

A little more clarity where that $2b is going and why it seemed a bit step to most. The $2b covers the first 4 years of running them, training maintenance and even fuel (apparently)

Also I picked up that while we didn't get the NH-90 from Australia before they buried them apparently we got a heap of spare parts...

 

[ngatimozart]

Judith was asked how many new helicopters would be procured and she answered five.

(at 10:50).

She justified this by saying that we currently have five operational seasprites. When the replacement helicopters are new this will be less of an issue as the new airframes will have high availability rates. However, over the medium to long term the new airframes will need more maintenance. This could result in fewer than five airframes being available. Furthermore, this doesn't give us much leeway if an airframe is lost.

I think this bodes poorly for the rest of the DCP. A smaller fleet of maritime helicopters is inconsistent with the desire for a larger navy or more frigates. Like with the p8s this is a government investing the minimum amount to match its rhetoric.

There is actually a lot that we don't know how this funding will be allocated. $2 billion plus for just five helos plus their maintenance, manuals, training, simulators, etc., doesn't sound right. I suspect that there are other capabilities, such as UAV involved that they haven't publicly mentioned yet. Maybe they are going to acquire marinsed AW109 to supplement whatever maritime combat they are going to acquire. We simply don't know.

 

[ngatimozart]

Hopefully the naval review will be available by the end of this year so that the full picture on its restructure can be seen. I concur with Todjaeger that the OPV's are not the ideal platform for a high end capability as he has stated above. I would like to see the OPV.s disposed of and funding put into a light frigate with further to follow over time as already proposed in the latest DCP. We need three frigates including our ANZAC.s - ASAP

I would like to see a third frigate acquired quickly but we can't do that until we know what we are going to replace the Anzacs with. From memory that project started about three years ago. It has been my contention that the OPV & IPV fleet of six should be replaced with corvettes that have modular capabilities. I also believe that our future frigates and corvettes should be ice capable to the same level as Aotearoa, and built for the Southern Ocean. Eventually we will have to project force to our south and we will be the only ones who have the experience or capability to do so. The RAN certainly doesn't operate below 48°S, and we won't be able to depend upon the USN.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Not the most informed discussion and MINDEF doesn't exactly cover herself in glory. Cannot recall the name of the 'naval blackhawks' "they expect me to be the expert" Yes. Yes we do. Thats $2billion of taxpayer money and future NZDF capability your playing with.

Plunket: "can the naval blackhawk one fit on the back of the frigate?'
Collins "don't ask me about those technical details"

 

[ngatimozart]

Not the most informed discussion and MINDEF doesn't exactly cover herself in glory. Cannot recall the name of the 'naval blackhawks' "they expect me to be the expert" Yes. Yes we do. Thats $2billion of taxpayer money and future NZDF capability your playing with.

Plunket: "can the naval blackhawk one fit on the back of the frigate?'
Collins "don't ask me about those technical details"

No we don't expect her to be an expert. She has senior military advisors for that. She's the Minister responsible for Defence and she has done really good extracting $12 billion over four years from the Minister of Finance, especially when that particular Minister of Finance doesn't like opening her purse.

 

[kiwi in exile]

No we don't expect her to be an expert. She has senior military advisors for that. She's the Minister responsible for Defence and she has done really good extracting $12 billion over four years from the Minister of Finance, especially when that particular Minister of Finance doesn't like opening her purse.

She (or cabinaet) has done well in terms of the $12 billion.
However the way she speaks does not exactly inspire confidence. Compare it to Ron Mark. Yes she has advisors, but you would expect her the have some understanding of relevant info from briefings from her advisors. I'd expect a portfolio Minister to be able to talk competently about their portfolios. Or at least try not to sound bumbling and disinterested

 

[recce.k1]

NH-90 availability at 87.5% today.


Actually were undertaking a formation flight ... but good to see air and ground crews are doing good work.

Nevermind the sight, the sound would have been interesting to hear!

Source: NZDF social media

 

[CJohn]

A new roll for RNZAF re-activated No. 62 squadron.

"The squadron’s initial focus will be on monitoring, analysing, and understanding space activity to safeguard national and international interests," Defence Minister Collins.

WWII squadron resurrected as NZ's first dedicated space unit

No. 62 Squadron — which supported allied efforts in the war through radar technology — has a new mission after more than 80 dormant years.

www.1news.co.nz

 

[RetirementIsGood]

Stuff: Ministers confirm replacements for aging Defence Force aircraft

The Government will buy two air force jets and five naval helicopters as part of a $2.7 billion deal.
...
The air force’s two 757 planes would be replaced with two new Airbus A321XLR jets, for $700 million.
...
For $2b, the Government planned to replace the navy’s eight Seasprite maritime helicopters with five new MH-60R Seahawks.

Stuff

Won't Romeos be too big for the landing deck and the hangar on the OPVs?

 

[Todjaeger]

Stuff: Ministers confirm replacements for aging Defence Force aircraft


Stuff

Won't Romeos be too big for the landing deck and the hangar on the OPVs?

Possibly, but perhaps not.

The width of the Protector-class OPV flight deck appears to be ~1 m shorter than the flight deck of an ANZAC-class frigate, measuring the beam of both decks. The fore to aft length of the OPV flight deck is where it does appear to be a bit shorter, coming in around ~17.5 m vs. ~24 m on the frigate. However, this might not be the issue it appears to be, since it appears that there on the OPV's, the flight deck does not go all the way aft to the stern like aboard the frigates. Instead it looks like there is another open area on a lower deck (with a crane) between the tail of the flight deck and the stern. This might enable a helicopter to land with the tailboom of the helicopter overhanging the end of the flight deck.

Not sure whether or not the hangar itself has the room to accommodate a MH-60R or not but TBH I do not really see that as being a major issue. I tend to doubt that, with NZ again only purchasing five naval helicopters (insane* decision IMO) and with the electronics fitout aboard the OPV's largely being incapable of receiving or making use of all the sensor data a Romeo could potentially collect, I just do not really see the RNZN deploying their precious few naval helicopters aboard OPV's. I suspect the most likely scenario where that might happen, is for the OPV to be used as a ferry vessel to get a Kiwi naval helicopter somewhere else to operate, possibly as a replacement for an out of service helicopter aboard a deployed RNZN frigate, or perhaps to operate as a land-based naval helicopter supporting S. Pacific island nations interests'.

*Insane: My use of this term is neither hyperbolic, or meant to be insulting. Rather, it reflects a working use of the terms insane and insanity among EMS personnel in some parts of the US. This working use term defined insanity or insane behavior as the repetition of the same set of actions or behaviors and expecting a different outcome.

 

[Rob c]

At a time when the world situation is getting worse as time goes on, why are we spending $700M on civilian airliner instead of items that can contribute to our defence. In the event of conflict they will contribute nothing to our defence that cannot be covered by civil airlines tken out of trade and simply hiring charter companies to do the peace time work would work. The $700M could be far better spent on something that would contribute to our actual defence.

 

[recce.k1]

Won't Romeos be too big for the landing deck and the hangar on the OPVs?

Tod's reasoning looks solid as to why it should be possible to land on the deck and it has been said previously by Govt that the OPV hangars were designed to be the same size as the ANZAC Frigate hangars. Wonder though whether RNZN adopts a different helicopter deck handling system now?

But let's not forget that the MH-60R's are being sought primarily as an enabler for the Frigates ... so any use of them on other vessels (OPV's, AOR, Sealift vessel) is a lesser consideration, so yes whilst they could be embarked on the auxs usually it is simply for utility lift eg resupplying offshore islands for All of Govt scientific or conservation support, or as overwatch for EEZ patrol duties (worse case only requiring crew-served MG's).

For better-or-worse five new MH-60's i.e. two for two FFH & one for one of the Auxiliaries should work for most concurrent deployment scenarios. Presumably additional helos could be acquired in the future if the Naval Fleet Renewal project recommends growing the fleet. (Personally I would be "doubling" NZDF's existing capabilities over time and where deemed practical but that's another discussion altogether).

The CDF said today (more-or-less) the reason for eight direct replacements not being sought today is because the extra funding (for hypothetical airframes 6-8) will be instead be directed to obtain MUM-T platforms to supplement the MH-60R's.

The CDF stated (see near end of the press conference): tranche 1 (this announcement) MH-60R's with weapons to go with them; tranche 2 (to be announced) infrastructure (presumably for Whenuapai airbase); tranche 3 (to be announced) uncrewed platforms eg rotary or winged. I guess Defence is looking to see what other nations are developing and trialing first but should a case be put forward to acquire some initial platforms ourselves to undertake our own assessments and develop our own knowledge?

 

[recce.k1]

At a time when the world situation is getting worse as time goes on, why are we spending $700M on civilian airliner instead of items that can contribute to our defence. In the event of conflict they will contribute nothing to our defence that cannot be covered by civil airlines tken out of trade and simply hiring charter companies to do the peace time work would work. The $700M could be far better spent on something that would contribute to our actual defence.

I agree ... and you should be our Defence Minister, that'll shake them wussies up!

But I see the logic in acquiring two civilian airliners now, we need something to move the troops in the current environment (nevermind the VIP role that the MSM seems fixated on) and the A321XLR gives us a very long range platform.

As was stated today, no mods for the A321XLR's ... which suggests to me that gives Defence room to make future funding cases to acquire milspec heavy airlifters in the future (to cover the cargo capability gap with the retirement of the 757). Wonder if they are taking an interest (and the long view) of Boeing potentially re-establishing C-17 production (if there is enough demand to justify the costs to do so)?

 

[A4scooter]

Five is probably too few but at least they didn’t choose the Wildcat. The likelihood is Wildcat production will end & if there is a follow on order it will much easier to procure additional Seahawks.

 

[Rob c]

But I see the logic in acquiring two civilian airliners now, we need something to move the troops in the current environment (nevermind the VIP role that the MSM seems fixated on) and the A321XLR gives us a very long range platform.

Yep but as I said, move the troops with charters, Were I question the logic is could the money be better spent on actual items for our defence. There was talk of the antartic oppsas well, if the main functions areVIP and Antartic opps, why are they coming out of the defence budget at all and not some other budget.

 

[chis73]

Not surprised at the these decisions - just dismayed at the complete stupidity of them (yet again). Six years (once the A321XLRs do actually arrive, and that may not be until 2028 - noting that we haven't actually signed anything yet) of a passenger jet with no cargo capacity, no self-defence capability and no military value! Useless. Why lease-to-buy such a worthless asset, just lease the things. How much will a cargo conversion cost on top of the $700m?

No problem with selecting the MH-60R, but 5 is a stupid number - even with the anaemic navy fleet we currently have. Problem I have is that it's now a full 2 years since the RFI for the maritime helicopter replacement closed, we still have only just down-selected a preferred supplier, without even going to tender. Note: we don't even have Congressional approval for a FMS as yet. Again, 2 years, and nothing has yet been ordered. We are only beginning negotiations.

And can someone please explain to Judith Collins that the thing on the cable underneath the helicopter is a dipping sonar, not a sonar buoy. You are spending $2b of our taxpayer dollars on this Judith - it would be nice if you looked like you had a clue.

 

[jbc388]

Not surprised at the these decisions - just dismayed at the complete stupidity of them (yet again). Six years (once the A321XLRs do actually arrive, and that may not be until 2028 - noting that we haven't actually signed anything yet) of a passenger jet with no cargo capacity, no self-defence capability and no military value! Useless. Why lease-to-buy such a worthless asset, just lease the things. How much will a cargo conversion cost on top of the $700m?

No problem with selecting the MH-60R, but 5 is a stupid number - even with the anaemic navy fleet we currently have. Problem I have is that it's now a full 2 years since the RFI for the maritime helicopter replacement closed, we still have only just down-selected a preferred supplier, without even going to tender. Note: we don't even have Congressional approval for a FMS as yet. Again, 2 years, and nothing has yet been ordered. We are only beginning negotiations.

And can someone please explain to Judith Collins that the thing on the cable underneath the helicopter is a dipping sonar, not a sonar buoy. You are spending $2b of our taxpayer dollars on this Judith - it would be nice if you looked like you had a clue.

The problem NZ has is an ex airline boss who as PM wants to look good with new airline passenger aircraft!! he wouldn't understand what the military actually need!!

The MH-60R is a good selection when they finally actually place an order, and the 5 they will order is just a normal National Government not actually spending enough $$ and just ordering the minimum or below minimum numbers. Labour governments are no better as well!! just look at the C-130J's only 5 should have purchased 7/8 airframes!! another example NH-90's purchased 8 should have been 10/12 then they wont flog them to death as fast!!

When an a large event happens in the future the they (NZ Government) need to send 3 plus ships they won't have the required number of aircraft!!! just haven't learnt from the seasprite purchase of a few years ago!!!

 

[kiwi in exile]

And can someone please explain to Judith Collins that the thing on the cable underneath the helicopter is a dipping sonar, not a sonar buoy. You are spending $2b of our taxpayer dollars on this Judith - it would be nice if you looked like you had a clue.

JC likes to talk tough "crusher Collins" etc, but she repeatedly sounds inept when discussing the details of defence stuff.

I wonder if the whole tarriff trade balance situation was part of the calculus for the Romeo purchase. I do think they were the best option.

 

[recce.k1]

Guys I don't disagree with any of your criticism of helo acquisition numbers ... to me it's short term thinking when we are facing an uncertain future.

However let's try and unpack things. Firstly NZDF is obtaining a premium ASW platform and that comes with considerable cost (including for the sensors - some of which RNZN helos haven't had before i.e. dipping sonar, processing, secure datalinks etc, which I understand isn't cheap). Also from the DefMin's comments (ok unofficial until we see the FMS details etc) it looks like the Govt will also be investing in a useful weapon loadout and if that is the intention, again that will come at a considerable cost.

Mention has been made that tranche 2 includes infrastructure (hopefully that's a new state-of-the-art hanger, with maintenance support workshops, mission operations centre, flight simulator space etc), if so again that's considerable cost (roughly the cost of an MH-60+ in itself). If so, presumably the costs are included in the $2B+" budget and that means the development project can get underway relatively quickly.

Secondly, on numbers itself, it's more-or-less the rule of 3 (albeit the "6-1" rule compromise) to allow two concurrent deployments (potentially surging to three if there is a pressing need eg emergency deployment). The RNZN operates a relatively small fleet and can anyone say when has RNZN has deployed more than two vessels with full helicopter operational compliments concurrently? I'm not sure that's ever happened but happy to hear otherwise.

I think the 8 (or 10 including the 2 fully built up spares) SH-2G(I) procurement last decade was an aberration - it was one of those rare opportunities that presented itself and at a bargain price for the GOTD to ignore, funding wise (kind of like how we acquired 10 ex-RAN A-4G's "from nowhere" or the two ex-RN Type 12 Leander's without any delays in the 1980's).

If we look back at the RNZN operating the Westland Wasp HAS.1 or SH-2G(NZ) at any one time only a few were operational. Then when operating the SH-2G(I) over the last decade the RNZN has said (previously, unsure if the current situation has seen improvements) they only had two qualified Seasprite ship deck crews (plus a third composite flight crew for HMNZS Canterbury to support both Seapsrite and NH90 operations when required).

Thirdly, the NZ-US dollar exchange rate hasn't been great of late. The best time to acquire US systems in the last few years would have been February 2021 when the US dollar was $NZ0.75! Currently it is $NZ0.59.

Look I don't say these things to excuse the Govt, I'm simply pointing out these are the cards the NZG/NZDF have been dealt and in my mind they are playing things rather well (particularly if we use many past acquisitions as a comparison).

NZDF is obtaining a high-end product allowing full interoperability with the ADF and US in the Pacific. LM/Sikorsky has opened a state-of-the-art Maintenance and Logistics Support facility at RAN Nowra, meaning the higher-level maintenance for the NZDF's MH-60R's (like the NZDF P-8A's) can be carried out across the Tasman (rather than traveling all the way to the US) meaning greater efficiencies, and less downtime and improved flying availability (compared to the SH-2G(I)'s) due to access to secure supply chains etc.

However I do agree things ought be a bit better in terms of the proposed acquisition. What I'd like to see is if there is an improvement in the US-NZ exchange rate as the deal is being finalised over the next few months, then acquire at least a 6th airframe (fully kitted out). It gives NZ another deployable option should tensions increase in the Pacific (eg increasingly "hostile" naval presence within our immediate region - that's a given as it is already happening).

I also wonder about the tranche 3 uncrewed option/acquisition. Whilst I think this is a great opportunity for the RNZN to acquire a complimentary capability relatively fast (as it will be a project underway), I'm happy to corrected here, but I don't think any Navy has settled on a MUM-T capability which is operational yet? If that's the case I wonder if the better approach would be to treat tranche 3 as a development project then align or buy into an existing ADF or USN project with a view to starting a new formal acquisition project to acquire the capability when platforms have been settled on? I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong on this.

So instead, divert some of the remaining funding for tranche 3 (less the project/development costs that needs to be spent) into acquiring, say three, additional MH-60R with or without the sonar/sensor/console/systems and use them for the RNZN's OPV/Auxiliary fleet for lift/replenishment and overwatch functions when conducting EEZ/UN enforcement, or for troop insertion from HMNZS Canterbury. This somewhat aligns with the ADF acquiring additional MH-60R's (potentially minus the sensor/console if required to be removed for non-ASW operations) as replacements for the six MRH90 tactical helos. Seeing that the MH-60S is no longer available (or alternatively cheaper S-60/70's). After all the OPV/Auxiliaries don't necessarily need fully ASW capable helos as they lack the means to utilise their strengths. It then means the five ASW MH-60R's being sought now are fully available for FFH tasking, which is the priority.

By having an additional navalised "utility" MH-60R (or S-60/70) option for the OPV/Auxiliaries, this frees up the (non-navalised) NH90 to be fully available for domestic and overseas land-support deployments (perhaps even future Ukraine "coalition of the willing" "peacekeeping" support contribution? After all the NH90's have just received a NATO interoperable secure comms upgrade) and instead of being operated on HMNZS Canterbury as they are now at times. This would also better inform the NH90's future replacement options, perhaps a mix of Blackhawk for land use and additional "Seahawk" or S70 for LPD use?

It also means the RNZN's MCM/dive support team, operating from HMNZS Otago (currently in dry dock being prepared to return to active service) can also operate from a naval air platform optimised with a decent sensor/secure comm fit out and enough cabin space to aid their operations with their kit and autonomous underwater systems. Thus allowing the enough ASW MH-60R's to be available for concurrent FFH operations, particularly with HMNZS Te Mana coming out of her extended maintenance period alongside and is now working up for deployment again.

Sure, probably a bit pie-in-the sky, but lets present the powers that be some solutions and reasons to spend "just a little bit more", after all there are now to be biennial defence reviews so come on guys let 'em know!