Royal New Zealand Air Force

[MrConservative]

And now for some (possible) good news!

Hank Schouten in the Wellington Newspaper the Dominion Post is reporting that the NZDF are looking for $1b+ of new hardware on a military wishlist. The Airbus A400M, one of the planes being considered to replace the C130s. The RNZAF wants to buy a new fleet of transport aircraft to replace its old C-130 Hercules in about 10 years time. Defence sources suggest new aircraft could cost between $500 million and $1 billion. The NZDF has unveiled a shopping list for more ships, planes, a new fleet of armoured trucks and new weapons over the next decade. It is reported that the proposals could add $1 billion to the extra $1.3 billion committed to new military hardware under the 2002-2012 long-term defence plan. Most of that has or is being spent on new ships, helicopters, aircraft upgrades and army equipment ordered or due to come into service in the next five years. A sophisticated $83 million intelligence, reconnaissance and communications system is also on the NZDF plans.

"But tentative plans for more expensive acquisitions - beyond what has already been approved - were outlined at a Defence Industry forum in Wellington. But Defence Minister Phil Goff says the Government is yet to commit to the plan."

The Navy is looking to replace its tanker, with the Endeavour and the Manawanui dive support ship by about 2016 and $434 million upgrade of the Anzacs. The Army has begun planning to replace its trucks at an estimated $500 million.These will have armoured cabs. The Army is looking into a number of other projects including the purchase of grenade machine guns to give the infantry more firepower, replace its light machine guns, upgrade its standard-issue Steyr infantry rifles, purchase combat shotguns as well as planning to equip its infantry with UAV's.

With the Macchi's prospects for a return to service improving of late things might get a whole lot better.

 

[recce.k1]

And now for some (possible) good news!

Very interesting! Here's the link to the article http://www.stuff.co.nz/4234496a19715.html. The article mentions tenative plans were outlined at a Defence Industry forum, here's the link to Def Min Goff's speech at the forum http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=30928 (Goff mentions signing contract on T/LUH's within a few months but nothing on new training and short-medium range patrol aircraft etc). Might as well throw in Ron Mark's article calling for the govt to increase pay rates in the NZDF http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=123&objectid=10469239.

Perhaps all this should be somewhere else but a quick comment on the Frigates, noticed Self Defence upgrade is being pushed back from, originally late 2000's (2002 speech by DM Burton to RSA), to around 2010 (LTDP 2006) and now 2012. Also unsure what the DomPost really means by "The proposals could add $1 billion to the extra $1.3 billion committed to new military hardware under the 2002-2012 long-term defence plan". We all know the LTDP 2002-2012 was costing more than the $3b committed by the govt so now unsure whether govt has already committed another $1.3b, but that fact has not been acknowledged anywhere esp if you check the figures in Goff's speech, thus probably more of a "paper" figure i.e. funding yet to be found etc.

 

[barra]

Yesterday the NZ government announced an $8.7 Billion dollar surplus (currently $34 Billion over the last 3 years). So maybe the "loss" of a $155mil contract is inconsquential to them I suppose. We didn't enter into the F-16 deal because we were told we couldnt afford them. We did get a very good National ballet, orchestra and opera company out of the money saved.

LOL I love your sarcasm, sign of a true democracy being able to take the p@ss out of your leaders without being shot. Love it.

With surpluses that size the NZ govt has the ability to do alot more for the NZDF. Just goes to show that it's not a matter of being unable to afford it but being unwilling to do so.

I noticed Helen & hubby were on hand to watch the All Blacks debacle in France, seems she is not above treating herself.

Hooroo

 

[Firehorse]

claim

IMO it won't be long before NZ stakes out a claim to her continental shelf. It's an area several times larger than North & South islands combined, and therefore, to defend it they'll need more than P-3c & ships.

New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
In 1978 the United Nations Conference on the Law Of the Sea (UNCLOS) extended New Zealand's territorial waters extensively (but NZ didn't ratify it until 1996). Because our outlying islands are located at favourable positions, the 200 nautical mile (370 km) circles drawn around them and the mainland's coast, neatly joined up, creating a contiguous sea area of 4.83 million square km, 15 times larger than the land. With a stroke of the pen, NZ became the fourth largest maritime country in the world. Only, France & French Polynesia, USA and Indonesia have larger EEZs.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/special.htm

 

[recce.k1]

I noticed Helen & hubby were on hand to watch the All Blacks debacle in France, seems she is not above treating herself.

And we lost the match. She went to Valencia for the America's Cup finals ... and we lost the series... At least the RNZAF 757 clocked up a few more hours flying time and crew gained some more experience operating in unfamiliar airspace

 

[MrConservative]

"LOL I love your sarcasm, sign of a true democracy being able to take the p@ss out of your leaders without being shot. Love it."

Thanks Bara. If your interested in our true democracy maybe you could also have a look at the Governments intentions for the proposed Electoral Reform Act. You will see that I'm getting in my sarcasm now as of January 1st 2008 it would be somewhat harder to lobby for increased defence spending.

Recce. I didn't know that the PM took Broomstick One all the way to Europe. Pretty impressive carbon footprint for a couple of Photo Op's there I'd say. No doubt Australia will be pleased if the PM pays a visit to the League Test tonight.

The RNZAF with four to six A400's would be pretty useful. The T/LUH timeframe is interesting as is the rumour that I think Stuart heard about per the retaining six Huey's even after the NH-90 comes in.

 

[htbrst]

RE the T/LUH -
I've heard rumblings that all training on the NH-90 could be outsourced and conducted in Germany long-term (i.e. not just for initial/conversion training). Keeping this in mind, this could reduce the numbers of T/LUH which are required by the RNZAF. The number crunching and behind-the-scenes discussion regarding this may be a reason its taking so long to announce a winner.

There is even a possibility a RNZAF airframe may stay put in Germany to assist this training.

Has there been any discussion on any joint training scheme with Australia, or are the avionics just too different ?

 

[recce.k1]

RE the T/LUH -
I've heard rumblings that all training on the NH-90 could be outsourced and conducted in Germany long-term (i.e. not just for initial/conversion training). Keeping this in mind, this could reduce the numbers of T/LUH which are required by the RNZAF. The number crunching and behind-the-scenes discussion regarding this may be a reason its taking so long to announce a winner.

There is even a possibility a RNZAF airframe may stay put in Germany to assist this training.

Has there been any discussion on any joint training scheme with Australia, or are the avionics just too different ?

Hmm, I think we need to think about the implications of this a little bit more both for and against etc (with absolutely no disrespect intended towards our professional and allied German military professionals etc).

Firstly what would be the cost to train on the other side of the world (versus training with our Australian neighbours? It's quicker and easier to fly personnel back and forth or should anyone need to be replaced in a hurry etc).

No doubt NZ Govt will take the cheapest approach, could that mean less than optimal time spent on training? Training on basics and proficiency but not advanced skillsets etc?

Secondly, it would seem more sense with me to train more with the Australians in terms of interoperability and building upon joint operational skillsets etc.

Frankly I'd like to know more about the politics of why NZ didn't sign up to the Australian MRH90 order (but that's probably another topic altogether).

It all seems to me to be a harkback to the early days of training overseas (eg WW2 in Canada etc) on the one hand, but on another hand it seems perhaps this is the face of the modern global world we live in now, "corporatised" training systems etc. If so will Germany be the hub for all European NH90 training? If so will Australia sign up too (and thus this is why this is under consideration for NZ)?

With so few airframes having one permanently overseas is questionable. Why do we need to provide our own training airframe anyway? Doing it on the cheap perhaps? NZ having unique (ANZUS compatible) avionics? Or are we getting European avionics?

Thirdly, cynically, is this simply the PM currying favours with her European politcal friends to - gain favourable back hand deals for any UN type leadership push? - or payback for greater EU presence in the Pacific (although I do welcome that!)? - or due to NZ signing on to being a Nato affiliate etc?

Perhaps it's because the Govt can see some logic in joining in with NATO lead peace missions and NH90's would make a good contribution (and thus learn Nato operating procedures)? Sounds good in theory but the Govt better realise it will need to invest in alot more than simply helos, it will possibly need alot more support and logistics, continually updating avionics, adding more firepower to ensure the NH90's could provide backup for others on missions, greater HQ staffing presence in EU, maybe contributions on airfeild defensive systems, recon helos to accompany NH90 missions etc (don't get me wrong I'm all for better Nato interoperability, it's just that all NZ Govts haven't always provided the NZDF with what is really required to ensure we "punch above our weight" to do the job properly in terms of support and logistics etc).

Just wondering what this is all really about? Hopefully we won't get the Australian Govt offside with us due to a shift in strategic focus back to Europe (and away from Aust and further away from the US). Ironically for a PM so intent on cutting ties with the mother country and being "independant", we're seemingly heading back in that direction (although eastwards onto the continent)!

 

[barra]

All Australian MRH-90 pilot training will be conducted at Oakey in Queensland, for Army and Navy. It does seem strange that NZ has decided to train her aircrew in Germany, I am not sure if the cockpit layout of an MRH-90 is all that different to what NZ has ordered. Anyway if I had the choice between 6 months in Oakey or 6 months in Germany I know which one I would pick. I bet none of the kiwi aircrew are complaining.

Seriously though, 9 airframes on order with one for spares and maybe one left in Germany, deploy a couple (say 4) OS and there will be 3 left for training / supporting Army in NZ. Murphys law says not all of them will be available all the time so things are looking slim.

I hope Helen does go to the league test tonight and put the kiss of death on the kiwi league boys. At least the Aussie cricketers have given us something to smile about.

Hooroo

 

[Highwayman]

I recently read that the government may allow the air force to reintroduce the MB339s once the King Airs lease had expired(NZ Hearld).
How can jet trainers be considered a replacement for a light multi engine trainer / comms aircraft and weren't the air force looking at a larger multi engined aircraft which could be used for additional roles?
Has the Bell 47 replacement been chosen yet?

 

[MrConservative]

I recently read that the government may allow the air force to reintroduce the MB339s once the King Airs lease had expired(NZ Hearld).
How can jet trainers be considered a replacement for a light multi engine trainer / comms aircraft and weren't the air force looking at a larger multi engined aircraft which could be used for additional roles?
Has the Bell 47 replacement been chosen yet?

Most of these questions have been covered in detail. But a quick recap. The LUH contract is still some months away. The A-109 is a purported front-runner. Nothing official about the return to service of the Macchi's. They are a political headache for the Govt. Malaysia was interested then turned down the offer and bought new versions. Other operators if they were interested and they seem not to be are either in the wont buy used camp (UAE) or in the unlikely to get end user approval camp (Nigeria, Ghana, Eritrea). The 2005 Peterson deal looks dead. The RNZAF have been looking for an improved light multi-engine-multi role option. The Q300 has been mooted. Macchi's wont be able to fully cover those requirements. Nonetheless there are some other training and operational related gaps in the NZDF that the Macchi could be useful. If bought back dont except all 17 back in the air. Quite a few will be used for parts. Prior to 1998 all RNZAF pilots went from the CT4's on to the Blunty's or Macchi's then were posted to Squadrons. It was a system that produced some outstanding pilots and was only changed to save money.

 

[KH-12]

I wonder what the delay is in the T/LUH selection process, the exchange rate is good and the selection process can't be that hard when the tender was written for the A109, can only assume that it is in regard to number of airframes and possibly which model of A109. The larger cabin of the A109Grand would be useful in a special forces support role/SAR, maybe some serious concideration about using them on a more permanent basis on the OPV's as the operating costs of the SeaSprites are pretty high and the number of airframes is light.

It would be nice to see something like the C27J purchased when the KingAirs retire, a simulator could be purchased alongside to reduce the flying hours for training purposes(combined with the return of the 339's), with a stretched version now on the drawing boards this could be a very useful aircraft for the RNZAF in terms of tactical transport and coastal patrol.

 

[recce.k1]

It would be nice to see something like the C27J purchased when the KingAirs retire, a simulator could be purchased alongside to reduce the flying hours for training purposes(combined with the return of the 339's), with a stretched version now on the drawing boards this could be a very useful aircraft for the RNZAF in terms of tactical transport and coastal patrol.

I don't think anything official has been stated but somehow the word was the Q300 would make a good King Air trainer replacement and VIP transport (and possibly for coastal patrol).

C27J or C-295 would make a great medium range troop and LOV transporter - unsure whether they would be suitable for multi-engine training and VIP though - but they have the range and perhaps with the rear ramp might be handy also in a coast watch capacity eg drop out a rescue dingy if necessary. However unsure whether the NZDF/MOD would be interested in such an aircraft until they decide upon the C130 replacement but IMO I'm suprised they aren't re-prioritising such aircraft types in light of the increased NZDF deployments into the Pacific and reduced C130 availability due to their upgrading (and the Andover fleet withdrawl). Such an aircraft would give the NZ Govt another option to contribute to UN assistance missions etc. Would be interesting to see how the ADF Caribou replacement pans out, perhaps NZ is watching this quiety on the side before deciding etc.

Back to this UH-1 retention possibility for SAR raised last week. Whilst I would agree that Safe Air has the expertise and skills to maintain such helos and that something like additional utility helos with the UH-1 capabilities should be welcomed (eg proven track record, cheap to operate, reasonable carrying capacity etc), I'm still slightly concerned about the age of the UH-1 (40 years +) and the fact that surely they would need a major overhaul etc (possibly in Safe Air's proposals anyway). I wonder whether if there is a case to retain UH-1's because of engineering and air crew familiarisation with them, whether NZ should be looking to pick up some second hand/younger twin engine UH-1N's etc from ex-US Military stocks? Or much better still, as the ADF will presumably start replacing their UH-60's soon-ish (within 2-3 years?) as their NH-90/MRH-90's are about to enter service very soon, it would make more sense to try an acquire several of these types as they are some 20+ years younger than our UH-1H's and are much better helos all round. I wouldn't have normally said this prior seeing that the NH-90 was supposed to replace UH-1H's in NZDF/ADF service (and UH-60s in ADF service) but if the possibility is that NZ may wish to retain some UH-1's then why not look at the UH-60 option too? For Safe Air it could mean increased opportunities to support SE Asian UH-60's and the RAN's S-70's etc. Just my 2cents for the day!

 

[KH-12]

I don't think anything official has been stated but somehow the word was the Q300 would make a good King Air trainer replacement and VIP transport (and possibly for coastal patrol).

C27J or C-295 would make a great medium range troop and LOV transporter - unsure whether they would be suitable for multi-engine training and VIP though - but they have the range and perhaps with the rear ramp might be handy also in a coast watch capacity eg drop out a rescue dingy if necessary. However unsure whether the NZDF/MOD would be interested in such an aircraft until they decide upon the C130 replacement but IMO I'm suprised they aren't re-prioritising such aircraft types in light of the increased NZDF deployments into the Pacific and reduced C130 availability due to their upgrading (and the Andover fleet withdrawl). Such an aircraft would give the NZ Govt another option to contribute to UN assistance missions etc. Would be interesting to see how the ADF Caribou replacement pans out, perhaps NZ is watching this quiety on the side before deciding etc.

Back to this UH-1 retention possibility for SAR raised last week. Whilst I would agree that Safe Air has the expertise and skills to maintain such helos and that something like additional utility helos with the UH-1 capabilities should be welcomed (eg proven track record, cheap to operate, reasonable carrying capacity etc), I'm still slightly concerned about the age of the UH-1 (40 years +) and the fact that surely they would need a major overhaul etc (possibly in Safe Air's proposals anyway). I wonder whether if there is a case to retain UH-1's because of engineering and air crew familiarisation with them, whether NZ should be looking to pick up some second hand/younger twin engine UH-1N's etc from ex-US Military stocks? Or much better still, as the ADF will presumably start replacing their UH-60's soon-ish (within 2-3 years?) as their NH-90/MRH-90's are about to enter service very soon, it would make more sense to try an acquire several of these types as they are some 20+ years younger than our UH-1H's and are much better helos all round. I wouldn't have normally said this prior seeing that the NH-90 was supposed to replace UH-1H's in NZDF/ADF service (and UH-60s in ADF service) but if the possibility is that NZ may wish to retain some UH-1's then why not look at the UH-60 option too? For Safe Air it could mean increased opportunities to support SE Asian UH-60's and the RAN's S-70's etc. Just my 2cents for the day!

You could use modules to reconfigure the C-27J, maybe one for VIP use with nice comfy seats etc. Would fit nicely into the Andover type role the range/payload is also not so bad and would achieve commonality with US and Australian forces (am pretty sure this will be the Caribou replacement eventually).

I don't see any reason why the A109 can't be used in the SAR role it certainly has good Hot/High performance and it will be a brand new aircraft (could always equip with skis for alpine operations), don't see the point in keeping the UH-1H and the maintainence issues of looking after 3 types, the A109 Grand cabin size should be more than adequate for the majority of SAR operations, best to retire the UH-1H gracefully and move-on. The Govt will need to get real and order a reasonable number of A109 as it will need to fulfill many of the roles currently carried out by the UH-1H, as the NH90 will be short on the ground and way to expensive to operate for many tasks(where its capacity is overkill). The A109 can also be used for VIP tasks in NZ as it is pretty quick and obviously more flexible than a fixed wing type.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I don't think anything official has been stated but somehow the word was the Q300 would make a good King Air trainer replacement and VIP transport (and possibly for coastal patrol).

C27J or C-295 would make a great medium range troop and LOV transporter - unsure whether they would be suitable for multi-engine training and VIP though - but they have the range and perhaps with the rear ramp might be handy also in a coast watch capacity eg drop out a rescue dingy if necessary. However unsure whether the NZDF/MOD would be interested in such an aircraft until they decide upon the C130 replacement but IMO I'm suprised they aren't re-prioritising such aircraft types in light of the increased NZDF deployments into the Pacific and reduced C130 availability due to their upgrading (and the Andover fleet withdrawl). Such an aircraft would give the NZ Govt another option to contribute to UN assistance missions etc. Would be interesting to see how the ADF Caribou replacement pans out, perhaps NZ is watching this quiety on the side before deciding etc.

Back to this UH-1 retention possibility for SAR raised last week. Whilst I would agree that Safe Air has the expertise and skills to maintain such helos and that something like additional utility helos with the UH-1 capabilities should be welcomed (eg proven track record, cheap to operate, reasonable carrying capacity etc), I'm still slightly concerned about the age of the UH-1 (40 years +) and the fact that surely they would need a major overhaul etc (possibly in Safe Air's proposals anyway). I wonder whether if there is a case to retain UH-1's because of engineering and air crew familiarisation with them, whether NZ should be looking to pick up some second hand/younger twin engine UH-1N's etc from ex-US Military stocks? Or much better still, as the ADF will presumably start replacing their UH-60's soon-ish (within 2-3 years?) as their NH-90/MRH-90's are about to enter service very soon, it would make more sense to try an acquire several of these types as they are some 20+ years younger than our UH-1H's and are much better helos all round. I wouldn't have normally said this prior seeing that the NH-90 was supposed to replace UH-1H's in NZDF/ADF service (and UH-60s in ADF service) but if the possibility is that NZ may wish to retain some UH-1's then why not look at the UH-60 option too? For Safe Air it could mean increased opportunities to support SE Asian UH-60's and the RAN's S-70's etc. Just my 2cents for the day!

At the very least, NZ would have to upgrade her Huey's to the Huey II standard or similar to retain them in-service. The USA is ending ALL "Huey" support including parts manufacturing, which is the main reason most Huey operators are going to have to replace or upgrade their existing UH-1H model Huey's.

Cannabalised parts may enable your fleets to fly for a while, but sooner rather than later they will suffer a complete lack of parts and you'll have an entire capability grounded...

 

[recce.k1]

Agreed, the C-27J is nice and the NZDF would find alot of use for them, being re-configurable as you point out. Still not sure they would be suited to multi-engine training, maybe RNZAF would be better of with a couple of King Air 350's or Q300's simply for training (along with MB339's) and perhaps backup general transport (leaving the C-27J or whatever for VIP, tactical trans, coastwatch)? Again it would mean more than one type of aircraft but I can't see one aircraft fitting every role very well (and the RNZAF used to operate Goldern Eagles, F27's and Andovers in similar roles 15-25 years ago etc). Anyway I'm not the expert, let's see what develops in due course etc.

Regarding UH-1's, my preference is similar to what you two are saying which is to avoid something pretty much regarded as obsolete now in the US. Like you KH-12 I can't see what the big issue is for the Govt, the A109 or whatever are very cheap helos (compared to new build UH-60's & NH-90's). I know the NH-90 cost blowout was greater than expected but it's almost as if the Govt are running a bit scared to make a decision (or being seen as spending $1b on helos - NH-90's and A109's etc - in light of supposedly not being able to afford a cheaper ACF, weary of opposition taunts etc) but I doubt things would be as silly and simplistic as that. Well Phil Goff stated a decision will be made very soon so it will be interesting to see what pans out in the end. Lets hope they do it well and fund the necessary numbers etc.

(BTW still think if retaining UH-1's are back on the Govt table then better to look at any ex-ADF UH-60's. Although I somehow see the Labour Govt as being unwilling to go there. But I somehow could see a National Govt not being ideologically bound to reject any such discussions etc. It seems to me once this Govt decides on something for better or worse, they don't like to be seen as changing their stance etc).

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.
Mod edit: Discussing politics is generally forbidden on this website. The odd shot at a particular politician? I don't see too many problems with that. Provided it is within a defence related context and complies with our other rules of conduct, of course...

 

[recce.k1]

Politics. I thought it was frowned upon on these boards. Maybe insulting NZs Prime Minister is OK on this defense website.

I don't think that was the case, matey. Apparently some in the trade & media apply unofficial names to the VIP jets depending who is on board. Eg "Broomstick 1" (or 2) for the current PM, "Spud 1" (or 2) for former PM Jim Bolger (and have a guess for another former PM, Rob Muldoon). From the irreverance shown to our colonial masters 100 odd years ago to the irreverence shown to figures in authority by young generations in our recent history. Irreverence, it's a kiwi way of life! At least Barra has a point don't you think?

Anyway can we please have some constructive debate and ideas on defence for a change. For a topical example, what do you think of the situation in relation to the RNZAF's air-transport fleet? Would you suggest having 3 aircraft in the US being upgraded concurrently is a bad move or a shrewd move as next year will see these aircraft returning into service quicker etc? Do we really require more airframes (now? second hand?) and if so, what bearing will that have if the A400 replacement or similar is chosen within the next few years? And do you agree that the RNZAF's ground crew deserve accolades for repairing a C130 engine in minus 40 degree temperatures in the Antarctic over the last few days in order to get the aircraft home, as this aircraft is only one of two C130's currently available for service in NZ? http://www.stuff.co.nz/4241503a6427.html

 

[barra]

Politics. I thought it was frowned upon on these boards. Maybe insulting NZs Prime Minister is OK on this defense website.

You have me wrong Investigator, I don't hold Kiwi PM Helen Clark in any less contempt than I hold any other politician (no matter where they are from). If I have offended you than I humbly apologise, I don't want to detract from anyones enjoyment of using this forum.
I certainly wasn't kiwi bashing and have served with many Kiwi's in the RAAF and enjoyed much friendly banter with them at work or over a beer. Ironically I could name more than a few who willingly took part in "your unprovoked invasion of Iraq" as you put it. It is easy to criticise now, hindsight is 20/20, but at the time we all thought we were doing the right thing. That's all I want to say about that.
Those that I have known over the years were certainly well trained and talented individuals. They certainly are a credit to their previous employer and it is unfortunate that the RNZAF lost such people. They are hard to come by and harder to replace.

Hooroo

 

[Highwayman]

According to Flight International the RNZAF is looking for a C130H replacement to enter service in 2017 but the last last upgraded Herc will now be delivered in 2011. The fact that for the next 4 years they will only have a limited fleet available for operations and the last upgraded a/c will potentially serve for only 6 years makes the whole programme financially a disaster.
2nd hand C130Hs are becoming available (RAF, Italian, Norwegian) so than rather upgrade old a/c lease some of these a/c to sustain the current fleet if buying A400s or buy C130Js now (which was provisionally selected before).