Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Highwayman]

Aussie Digger - the only reason the SAS have A109s is because they were "acquired" from the Argentines during the Falklands war in 1982!
The NZ A109s will have glass cockpits - does this mean the Seasprites will need to be upgraded to make them compatible - another short sighted expensive mistake!

 

[recce.k1]

Shadow Defence spokesman Wayne Mapp warns on potential for cost blowout http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=32&objectid=10473089

Quote:

National's defence spokesman, Wayne Mapp, said he was concerned the helicopters had been chosen before a price had been fully determined.

"Surely, the Government is in danger of running into exactly the same problems it experienced with the NH-90 contract where the price blew out to nearly $1 billion from the original $500 million," he said.

End quote.

Well perhaps that's why the Govt hasn't announced the actual cost yet (the often quoted NZ$110m figure was a previous estimate). Should the cost go up, then surely $110m will cover 5 helicopters! And perhaps once negotiations are completed, if under budget the Govt might buy a sixth etc (wishful thinking eh) and avoid any bad press like when the NH90 cost blowout was announced.

Speculation: Another reason could be, perhaps the Govt, within the original $110m budget, will buy an additional airframe (or airframes) in addition to the 5 already announced, as "spares" (like they did with the NH90 purchase last year - 8 airframes publically announced but the NHI website was actually stating 9 airframes were ordered, the 9th being a complete helo bought simply for spares as it was cheaper). And perhaps another airframe or two for attrition etc (ok more wishful thinking on my part, the Govt and AW are still to negotiate - nothing has been ordered yet etc)!

Anyone want to comment on Highwayman's valid point that the NZDF Seasprites don't have glass cockpits, whereas the A109LUH purchased for training will have? Personally I can't see the Govt upgrading the Seasprites. If it were possible I would replace the Seasprite with the NH90-NFH for commonality and capability reasons, sooner rather than later, especially in light of recent reports on spares being hard to obtain. But the Seasprite SH-2G(NZ) model was planned to be in service for some 25 years or so (2001-2026+) so it's unlikely any Govt would want to replace the Seasprite for a good number of years (and Labour would rub it in that it was National that ordered them in the 1990's, if National wanted to replace them in the future. And Labour simply wouldn't spend the money to replace them with something as or more capable etc). Be interesting to see what develops in the future if there are further problems with obtaining spares from Karman and also if the ADF's glass cockpit Seasprites run into more problems!

 

[KH-12]

Yes 5 flying airframes and a sim should be well under the $110M guideline given the current exchange rate even allowing for a 6th airframe for a "spares" package, I seriously don't believe that the MoD bods have spent so much time shagging about and hav'nt got a good handle on the package price by now, I mean it is not rocket science Although the MoD has a reputation of not getting particularly sharp deals. Apparently A/W gave the Chinese police in Beijing a "free" 109 with their package to encourage take up in that market, and rumour has it that A/W has been courting the MoD for quite some time to get the A109 into RNZAF service.

I think the Sim was a good idea however, I presume it is one of the new high spec sims from CAE/Rotorsim, should free up the airframes considerably from the pure training role and reduce the attrition rate.

I doubt whether the money would be made available to purchase 4 or so airframes to replace the SeaSprites for at least the next 10 years.

 

[Lucasnz]

Yes 5 flying airframes and a sim should be well under the $110M guideline given the current exchange rate even allowing for a 6th airframe for a "spares" package, I seriously don't believe that the MoD bods have spent so much time shagging about and hav'nt got a good handle on the package price by now, I mean it is not rocket science Although the MoD has a reputation of not getting particularly sharp deals. Apparently A/W gave the Chinese police in Beijing a "free" 109 with their package to encourage take up in that market, and rumour has it that A/W has been courting the MoD for quite some time to get the A109 into RNZAF service.

I think the Sim was a good idea however, I presume it is one of the new high spec sims from CAE/Rotorsim, should free up the airframes considerably from the pure training role and reduce the attrition rate.

I doubt whether the money would be made available to purchase 4 or so airframes to replace the SeaSprites for at least the next 10 years.

The A109 is a good choice for NZ, but the numbers just don't stack up in terms of the roles they're intended to perform. If the Helicopter Aircrew has a discharge rate of 13% based on 5 SH-2G and 8 NH-90 then the airforce needs to train a min of 3 new pilots per year. If you factor in other duties then you really need a min of around 10-12, allowing for 3 to operate of the OPV permanently.

 

[recce.k1]

Someone has suggested on the Wings over NZ aviation forum that perhaps more A109's might be ordered later, and gave the examples of the RNZAF's buying some initial UH-1's and C-130's and then a few more later. Eg according to the RNZAF website of the 14 initial UH-1's, 5x UH-1D's were delivered in 1966 and 9x UH-1H's in 1970. And of the initial 5x C-130H's, 3 were delivered in 1965 and 2 more in 1969. And of the 13 Sioux's - 6 delivered in 1965 and 7 delivered in 1970.

(Although I don't quite agree with the P3 and A4 comparisons, the additional ex-RAAF/RAN aircraft were bought many, many years later etc). However he makes a very good point that the last time a major aircraft purchase was made in one hit, was the MB339's and they suffered some 2-3 years of ongoing initial problems which according to other postings elsewhere on the Wings forum, the manufacturer seemed very slow off the mark to fix (and may have contributed to Australia selecting the Hawk over the MB339 to replace their MB326's at the time). Coincidentally the MB339 was approved by the then Labour Govt back in the late 1980's due to the early stress problems the Strikemaster's ran into, so perhaps the current Labour Govt is simply being cautious by ordering 5x A109's now (although 5 stills seems too overly cautious judging by the comments posted here)!

Or maybe the Italians decided not to buy as much kiwi lamb and butter and the A109 order was cut back

 

[MrConservative]

I was expecting eight plus a simultator. I thought that with Goff in Defence their would be a certain amount a realism back in the portfolio. In a speech he made two to three months ago he indicated 6 - 8 examples. With the reduced number of NH-90's sought and the well flagged A109 LUH now selected, I felt that he was going to turn a sows ear into a silk purse by getting such a great deal for the budget, hush the critics over the money spent on the NH-90 deal.

I was expecting to read a Goff press release stating that "the Labour lead Government would have ordered or introduced over 20 state of the art helicopters into Defence Force service." If you included the five SH-2G alongside eight NH-90's and eight A109's. The purchasing in batches is a good historical analogy per the C-130, Huey and Sioux introductions, but this time I'm a bit skeptical that there would have been a follow up. What with Clark and Cullen around. These decisions are have been made by people who have a defence force "can make do" attitude. Why we ended up with the Macchi 339CB's over the Hawk was that the Lire could buy alot more than the Pound at the time and Cabinet does tends to rough Defence Ministers up over costs. Ruth Richardson was particularly hard on them which explains the "missing in action" years of National in Defence.

In a way I do have a sense of relief that the A109 and particularly "the LUH" model has been purchased. It is exactly bang on for what we need. I had a fear that the UH145/EC135 might get the job. But the fact is - that five is not ten. Ten 109LUH's would have been around optimal in terms of flexibilty and tempo. At least any follow up purchase of 5 airframes wont be as expensive as the start-up package order on a real cost basis.

What it does though, is make we wonder about the future of the Huey's. A few pages back Stuart, mentioned a rumour he heard that some of them could be retained to operate alongside the LUH and NH-90's even after they have been introduced. AD mentioned that it could possibly work, but with the priviso that there will come a time, sooner more than later, when they would need replacing. They will be of course in their late 40's by the time the NH-90 fully comes into service. No doubt it is an option, but one with a few more risks than what I am comfortable with. As the life of the Huey's extends, the hourly operational costs will rise and any necessary life extension programme might in the end not be viable. Simple answer order five to seven next time there is a dip in the euro.

 

[barra]

The recently retired Australian Army hueys had around 10,500 AFHRs on them so I would expect the NZ hueys to have a similar amount of hours up. All I will say is you can't flog a dead horse forever. The pollies will expect you to try but the forces and minister need to make a convincing argument for more $.

Hooroo

 

[MrConservative]

Out of interest Barra. How many airframes were still in service on retirement and how were they disposed of?

 

[MrConservative]

Im interested in working out the viability of sustaining the Huey over the long term. With possible donor airframes ex ADF + ex RNZAF - along the lines of a rebuild / rejuvenation programme. Sort of an indigenous version of Huey II. I'm sure Safe Air could handle such a project. If we are not to get anymore LUH/NH-90's because of Govt imposed spending caps and we have a shortfall of airframes - we need to consider our options. This is a fishing expedition for your ideas guys.

 

[recce.k1]

Jase1 raised the possible retention of 6x UH-1's for SAR in post 275, from his contacts at Woodbourne - any updates on this Jase?

I'm sure Safe Air could do a good job as they have the expertise and could probably get into other regional UH-1 refurbishments for military or civilian use etc. The UH-1 has a better underslung load capacity than the A109 (1045kg v 600kg - useful for inserting tramping huts for DOC etc!) although both take a 270kg winch which will be more applicable to SAR).

Although the A109 being twin engined must be a safer bet for SAR? And for the relatively low cost of them surely (and to rationalise helo types) it would make more sense to buy additional airframes? However Mr C. you did refer once to Govt limiting defence expenditure to 1% of GDP (in relation to Proj Protector being capped at $500M), thus do you think this is the main reason why only 5x A109's will be ordered? If so, despite the $30B in operating surpluses over the last 3 years, this must be more ideologically driven than being practically driven etc. The NH90 cost blowout must also be a major contributing factor despite the Govt saying it wasn't when they announced the order (eg the budget for both helo types has crossed over the red line)?

I can see retaining some UH-1's if the Govt is too tight@$$ed to buy more A109's is better than simply having 5x A109's (and the UH-1's would probably get replaced sooner or later down the track anyway with A109's or similar) but, putting aside a possible change of govt next year agreeing to buy more A109's, if the RNZAF is studying options on retaining UH-1's I'd hope they also be given the opportunity to talk to the ADF and see whether and when they will start retiring some of their Blackhawks (I'd doubt this Govt would be interested though) as they have many advantages eg twin engine, better capacity and range, wheeled - ideal for MRV operations etc.

 

[KH-12]

I am sure at some stage a follow-on order will occur for additional A109's probably abit nervous about ordering too many at once and having lots of aircraft sitting around the flightline at Ohakea doing nothing , I can't believe that 5 + 1 sim would exceed the $110 M budget.

I am surprised that the lead time is 2010 for delivery given that there are several production lines for the A109 I would have thought that we could have started to get some in service before the end of 2008.

Will the RNZAF versions be fitted for weapons ?

 

[Stuart Mackey]

snippage

I can see retaining some UH-1's if the Govt is too tight@$ to buy more A109's is better than simply having 5x A109's (and the UH-1's would probably get replaced sooner or later down the track anyway with A109's or similar) but, putting aside a possible change of govt next year agreeing to buy more A109's, if the RNZAF is studying options on retaining UH-1's I'd hope they also be given the opportunity to talk to the ADF and see whether and when they will start retiring some of their Blackhawks (I'd doubt this Govt would be interested though) as they have many advantages eg twin engine, better capacity and range, wheeled - ideal for MRV operations etc.

I do not think that any government would go for second hand blackhawks, too much risk involved for the outlay.
I think that to describe the NH90 as a huey replacement is a bit much given its capacity, and the A109 is a bit light for the duties of the UH1 as well, although excellent as a LUH and for use in the internal counter-terrorism role, if another five or six are purchased. I would submit that what is required is 'another' UH1 perhaps something like the AW139?

 

[KH-12]

I do not think that any government would go for second hand blackhawks, too much risk involved for the outlay.
I think that to describe the NH90 as a huey replacement is a bit much given its capacity, and the A109 is a bit light for the duties of the UH1 as well, although excellent as a LUH and for use in the internal counter-terrorism role, if another five or six are purchased. I would submit that what is required is 'another' UH1 perhaps something like the AW139?

That would be a good idea maybe the AW149 for abit more capacity, the only issue would be that the NZDF would be operating 4 helicopter types, although as long as the cockpit configs were relatively similar transition between types may not be a big issue.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

That would be a good idea maybe the AW149 for abit more capacity, the only issue would be that the NZDF would be operating 4 helicopter types, although as long as the cockpit configs were relatively similar transition between types may not be a big issue.

139 or 149, I would think that the cheaper of the two would be in order given the presence of the NH90, but what would do it for me would be the troop carrying capacity of 12-15. With respect to types operated I would see that as a potential problem maintainance wise, for as much as I want to see the capacity of the NZDF improve, ease of logistics and associated costs will always be a big issue. As such I would imagine that if something like the 139/49 were brought then we would see the SH2G replaced, eventually, by the naval edition of NH90 (would there be space issues on the frigates OPV's for that type I wonder?).

 

[KH-12]

139 or 149, I would think that the cheaper of the two would be in order given the presence of the NH90, but what would do it for me would be the troop carrying capacity of 12-15. With respect to types operated I would see that as a potential problem maintainance wise, for as much as I want to see the capacity of the NZDF improve, ease of logistics and associated costs will always be a big issue. As such I would imagine that if something like the 139/49 were brought then we would see the SH2G replaced, eventually, by the naval edition of NH90 (would there be space issues on the frigates OPV's for that type I wonder?).

A good solution would be maybe a small purchase of NH90NFH to support the ANZACS (3-4) and additional A109's to operate off the OPV's / MRV as the helicopter requirements for the OPV's are alot less sophisticated than for the ANZACS, the fact that the SeaSprites are relatively young would probably preclude any option of replacement for at least the next 10 years.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

A good solution would be maybe a small purchase of NH90NFH to support the ANZACS (3-4) and additional A109's to operate off the OPV's / MRV as the helicopter requirements for the OPV's are alot less sophisticated than for the ANZACS, the fact that the SeaSprites are relatively young would probably preclude any option of replacement for at least the next 10 years.

I would suggest that with two frigates the minimum to give both a helicopter is five to account for training and maintainance. Certainly you could operate the 109 of the OPV's and MRV but I think you would need an armed version for enforcement purposes. I don't imagine that the SH2G's would be replaced before they are due to be, however, but if the spares issue continues I don't think they will get a life extension either.

 

[MrConservative]

The beauty of the UH-1 is that its a tough old bird. I still think there is a place to have roomy unsophisticated and cheap chopper to do a bit of the donkey work or dirty jobs within the NZDF. Basically a flying Hilux ute where as the AW139 is more a late model Holden Crewman. Sometimes the flash kit is unnecessary for certain tasks. As for future naval helicopter operations the NFH-90 will possibly emerge some time mid next decade to operate on an Danish Absalon / Patrolship type vessel as the Anzac Frigate supplement initially and then laterly their replacement. The Sprites will be unsustainable in 10 years, but their 15 years service onboard is still a fairly good lifespan for a Naval helicopter considering the harsh environment.

 

[KH-12]

I would suggest that with two frigates the minimum to give both a helicopter is five to account for training and maintainance. Certainly you could operate the 109 of the OPV's and MRV but I think you would need an armed version for enforcement purposes. I don't imagine that the SH2G's would be replaced before they are due to be, however, but if the spares issue continues I don't think they will get a life extension either.

Five aircraft would be a luxury given the unit cost involved and hopefully with some training commonality with the RNZAF version you could manage with a reduced number and schedule major maintainance during port time etc. The A109 could certainly be uparmed for the OPV support role with simply a door mounted MG as per the USCG MH68A or something heavier, not sure that you need the ability to carry something like Mavericks for the typical OPV mission.

 

[jase1]

Hi guys, when I posted the rumour about the Hueys it was an idea that was brought up at a Safe-Air meeting and the idea came from the Air-Force itself. I havent seen my mate for a few weeks so I will catch up with him hopefully soon but he is working on the Skyhawks so Id take his word as gold.
Im no expert but do we need the flashest Rotary wing on the block?
I just cant understand why we are buying Euro and why buy the most teched up when we can buy American for a good price and its battle-proven? Even guys at Safe-Air are asking why are we buying so few.
While labour has to be commended for at lest spending some dosh on the military I think its choices aint the best.
The LAVs were a silly expensive choice when a complete up-grade of the M-113s would have done the job, The Skyhawks.... no need to go there and the list goes on, we need to keep it simple, leave the high tech gear to the ozzies and keep the the NZ military a tough, robust simple fighting force that is was once known for

 

[barra]

Out of interest Barra. How many airframes were still in service on retirement and how were they disposed of?

I am unsure of exact numbers but I think around 20-24 UH-1H's were in service with Army.
Looking at the planned purchases by NZ of NH-90's and A-109's the only problem I can see is a lack of numbers. That point has already been made of course.
A plan to operate ex-ADF Hueys or Blackhawks could be feasible in the short term, however I suspect it would be unpalatable to your political leaders.

Hooroo