I don't see the need for air force/army helicopters to have folding blades when they use large hangars. If you want more naval helicopters than buy naval helicopters with folding blades. One or two more Seasprites won't break the budget...
I don't think the Huon class Mine Hunter COSTAL is suitable for the RNZN as they are by all accounts horrible sea boats. They bob around the ocean like a Esky (The translation for my Kiwi friends is "Chully Bun"
because just like a Esky they are made from fiber glass (Well the older Eskys at least).
Your missing the point. The thing is the Defence Minister at the time talked up the Army - Navy capability of the LUH as been able to do all things. Troop insertions was not one of them for the LUH. Things such as ship to shore support, SAR, DOC & MSA work etc to aid civil authorities was part of its purview. The EC-135 was discounted because it was not wheeled or suitable to land on the OPV's deck, (which they built a hanger for remeber). The terms of reference of the LUH acquistition spelt out a maritime support capability.
You act as if it takes hours to mount the blades when it takes less than an hour to do so. New Zealand has five Seasprites. At any given time at most three are required in normal operations, really two as the Canterbury spends most of her time dockside. Usually only one frigate and OPV are active...
Does anyone have any info on the Norwegian project?
No Toby. You are missing the context. Deploying the LUH on the sealift ship with fixed wings and then fiddling around for an hour on a busy deck on some Humanitarian / Disaster Support Mission while affixing wings is one thing (Another timewasting headache for rank and file NZDF personnel to manage), but the utility of having the LUH easily deployable on the OPV's on a regualr basis was about economy and not enough Sprites in the inventory. Its cost per hour is dratically reduced over the Seasprite. For the many minor tasks that required a helicopter on an OPV the LUH (I have listed them before and you failed to comprehend) was the best option as well as the fact that there will be a shortage in Naval helicopters in the NZDF. There is at present enough Sprites for the 2 Anzacs, the Canterbury, and the coming Endeavour replacement. There are not enough Sprites for the OPV and the future Littoral Support Vessel going forward. Thus it would have been very pragmatic and sensible to have the LIH's fitting with folding wings. I am suprised that you of all people would support the idea of fixed wings on the LUH over folding in the NZDF context being the way to go. .
I dug this old email from Phill Goff responding to some of my questions. up to reinforce the two months availability and additional details.
Also the NZ review mentions replacing the Seasprites in 2015 rather than the planned mid-life upgrade, which could potentially plug them in to the tail of the RAN order, at least it seems they are keeping this option in mind.
Recce, the Norwegian Joint Logistics Support Ship (JLSS), that Tony Parr was talking about in that interview sounds an interesting proposal. Up to 30 days of RAS - fuels, food, water, and munitions to support a taskforce. However it is going to utilise the containerised modular system to the fullest in terms of a plug and play approach. Namely hospital/medical facilities, maintenance workshops, C2, surge accomodation. The vessel is going to use RoRo via a vehicle ramp to offload vehicles, as well as LCM's. It will also have 450 lane meters for this. The vessel will also operate and support helicopters, as well as be a platform for the RNN's Special Warfare Group. In the RAS role the vessel is to be capable of completing RAS serials in stern and abeam stations as well as perform HIFR. The ship is due in 2016. The ship that I think would be more useful to us is the TKMS's Multi-Role Dock that the Sth Africans are having a good look at. The MRD has very large flight deck enough for 3-4 landiing spots as well as a step deck which stores containers. It carries a slightly more fuel replenishment capacity than the Endeavour at around 7000t v 6600t, which must be a formal requirment. Its best point in my view is that it has a Dock at the stern and not RoRo. RoRo was one of the grips that the North Shore set were unimpressed about regarding the Canterbury. I think they got Dr Mapp on message about it when the Canterbury was introduced. Speaking of the Canterbury I notice that the White Paper envisages it to be replaced at the end of its useful life. That Moot point aside
, it is still awhile ahead for its replacement, however I was impressed with the Endurance 160 that ST Marine offered up at the recent Euronaval expo in Paris. It is sort of a baby Juan Carlos. I also see that DCNS are offering a baby Mistral at around the 14000t mark. Again an interesting vessel for the smaller Navy. It seems that the smaller LHD designs targeting smaller navies of between 10000 to 20000 tonnes are where the Naval Architects are heading these days.
Interesting options there, Mr C, and in terms of being replaced at the end of its "useful life", not seeing any figures published so far I wonder what her intended life span is - 20+ years, rather than the usual 30+ years?Speaking of the Canterbury I notice that the White Paper envisages it to be replaced at the end of its useful life. That Moot point aside
I wonder if you're on the money, in that it appears defence thinking is tending away from legacy type specialist vessels (eg rule out NZ purchasing second hand Huons?) to more multi-role types? Be interesting to see if the Austal can be mod'ed to suit diving operations (crane, space on deck for underwater submersibles, diving bell and workshops inside etc). Presumably a vessel like this would be able to offer higher transit speeds but also be adept at loittering etc?I don't think the Huon class Mine Hunter COSTAL is suitable for the RNZN as they are by all accounts horrible sea boats. They bob around the ocean like a Esky (The translation for my Kiwi friends is "Chully Bun"
They are also VERY slooooooow, so any transit to say the Pacific islands would take a very long time. Whilst I realise that neither Manawanui or Resolution are the Greyhounds of the sea but anything that replace them should be able to transit at a reasonable speed and have decent sea keeping. Also as the old saying go's "Steal is cheep and air is free" so they should also be a descent size.
I think Austal MRV would be ideal. Good speed, range, sea keeping and a shallow draft. It has a large reconfigurable mission deck/vehicle deck (For it's size), a flight deck and hanger.
Multi-Role Vessel - Austal
A very capable and versatile design IMHO, Kind of a poor man LCS.
Naval helicopters should have folding blades, I agree. But I don't see the five A-109s as naval helicopters... I would welcome an order for a few naval A-109s... I am sure the air force/army forces can use the five A-109s all of the time.. Its not like one or two A-109s is/are going to break the budget...
You bet ya - the AW-109's (Gibbo should be pleased Im giving it its new name - old habits die hard) - are not Naval as you say - but under the last administration they did define a number of support roles for other government agencies off the deck of an OPV.
They are "capable" of being deployed, not quite the same as saying they "will be" deployed (like in the same way that the current Huey's are "capable" of being deployed). Huey's have operated very occasionally off Canterbury as in transported to a destination and flown off to their forward operating base on land. Ditto will the new NH90's and AW109's. Canterbury's main ship helo is the Seasprite, with maritime radar systems that the AW109's lack etc.
Again no mention of regular ship deployment operations, simply introductory and training functions.
These treatment actions - I'm not clear what this means in a practical sense eg is it something that can or will be addressed or not?
I suppose this is to be expected from a non-maritime helicopter (eg it won't have a strengthened undercarridge(?) so I'm not particulrly concerned and after all for NZ this is an area we've not had experience with before. And Defence is naturally evaluating these safety limits. No doubt this is no different to ADF operating Army Blackhawks off their LPA's safely etc.
Recce. I have had a quick read of your post - it very interesting. I will look at the links later.I hear what you're saying especially in that the AW109 could give additional and cheaper whole-of-govt support options etc (BTW when I mentioned "red herrings", I certainly wasn't referring to your views or anyone else's here discussing the AW109's - the term was meant in a general sense in that Govt's previously defined taskings seemed to be playing down the AW109's maritime roles ... which to state the obvious, suggested a lesser maritime role etc).
In other news, the MoD today has released a report "2010 Major Projects Report Overview and Assessment" in which "The report signals a greater level of transparency in the reporting of major capability projects, and presents lessons to inform ongoing and future projects. As the first report of its kind to be produced in New Zealand, the report draws on examples from the United Kingdom and Australia".
Perhaps it would be worth discussing on the general NZDF thread, as it describes recent project acquistion processes, evaluation options, risks and operating costs etc etc.
Coincidentally for us and our discussions here recently, there is mention of the AW109's and NH90's being operated at sea etc. It appears to confirm that the AW109 won't be operated at sea ... and not quite for the reasons being speculated here (incl. me), but simply because:
PDF pg 89/236:
These treatment actions - I'm not clear what this means in a practical sense eg is it something that can or will be addressed or not?
In terms of the NH90's, it clearly does say these helicopters will be operated at sea (eg off HMNZS Canterbury), but there is a concern:
PDF pg 129/236:
I suppose this is to be expected from a non-maritime helicopter (eg it won't have a strengthened undercarridge(?) so I'm not particulrly concerned and after all for NZ this is an area we've not had experience with before. And Defence is naturally evaluating these safety limits. No doubt this is no different to ADF operating Army Blackhawks off their LPA's etc.
Without wanting to bang on continuously about the Seasprite rumour, perhaps there may be some currency in the rumour in that at least the RNZN might be able to acquire helos that are fit for purpose. (Whether the Seasprite is the best option is another point. So is whether the RNZN also needs a cheaper alternative to the AW109 that can operate at sea on support vessels. But perhaps RNZN, as expected, would aim for a more capable platform eg Seasprite or better, for these other support roles, due to experience with the type, simplified training and support, and gives them additional machines if required for any "contingencies" etc)?
Anyway there's a bit to discuss about aspects of this report