One thing which IMO is needed is an actual determination, both for current and future projected deployment use of naval helicopters.
I say this because, while I think there would be a benefit to both the NZDF and ADF for there to be ten MH-60R 'Romeos' flying with the Kiwi roundel, there would be a significant cost for them (purchase and ongoing) as well as issue with the NZDF being able to fully utilize them.
Totally agree. As the report reminds us the original brief was for 5 a/c, of which to embark 3 upon the 3 Frigates the RNZN operated when the SH-2G was acquired in 2001, a 4th helicopter in NZ for training, SAR, and other local tasks. The 5th helicopter would be undergoing extended maintenance. (See report pg 18 para 1.9).
That gives the ratio of 1.67 a/c to 1 embarked flight. Compared with the RAN's ratio of 3 to 1, if NZDF were to match that then in 2001 it should have acquired 9 SH-2G's to allow 3 embarked flights .... however on the other hand it appears again from the report that there wasn't an expectation to have 3 Frigates at sea concurrently - 2 Frigates would be more likely and in that case perhaps one could argue that 6 SH-2G's would be the absolute minimum number required. If so, then definitely the acquistion was 1 short if the NZDF were funded sufficiently to follow the ADF ratio.
If the Govt (or the Treasury etc) back around the early 2000's was relying on only 2 Frigates being operational (not 3) at one time to justify the 5 a/c, then further justified the 5 a/c (by not acquiring a 6th airframe) when the then change in Govt announced it would not replace the 3rd Frigate when she decomissioned in 2005, surely this arguement would be shot down by the fact that the intended 3rd Frigate replacement was supposed to be a large multi-purpose patrol vessel/MRV capable of carrying a helicopter. In other words the RNZN was (and did) expect to continue to operate 3 helo capable vessels (2 Frigates and 1 MRV aka sealift ship,
Canterbury) & it would be more likely that in this instance all 3 vessels could be at sea at once. So clearly, back in the early-mid 2000's as Project Protector commenced, the NZDF were at least 1 SH-2G short (as many of us here commented upon in recent years).
Then as the report goes on to say the 2 helo capable OPV's were acquired (but with no increase in a/c numbers). But quite remarkably for some reason the report says the (NZG) expectation was to still only maintain the 3 embarked flights - 1 Frigate, 1 on Canterbury and 1 OPV. This is just nonsense (NZG - not report authors) as we've just witnessed (in 2011) both Frigates at sea together recently on exercise in Australian & SEA waters, and both OPV's at sea together. There's clearly not enough airframes and the big mystery is why wasn't this addressed during Project Protector? (Rhetorical question I suppose, as the answer was the last administration had their head in the sand when it came to realities. It looks like this administration will address this issue but at a glacial pace along with everything else).
At present, there are five RNZN ships which can take one or more helicopters. As we all should already know, these are the two frigates, the two OPVs and Canterbury. However, the two OPVs cannot support combat operations from naval helicopters, as the OPVs lack a helicopter magazine in the hangar. I am not certain if that was a design oversight, a deliberate choice in the tender, or a limitation imposed by the level of programme funding... Between that, and the fact that they are OPVs which means much of the more advanced shipboard electronics and datalinks are usually absent, the combat and more advanced surveillance functions of the MH-60R would not be used when deployed aboard the OPVs. Also, there is the potential issue of the MH-60R 'fitting' into the OPV hangar. As the RAN has apparently already found out, the NFH-90 just barely fit into an ANZAC hangar, with the fit tight enough to make shipboard support functions problematical. The MH-60R might face the same sort of issue aboard the smaller OPVs.
Canterbury might have a similar issue with respect to a hangar magazine, as well as the comms facilities to make use of the surveillance capabilities of a 'Romeo'. And this concern just involves the current makeup of the RNZN.
The OPV (and
Canterbury) hangers was designed to be the same size (and replicate) the ANZAC Frigates, according to the last administration & Defence. So if a Seahawk or "Romeo" can fit in a RAN ANZAC hanger, which the Seahawk does, then it will fit in the RNZN OPV and
Canterbury in theory.
In terms of retaining the Seasprite (and undertaking a MLU around 2015 as per DWP), there are some advantages to keeping them.
Firstly in terms of the MoD report the CDF stated "Many of the report’s recommendations are already in the process of being implemented. A number are more complex and will take time to investigate before informed action can be taken". So we can assume this means solutions to the "engineering issues" are being addressed whilst the "supply issues" are being assessed (with SAFE & Kaman etc). Ditto "personnel issues" (although it appears to me that there isn't enough technical staff & there's no indication that this should be addressed, simply training, posting cycles and administration arrangements between shore and sea areas. One thing I don't understand is why personnel leave after 3 years - to be extended to 4 years - do they move to another squadron like no3 Huey/NH-90? This doesn't make sense for an organisation to train people and let them go so soon. Perhaps it was a sweeping comment in the report and some personnel stay longer and/or if promoted etc)?
The second advantage is that the Seasprite is now a known platform, procedures & training regimes have been put into place, and a range of personnel have experience with the platform from aircrew to maintainers etc. In other words, no upheavels mean business as usual and the platform is certified etc. The Seasprite has been (and is) a good helo for the RNZN, it works and has provided valuable service from Frigates operating around NZ, down to Antarctica, north to SEA and westwards into the Gulf i.e. in hot and cold conditions! (Even the interim SH-2F's were useful in ET in 1999 tracking Indonesian surface vessels according to the historical account of NZDF in ET).
The third advantage is, the Seasprite in some respects is ideal for use on the OPV's and
Canterbury. Whilst these class of vessel may not be warships with the appropriate weapon magazines fitted and comms/sensors etc, at least these vessels get a good survellience and utility helo to extend the awareness of the vessels in the EEZ patrol, CT & PSI (proliferation security initiative) role. In other words I'd rather the NZG allow the NZDF have the Seasprite than say a Squirel or even AW109 etc, with a lesser sensor suite.
The 4th advantage is, there have been murmurs the NZG is considering acquiring the ex-ADF Seasprites (dirt cheap from Kaman) meaning NZDF will have attrition airframes and spares, but also additional airframes for the new vessels recently (and to be) commissioned.
On the other hand clearly there are disadvantages with retaining the Seasprites.
As the report notes, NZ is the lead operator for an a/c type that is no longer in service with the USN and there are not many examples flying (and the last simulator has been decomissioned). There is severe risk here for the NZG/NZDF. Then there are the corrosion issues ...
The other disadvantage is the ADF experience whereby $1B was pumped into their fleet which never entered service. Why would the NZG think NZ would not end up in the same predicament when clearly Kaman don't give a rats arse? What I mean is if the NZG enter into a MLU around 2015 what's to say there won't be similar issues integrating new technology into a small airframe and which has not been attempted before? Also presumably the ex-ADF airframes will need some expenditure to remove some ADF specific systems that NZDF won't require?
The real concern I have is even if a basic MLU is successful (at which point the SH-2G is approx 15 years old, then from previous experience the NZG will expect at least another 15 years life out of them (2030-2031). They have to be kidding if they think they will last that long when already there are issues with getting support from Kaman. But knowing NZG's and Treasury that will be the expectation.
So I say, sure perhaps upgrade them at the MLU point and possibly acquire additional airframes, but only as an interim measure until say 2020 (but a 5 year MLU life? That's not normal for NZ) & replace with a new type around 2020.
Or better still acquire a new type in 2015 for the Frigates (but consider keeping the Seasprites flying off the OPV's i.e. a two-tier fleet ... but that will have support/training overhead headaches for a small defence force with limited personnel and resources).
Or much better still, bite the bullet at 2015 and replace the Seasprite entirely with a new type. Now whilst the "Romeo" appears attractive in many ways (eg compatibility with ADF/USN in terms of support/training & has upgrade path which NZ can leverage off etc), the Treasury will squeal like pigs being roasted alive at the cost to buy the 10-15 or so airframes (or by then RNZN will have 7 helo capable ships, if the RAN ratio was followed then NZ would need 21 Romeos), so here's a thought, would it be possible to operate a "mixed" Romeo fleet? Eg say 6 Romeos purchased for the 2 Frigates (2 in use, 2 for training/standby, 2 in phase maintenance) with the full sensor/weapon integration fit out a la RAN but also another 6-8 or so or more Romeos "fitted for but not with" the full sensor/weapon suite, which would never be needed for the OPV,
Canterbury and replacement JSS & LWSS (apart from the search radar & data links for networked SA etc)? The clear advantage here is the one type to simplify support and training etc, and the one type to allow interoperability with the ADF. I'm saying this in recognition that the sensors etc, are the items that blow out the costs of a/c (and ships etc). The other advantage is, the FFBNW types could be upgraded (i.e. modules acquired and plugged in) if for whatever reason occurred that justified them eg purchase of additional future Frigates (or OPV sensors upgraded in the future, which has been signalled etc). I have no idea if this is realistic in terms of bringing costs down but I do hope Defence is investigating this possibility.
