Royal New Zealand Air Force

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
No, the Tiger issues have not been sorted yet. As I understand it, some of the issues are a result of Army stuffing up some of the specs. The bulk of the issues I believe actually stem from Eurocopter via Aerospace Australia selling Army/DMO/the ADF a bill of goods based on fiction... The Tiger was supposed to be in service faster, more capable, and have a lower operating cost than the Apache. Unfort, the Tiger is still getting some issues sorted in Europe, and as a result, is years later (6 years IIRC) and the estimated operating costs at present appear to have been rather... optimistic might be the nicest way to phrase it.

At this point, I suspect that the RAN will have at least one of the LHD's and the Bay-class LPD in service before the Tiger ARH reaches IOC with Army.

-Cheers

Edit: Just noticed I forgot to answer the second question. Now, I admit I do not know the correct answer, I strongly suspect that without work (or modifications...) a Tiger would not fit aboard an ANZAC hangar. The Tiger ARH's that Army is supposed to get equipped with AFAIK do not have folding rotors. Therefore, the rotor assembly would most likely need to be at least partially disassembled prior to the Tiger fitting within the hangar.
Thanks. Then, excuse the pun, scratch the Tiger and look at other options. The AH1Z was suggested but it has a skid based undercart and extra deck handling probs i.e., double handling moving it into / out of hangar. Also am unaware if it has rotor folding ability. Reason I state this is that for helo CAS to be realistically advanced, flexibility and NZG demands will mean that any such aircraft will have to have shipborne capability. It would be a difficult evolution on an OPV.
 

Kirkzzy

New Member
No, the Tiger issues have not been sorted yet. As I understand it, some of the issues are a result of Army stuffing up some of the specs. The bulk of the issues I believe actually stem from Eurocopter via Aerospace Australia selling Army/DMO/the ADF a bill of goods based on fiction... The Tiger was supposed to be in service faster, more capable, and have a lower operating cost than the Apache. Unfort, the Tiger is still getting some issues sorted in Europe, and as a result, is years later (6 years IIRC) and the estimated operating costs at present appear to have been rather... optimistic might be the nicest way to phrase it.

At this point, I suspect that the RAN will have at least one of the LHD's and the Bay-class LPD in service before the Tiger ARH reaches IOC with Army.

-Cheers

Edit: Just noticed I forgot to answer the second question. Now, I admit I do not know the correct answer, I strongly suspect that without work (or modifications...) a Tiger would not fit aboard an ANZAC hangar. The Tiger ARH's that Army is supposed to get equipped with AFAIK do not have folding rotors. Therefore, the rotor assembly would most likely need to be at least partially disassembled prior to the Tiger fitting within the hangar.
I was reading somewhere that the Tiger ARH had been tested on board HMAS Kanimbla. Can't remember where exactly (could have been different aircraft) but I have seen a Tiger with folded rotor blades. (might have been a HAP) Someone correct me If I am wrong please. Although if it was a HAP (looking at some Libya videos on board one of the Mistral's) then it would be pretty easy to do the same to an ARH variant.
 

SASWanabe

Member
I was reading somewhere that the Tiger ARH had been tested on board HMAS Kanimbla. Can't remember where exactly (could have been different aircraft) but I have seen a Tiger with folded rotor blades. (might have been a HAP) Someone correct me If I am wrong please. Although if it was a HAP (looking at some Libya videos on board one of the Mistral's) then it would be pretty easy to do the same to an ARH variant.
i think you might have confused MRH-90 with Tiger...

most helicopters can have their blades folded it just takes alot of time. helicopters like the AH-1Z or WAH-64 have automated folding rotors that make it alot quicker.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
i think you might have confused MRH-90 with Tiger...

most helicopters can have their blades folded it just takes alot of time. helicopters like the AH-1Z or WAH-64 have automated folding rotors that make it alot quicker.
I have just been having a read about the WAH-64 and its price is around UK£35 - 40 million per unit (Wikipedia) or US$61 million if bought from Boeing. The Boeing price and the following prices are from Aircraft Compare Aircraft Comparison Compare Airplanes Compare Boeing and Airbus Boeing 787 Airbus A380 Photos Review The WAH 64s have been modified to pommy specs and have addressed issues that were present in the Boeing product. The AW 129 Mangusta is US$63 million so like the Apache pricey especially when an F15E is US$36 million or a F18F Shornet US$55.2 million and an F16 at US$47 million. The Eurocopter Tiger is in two versions the HAP at US$39 million and the UHT at US$43 million per unit. If I was to choose between the three I would go with the WAH64 because the Poms have had experience of using it at sea in combat – HMS Ocean off Libya. But if we are going to spend that amount of money on attack helos then in a fiscal sense a very sound argument could be advanced for fast jets. These prices would give the bean counters and pollies a heart attack and since the argument for fast jets has been rejected, because of cost, Apaches, Mangustas or Tigers aren't going to fly with Kiwi roundels, even though the Tiger is cheaper than the others by a considerable margin.
 
Last edited:

RegR

Well-Known Member
just a query, why does the TTH 90 have differing exhausts to the NFH 90? TTH straight up into the rotors, seen it on some hueys, NFH flush and to the side. Tactical, enviroment, operation?
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I have just been having a read about the WAH-64 and its price is around UK£35 - 40 million per unit (Wikipedia) or US$61 million if bought from Boeing. The Boeing price and the following prices are from Aircraft Compare Aircraft Comparison Compare Airplanes Compare Boeing and Airbus Boeing 787 Airbus A380 Photos Review The WAH 64s have been modified to pommy specs and have addressed issues that were present in the Boeing product. The AW 129 Mangusta is US$63 million so like the Apache pricey especially when an F15E is US$36 million or a F18F Shornet US$55.2 million and an F16 at US$47 million.
Like almost all such comparisons, it's meaningless. It fails to account for inflation (nobody has paid US$36 million for an F-15E for many years - add a digit for current contract prices), changing exchange rates, different price bases (e.g. 'flyaway' vs contract or system prices), etc. And some of the numbers seem to be imaginary.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
I see the RAAF are investigating the purchase of a 6th C-17 following their recent order of a 5th. I wonder what options, if any, the NZG could excersise at this point ie a part funding, use arrangement or even buying one outright to bolster our combined ANZAC transport fleet.

I would love to see us aqquire one under an ANZAC support plan, NZ funded, operated and put into the Aus maintanence cycle with shared taskings (obviously mission dependant). Helps our neighbour share the load and also takes the pressure off our own lift assets giving us alittle more time to sort the eventual Herc replacement.

It takes 2 C-130s to move a single NH90 and 1 can barely move NZLAV, 2 major NZDF problems solved let alone the civil aid assistance the recent disasters here and in Japan have highlighted.

I know the initial up front cost could be a bullet to bite but I beleive the benefits and options afforded will far outweigh the financial hit in the long term.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I see the RAAF are investigating the purchase of a 6th C-17 following their recent order of a 5th. I wonder what options, if any, the NZG could excersise at this point ie a part funding, use arrangement or even buying one outright to bolster our combined ANZAC transport fleet.

I would love to see us aqquire one under an ANZAC support plan, NZ funded, operated and put into the Aus maintanence cycle with shared taskings (obviously mission dependant). Helps our neighbour share the load and also takes the pressure off our own lift assets giving us alittle more time to sort the eventual Herc replacement.

It takes 2 C-130s to move a single NH90 and 1 can barely move NZLAV, 2 major NZDF problems solved let alone the civil aid assistance the recent disasters here and in Japan have highlighted.

I know the initial up front cost could be a bullet to bite but I beleive the benefits and options afforded will far outweigh the financial hit in the long term.
It's not just a matter of whether NZ can afford this, it's a matter of whether such an arrangement is a good thing for Australia too...

Mere altruism for a friend that won't (not can't) fully address it's own defence needs, won't be enough to get such a deal approved...
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
It's not just a matter of whether NZ can afford this, it's a matter of whether such an arrangement is a good thing for Australia too...

Mere altruism for a friend that won't (not can't) fully address it's own defence needs, won't be enough to get such a deal approved...
To be honest I think there is more enthusiasm on the NZ side of the ditch than the OZ side about some form of Kiwi C-17 tie in and that it is way too late now anyway.

The best way forward would be for NZ to secure some of the A-400M's the Germans are wanting to on-sell post production and the RAAF go on to get its 6th C-17. Us flying half a dozen of the Grizz and the RAAF half a dozen of the C-17 shouldn't make any form of Joint Airlift Concept unworkable. To the contrary in fact.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
I just thought due to the joint airlift the 2 DFs were proposeing awhile ago (so at least one Aussie likes the idea) would be better served with this option rather than our 5 aged Hs and 2 'reliabe' 757s.
A C17 option could be acheived rather soonish as opposed to A400 which is due..........
The A400s can replace the Hercs when and if govt goes down that track in 2015,20,25? but I am referencing now.
An extra C17 in the region can only benefit Aus, how could/would it not? Even if Aus did not use it it would mean we would not require theirs so can only help. An NZ AC could have attended CHCH freeing up the AUS C17s to concentrate on Japan, prov an extra AC for training, serve domestic needs etc. I would not expect Australia to pay for it or even crew it which is exactly why I am against a buy in on a kind of rent space idea to avoid Aus thinking we are takeing away from them, even though this type of deal works for HMNZS Canterbury our own aircraft would provide less hassles.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
To be honest I think there is more enthusiasm on the NZ side of the ditch than the OZ side about some form of Kiwi C-17 tie in and that it is way too late now anyway.

The best way forward would be for NZ to secure some of the A-400M's the Germans are wanting to on-sell post production and the RAAF go on to get its 6th C-17. Us flying half a dozen of the Grizz and the RAAF half a dozen of the C-17 shouldn't make any form of Joint Airlift Concept unworkable. To the contrary in fact.
I agree with the Joint Airlift Concept being a good idea, I'm just not certain that joint ownership of Defence assets is such a good idea. There is certainly a lot more consideration that has to be given to the idea, rather than just the "this will idea provide each nation more airlift" style of thinking.

I'm sure it would, but at what cost? Would it in fact be a more costly option than the more usual path of each nation simply buying it's own additional capability? At what detriment to each nation's own independent capabilities (when the joint asset is unavailable for instance) and what effect would this have on the training, support and logistic functions we have established for our own use?

What about the effect on ITARS issues? Is NZ cleared for access to the Nemesis AN/AAQ-24 DIRCM for instance? What about sovereignty issues? Will NZ or Australia turn a blind eye if the capability is proposed to be used for an operational purpose contrary to one of the users Political or Foreign policy standing?

All of these issues and probably more have to be worked through before any "joint" ownership of an asset could be contemplated.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
What about the effect on ITARS issues? Is NZ cleared for access to the Nemesis AN/AAQ-24 DIRCM for instance? What about sovereignty issues? Will NZ or Australia turn a blind eye if the capability is proposed to be used for an operational purpose contrary to one of the users Political or Foreign policy standing?
ITARs may well be an issue as the US has only revised and fast tracked the ITARS processing for UK and Aust
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
I agree with the Joint Airlift Concept being a good idea, I'm just not certain that joint ownership of Defence assets is such a good idea. There is certainly a lot more consideration that has to be given to the idea, rather than just the "this will idea provide each nation more airlift" style of thinking.

I'm sure it would, but at what cost? Would it in fact be a more costly option than the more usual path of each nation simply buying it's own additional capability? At what detriment to each nation's own independent capabilities (when the joint asset is unavailable for instance) and what effect would this have on the training, support and logistic functions we have established for our own use?

What about the effect on ITARS issues? Is NZ cleared for access to the Nemesis AN/AAQ-24 DIRCM for instance? What about sovereignty issues? Will NZ or Australia turn a blind eye if the capability is proposed to be used for an operational purpose contrary to one of the users Political or Foreign policy standing?

All of these issues and probably more have to be worked through before any "joint" ownership of an asset could be contemplated.
Again all these issues is why I am NOT suggesting joint ownership specifically to avoid. I think if we were to do this NZ buys AC outright, not shared ownership, the only thing we share is use, not crew(again mission dependant and even then not all tasks are warlike) and Australias already set up maintanence line(no point having our own for 1 AC), we would even provide our own maintainers just need to borrow RAAFs toolbox now and then. Would be akin to us sending a navy vessel to Aus for joint operations but we still maintain C+C of that vessel at the end of the day.

If we are not cleared for anything then take it out, we want the aircrafts capabilities not some secret squirrel gucci add ons (kiwis can make use of the basics which is why we have working seasprites dig dig), we'll take one off the Indian assembly line and Im sure we will make it work.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If we are not cleared for anything then take it out, we want the aircrafts capabilities not some secret squirrel gucci add ons (kiwis can make use of the basics which is why we have working seasprites dig dig), we'll take one off the Indian assembly line and Im sure we will make it work.
Its unlikely to be an issue of whether NZ is cleared to get gear - its about the actual State Dept processing and Congressional approval times.

After all, NZ SF are already getting access to gucci stuff faster than normal.

The fast track process is compressing what could take 12-15 months down to 3 months. In the scheme of things that may be the same time it takes to get a clean build without breaking the line. In the case of shortened delivery, and in Australias case its been due to extant customers being prepared to forego their own delivery to assist (eg SHornets and SF capability).

I can't see the Indians getting full fitout anyway as they still don't seem to get that they will not get full ToT on some of the gucci gear - and are just as likely anyway to want to integrate either israeli or their own (if available and mature enough). On that basis, assuming that they were prepared to break their own run, then you could pull an early platform from the line.

Again, the issue is not so much whether the US would say no, its just that their fast track arrangements are currently only in place with UK and Aust. I'm sure the NZ LO in Washington would be working out a fast way forward if NZG wanted any gear that wasn't part of the standard fitout - after all, there is no way that they would send trucks into Afghanistan without some DIRCM solution fitted.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Ahh yes the state department, caused us all kinds of headaches with the skyhawk debacle and the selling/disposeing of, cost the taxpayer alot of unnecessary funds on something that(if known) could have been nipped in the bud alot sooner.

That is why I suggested an Indian line AC vs US(Aus) as I assumed they would be a technically dummed down version of a still very capable aircraft therefore an easier purchase, but yes due to our coalition interaoperability like systems would be more beneficial even if a grace period was required.

Agree GF things are still getting alot more streamlined approval wise in terms of operational equipment, hopefully a continueing and improving trend for any future aqquisitions.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Ahh yes the state department, caused us all kinds of headaches with the skyhawk debacle and the selling/disposeing of, cost the taxpayer alot of unnecessary funds on something that(if known) could have been nipped in the bud alot sooner.

That is why I suggested an Indian line AC vs US(Aus) as I assumed they would be a technically dummed down version of a still very capable aircraft therefore an easier purchase, but yes due to our coalition interaoperability like systems would be more beneficial even if a grace period was required.

Agree GF things are still getting alot more streamlined approval wise in terms of operational equipment, hopefully a continueing and improving trend for any future aqquisitions.
One needs to remember though, whenever making any purchase of US kit one does run into FMS issues, unless there are special exemptions already in place. So ITARS would still be an issue if the RNZAF went to purchase C-17's built to Indian Air Force specs.

-Cheers
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
One needs to remember though, whenever making any purchase of US kit one does run into FMS issues, unless there are special exemptions already in place. So ITARS would still be an issue if the RNZAF went to purchase C-17's built to Indian Air Force specs.

-Cheers
Yes aware of the foreign military sales approval process however Im sure something like a heavy lift cargo plane should'nt be too much of a issue for a 'freind',- helps an ally, helps their industry, improves coalition lift just that little bit etc.
If the US were prepared to sell us 28 F16s I'd like to hope 1 C17 would'nt cause a problem.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Im not sure 1 C-17 is the way to go. Given the problems of avalibility etc of 1 aircraft I think NZ might be better off investing in C27j and hercs. Something that could be operated from NZ and yet still have significant operational importance and just lease aircraft when needed (or partnered with allies) for strategic lifting.

Its not ideal, but workable.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Im not sure 1 C-17 is the way to go. Given the problems of avalibility etc of 1 aircraft I think NZ might be better off investing in C27j and hercs. Something that could be operated from NZ and yet still have significant operational importance and just lease aircraft when needed (or partnered with allies) for strategic lifting.

Its not ideal, but workable.
I was reading somewhere, I think on DT - I've had a few sleeps since then :), that the standard pallets the C130's use have to be turned sideways (Chinese we called it when I worked in freight forwarding years ago) to fit in the C27J because they are to wide to be loaded normally - aircraft too narrow. Hence it cuts down on number of pallets able to be carried, plus adds time to loading / unloading due to double handling on both evolutions.

I have also been cogitating upon what would be optimal for the RNZAF, not necessarily what the Nigels in Treasury would agree too, but what I think would be acceptable all around, if a really good case could be presented and the bean counters could see the long term economies.

The C17 is not really a goer because of practicalities, even if we had a water tight maintenance and temporary aircraft lease agreement with the ADF. Secondly, buying time on a ADF C17 may or may not be practical depending upon ADF operational requirements. The fact that the ADF have given the USG a letter requesting options for purchasing a 6th C17 suggests that the ADF are already having a lot of operational use of their 5 aircraft. Thirdly an ANZAC buy of a C17, whilst I did originally support it, is probably not a runner either because of differing national policies.

IMHO the force structure of RNZAF could be as follows. This is a holistic view.

5 (4) x A400M. Whilst there are issues with this aircraft at the moment these should be sorted out. The present C130H LEP has given maybe 10 years before replacement and in this time the A400M will have achieved IOC and be fully operation in Air Forces like the RAF, Luftwaffe, Armee de l' Air etc. The reason for 5 (4), is 4 (3) x operational aircraft and 1 cannibalised as spares. Late last year the German Government informed Airbus / EADS that it was reducing it's A400M order by 13 aircraft. So 13 slots are available, however it would be best to wait until the aircraft is IOC with other Air Forces and bugs worked out.

12 x C295 with 6 x transport and 4 as Maritime Patrol, 2 cannibalised for spares.

No C130s. The A400M / C295 combination would fill all of the roles that the C130 does at moment plus adds extra capability at either end of the scale. That is a strategic lift capacity and a battlefield tactical airlift capacity. I note on another forum it has been mentioned that the C130J has been having wing issues.

5 x P8 to replace P3K2 maybe 2020- 2025.

18 x AW159 Wildcats. 6 x flight decks at moment plus the Endeavour replacement which is to be a MRV. I am still arguing for a CAS helo role and the Wildcat is best on offer, because it is specifically designed to switch between Naval and Land use, with a 1/2 an hour to switch between roles. 18 helos would give 7 at sea, 8 ashore and 3 cannibalised as spares. The Wildcat is armed with 7.62mm MGs and I think that is a bit light. I would think a fixed 25mm Bushmaster, a fixed M2 Browning .50cal and 2 x MAG 58 door MGs would suit NZs purpose. The RNZN and NZ Army use both weapons and all 3 services use the MAG 58 so ammo, maintenance etc., would not be an issue. However whilst the firepower would be good, the weight could be an issue, but maybe not. My argument for this firepower is that NZDF does not have indigenous attack platforms (apart from P3K2s dropping 500lb bombs, 5 x sick Seasprites and MAG 58 door guns on helos), so we have to utilise what we have. The other weapons (missiles, torpedoes, depth charges etc.,), comms, data systems would have to be compatible with the ADF and USN, so that we are able to slot into their C4 & logistics train. IIRC the Wildcat goes IOC Feb 2012 with RN or the Pommy army. I will have to look it up again. Finally this gives NZDF a capability it never has had - CAS availability from an indigenous flight deck.

The 3 extra AW109s that have been ordered could be armoured and armed so as to enable training in the CAS role. There is an armed version of it being marketed.

I note that in June / July this year our illustrious and treasured Great Leader in Defence (Mapp), said that the NZG was looking at buying 6 x turboprop trainers for the RNZAF along the lines of the PC9, Tucano etc., to provide advanced training after the CT4E. IIRC I think 2013 was the year they were looking at. He also stated that were looking at CN235s but because the ADF hadn't decided what to buy as the Caribou replacement they can't (?) make a decision yet.

Possibly 2 x KC30 MRTTs. This would continue a capability that the B757s do at the moment plus the tanking capability. If this option was taken it would be best that the aircraft are to the same specs as those flown by the RAAF. The RAAF conversions (bar the first) are being down in Australia on standard Airbus A330 airframes, so maintenance and spares etc would not be a large issue because it is just across the ditch. Also this provides extra tanker support in the Pacific, which would be seen as a bonus both by the ADF and the USN / USAF.

I am bound to have left something out.

NM
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
As I see we are discussing transport AC on the other page, thought I would bring it back to the more relevant site.

There are a few options I would now like to see explored in terms of C130H replacement(god knows when now) with each having their merits and problems.

Option A: 5 C130Js, 1 C17(again NZ OWNED not shared)- C17 maintanence plan with Aus, maybe even based with Aus squadron for ease of training, logistics etc, probably expensive.

Option B: 4 A400Ms- Still has issues, not proven(so may still get issues), ideally 5 but cost a factor

Option C: 8 C130Js- does not solve outsize lift issue

All these combined with 6 CN295 to cover smaller tasks, MPA, multi engine conversion etc and we'll be looking pretty peachy transport wise.

I may seem alittle conservative with numbers in some areas but just being a realist for little old NZ and going off what we currently have with what should cover off in that given area to a minimum(NZ Govt favourite) or has previously been mooted.

I suppose at the end of the day all options will be expensive(for NZ) but to varying degrees of options ticked off and problems solved.

If we are waiting to see what Aus does in terms of CN295/C27j in terms of interoperability then do we really need to? Will the gains outweigh the costs? Even though we operate alot together its not as if we say "oh your pilots can borrow our planes, just drop it back next week", its not like a unimog, not just going to hand over the keys. They use theirs and maintain them we use ours and maintain them and we have our own supply chain so unless we get cheaper parts but then do we actually? Information sharing is good on common equipment but at what cost.

The CN is cheaper to buy, operate and maintain and covers the roles we require so could get more realistic numbers instead of having the same as our mates across the ditch for the odd occasion they will work together(and by that I mean they are in the same general area) and Im sure ANZAC troops will figure out how to sit in the back of a plane regardless of what it is.

Just my theory anyway.
 
Top