Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ADMk2]

Amen to that Ngati, Umm what did AU seasprites acheive exactly? Currently working and did not work cannot be compared. You can have all the bells and whistles you want but if it does not work then all you have is bells and whistles that do not work, looks good on paper but at the end of the day yours are back in bubble wrap and ours are still flying.
Our 90s are different because they are built in France and yours in Aus, ours are grey yours are auscam, ours have cupholders yours have a fridge, we got Dave Dobbyn in the stereo you have AC/DC, subtle but distinct differences. At least one thing about getting ours later is hopefully lessons learnt and any issues found can be better rectified or are at least known.........hopefully.

Our MRH-90's were built in France too. They were only assembled and painted in Australia...

It is not the assembly nor paint that is the problem with them. It's the engines, airframes, gearboxes, windscreens, helmet sighting system, floors, door gun mounts, software, avionics, lack of overall contractor support, lack of spare parts and so on...

There is no reason to believe based on NH Industries general overall lack of performance on every NH-90 contract it has signed, that NZ's will be in any better state than Australia's.

In my opinion we all bought a turd they are attempting furiously to polish...

 

[Kirkzzy]

I'll speculate. Australia was willing to pay more to build in Australia whereas New Zealand was interested in the lowest price.

Domestically produced equipment is always at least a third cheaper than its stated price. (Company taxes, income taxes) Probably much cheaper than even that (profit being spent in the local economy and wages being collected again through GST)... it all goes on. However this would not serve NZ as it would all be produced in Australia and so wouldn't make a difference.

 

[Sea Toby]

Our MRH-90's were built in France too. They were only assembled and painted in Australia...

It is not the assembly nor paint that is the problem with them. It's the engines, airframes, gearboxes, windscreens, helmet sighting system, floors, door gun mounts, software, avionics, lack of overall contractor support, lack of spare parts and so on...

There is no reason to believe based on NH Industries general overall lack of performance on every NH-90 contract it has signed, that NZ's will be in any better state than Australia's.

In my opinion we all bought a turd they are attempting furiously to polish...

Nations get so used to the American military supply chain they tend to forget when they buy new equipment from other nations those other nations don't have a similar supply chain with their products. Recently European nations have noticed their dependence upon the American munitions chain as well.

 

[ADMk2]

Nations get so used to the American military supply chain they tend to forget when they buy new equipment from other nations those other nations don't have a similar supply chain with their products. Recently European nations have noticed their dependence upon the American munitions chain as well.

I agree, which begs the question, why buy European then? They demonstrably can't support peacetime training and limited operational support requirements even for their own forces.

God forbid they be asked to ramp up for a wartime scenario they aren't even involved in...

 

[RegR]

Our MRH-90's were built in France too. They were only assembled and painted in Australia...

It is not the assembly nor paint that is the problem with them. It's the engines, airframes, gearboxes, windscreens, helmet sighting system, floors, door gun mounts, software, avionics, lack of overall contractor support, lack of spare parts and so on...

There is no reason to believe based on NH Industries general overall lack of performance on every NH-90 contract it has signed, that NZ's will be in any better state than Australia's.

In my opinion we all bought a turd they are attempting furiously to polish...

Oh trust me Im not the one here saying ours will be any better just that ours are being built in a different loc and with the time delay therefore hopefully will not repeat the same problems as Aus and others, we do have a nack for not over complicating platforms however, this does come with pros and cons like workable equipment but less capable, cheaper but orphan etc etc.

We will wait and see if we get a lemon or a golden egg but as I have said we cannot afford to get this capability wrong as we do not have the funds to abandon and go with something else like the AU seasprite project.

 

[ADMk2]

Oh trust me Im not the one here saying ours will be any better just that ours are being built in a different loc and with the time delay therefore hopefully will not repeat the same problems as Aus and others, we do have a nack for not over complicating platforms however, this does come with pros and cons like workable equipment but less capable, cheaper but orphan etc etc.

We will wait and see if we get a lemon or a golden egg but as I have said we cannot afford to get this capability wrong as we do not have the funds to abandon and go with something else like the AU seasprite project.

Again I agree, in fact I was amazed RNZAF went with the NH-90. Seems to me that something like a UH-60M may have been a more suitable airframe given the smaller budget and need to have absolutely no signifcant issue with the acquisition.

I can't imagine the NH-90 was cheaper than the UH-60m (and NZ's NZD $771m budget certainly seems to indicate it isn't) and whilst it might carry a slightly larger larger load, 8 v 12 (at least) helicopters seems like no contest at all to me, especially when you have the crews available obviously given the larger number of UH-1H's currently in service.

As an example, Sweden ordered 15x UH-60M's plus a complete logistic, training and support package for $546m in 2010.

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2010/Sweden_10-63.pdf

When I see deals like that, I honestly wonder how well Australia and New Zealand chose with our respective programs...

 

[Sea Toby]

Again I agree, in fact I was amazed RNZAF went with the NH-90. Seems to me that something like a UH-60M may have been a more suitable airframe given the smaller budget and need to have absolutely no signifcant issue with the acquisition.

I can't imagine the NH-90 was cheaper than the UH-60m (and NZ's NZD $771m budget certainly seems to indicate it isn't) and whilst it might carry a slightly larger larger load, 8 v 12 (at least) helicopters seems like no contest at all to me, especially when you have the crews available obviously given the larger number of UH-1H's currently in service.

As an example, Sweden ordered 15x UH-60M's plus a complete logistic, training and support package for $546m in 2010.

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2010/Sweden_10-63.pdf

When I see deals like that, I honestly wonder how well Australia and New Zealand chose with our respective programs...

To be fair the $546 million Swedish order probably doesn't include operational costs for a score or more of years alike the Australians and Kiwis include with their figures. Not everyone includes these budgetary figures with their purchases up front so appropriations costs vary significantly from nation to nation.

I wished everyone used the same base for appropriation figures.

I figure the Aussies wanted a better helicopter and blindly believed Eurocopter with the specifications. Furthermore, they may have been cheaper in their minds with off sets of assembly in country, which has been noted a few posts before. The Kiwis more or less followed Australia's lead.

But a German news article is very condemning of the NH90. Read link:

Germany not happy with NH90 helicopter - UPI.com

However, it appears no one has cancelled any NH90 orders, so I figure the helicopter isn't a total lemon. They are still an upgrade as far as New Zealand is concerned. And as far as the press is concerned, read them with a grain of salt, because in the press' minds all new weapons systems are lemons.

 

[RegR]

Again I agree, in fact I was amazed RNZAF went with the NH-90. Seems to me that something like a UH-60M may have been a more suitable airframe given the smaller budget and need to have absolutely no signifcant issue with the acquisition.

I can't imagine the NH-90 was cheaper than the UH-60m (and NZ's NZD $771m budget certainly seems to indicate it isn't) and whilst it might carry a slightly larger larger load, 8 v 12 (at least) helicopters seems like no contest at all to me, especially when you have the crews available obviously given the larger number of UH-1H's currently in service.

As an example, Sweden ordered 15x UH-60M's plus a complete logistic, training and support package for $546m in 2010.

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2010/Sweden_10-63.pdf

When I see deals like that, I honestly wonder how well Australia and New Zealand chose with our respective programs...

Yip think the main reason we went with the 90s is due to the fact you guys went with them as our guys are big on interaoperability, to what level will be seen helo wise although we do have a few guys posted to Aus army gleaning their NH90 experience to date so at least in a info sharing capacity.

The extra troops, ramp door and avionics will also be a big advantage but then again would not have taken much to leap frog a 40 year old huey so a proven UH-60 would have also greatly benefitted NZ and already be operational. Made the D now so gotta make the best of it, who knows may well end up a very capable aircraft and we could be singing praises in a couple of years on both sides of the Tasmen.

 

[Sea Toby]

While a Blackhawk would have been an upgrade for New Zealand, they weren't much of an upgrade for Australia, who have been using Blackhawks for a score of years. I'm not sure, but I believe when Australia made their decision to go with NH90s, they hadn't made up their minds to buy new Chinooks too. But I may be wrong. If so, no one can blame the Aussies wanting a larger helicopter.

I have a feeling the gremlins will be addressed over time and the helicopters will end up being a great buy. If the Europeans can't get it right, the Aussies will...

 

[ADMk2]

To be fair the $546 million Swedish order probably doesn't include operational costs for a score or more of years alike the Australians and Kiwis include with their figures. Not everyone includes these budgetary figures with their purchases up front so appropriations costs vary significantly from nation to nation.

I wished everyone used the same base for appropriation figures.

I figure the Aussies wanted a better helicopter and blindly believed Eurocopter with the specifications. Furthermore, they may have been cheaper in their minds with off sets of assembly in country, which has been noted a few posts before. The Kiwis more or less followed Australia's lead.

But a German news article is very condemning of the NH90. Read link:

Germany not happy with NH90 helicopter - UPI.com

However, it appears no one has cancelled any NH90 orders, so I figure the helicopter isn't a total lemon. They are still an upgrade as far as New Zealand is concerned. And as far as the press is concerned, read them with a grain of salt, because in the press' minds all new weapons systems are lemons.

That announcement unlike most is quite specific in announcing that Sweden has ordered a complete support, traing and logistic package, a statement quite different to the usual fluff.

Doesn't say for how many years that complete support is provided for but the total cost of Sweden's package is $546m.

As to Australia and it's purchase of NH-90, that was a political decision. Army wanted UH-60M...

 

[ADMk2]

To be fair the $546 million Swedish order probably doesn't include operational costs for a score or more of years alike the Australians and Kiwis include with their figures. Not everyone includes these budgetary figures with their purchases up front so appropriations costs vary significantly from nation to nation.

I wished everyone used the same base for appropriation figures.

I figure the Aussies wanted a better helicopter and blindly believed Eurocopter with the specifications. Furthermore, they may have been cheaper in their minds with off sets of assembly in country, which has been noted a few posts before. The Kiwis more or less followed Australia's lead.

But a German news article is very condemning of the NH90. Read link:

Germany not happy with NH90 helicopter - UPI.com

However, it appears no one has cancelled any NH90 orders, so I figure the helicopter isn't a total lemon. They are still an upgrade as far as New Zealand is concerned. And as far as the press is concerned, read them with a grain of salt, because in the press' minds all new weapons systems are lemons.

That announcement unlike most is quite specific in announcing that Sweden has ordered a complete support, traing and logistic package:smilieI

 

[Sea Toby]

That announcement unlike most is quite specific in announcing that Sweden has ordered a complete support, traing and logistic package:smilieI

True, but the Swedes aren't figuring in likely (unlikely) fuel costs alike New Zealand for the next twenty or more years. I haven't a clue how anyone could forecast fuel costs accurately for the future.

There have been over 2600 UH-60 helicopters delivered, there have been only around 500 NH90s ordered. That is a big difference in production numbers.

 

[ngatimozart]

True, but the Swedes aren't figuring in likely (unlikely) fuel costs alike New Zealand for the next twenty or more years. I haven't a clue how anyone could forecast fuel costs accurately for the future.

There have been over 2600 UH-60 helicopters delivered, there have been only around 500 NH90s ordered. That is a big difference in production numbers.

Well the first two are here. We're committed and now we'll just have to wait and see if we have a lemon or a pavlova. Hopefully the latter.

 

[aussienscale]

Amen to that Ngati, Umm what did AU seasprites acheive exactly? Currently working and did not work cannot be compared. You can have all the bells and whistles you want but if it does not work then all you have is bells and whistles that do not work, looks good on paper but at the end of the day yours are back in bubble wrap and ours are still flying.
Our 90s are different because they are built in France and yours in Aus, ours are grey yours are auscam, ours have cupholders yours have a fridge, we got Dave Dobbyn in the stereo you have AC/DC, subtle but distinct differences. At least one thing about getting ours later is hopefully lessons learnt and any issues found can be better rectified or are at least known.........hopefully.

Your the one who brought up the Seasprites, so not up to me to answer your own question. I don't see how your original comment was relevant to what I had asked ? So because you brought it up I asked (admittedly in a bit of a smart arse manner, keeping in line with your comment) what relevance the project had to the 90's and how you think there is a comparison between the NZ Sprites and the Australian project. I am happy NZ have them flying, but not particulary interested in a pissing competition. My original question was about any information on why they went for French assembly and not back onto the Australian build ?

 

[ngatimozart]

Your the one who brought up the Seasprites, so not up to me to answer your own question. I don't see how your original comment was relevant to what I had asked ? So because you brought it up I asked (admittedly in a bit of a smart arse manner, keeping in line with your comment) what relevance the project had to the 90's and how you think there is a comparison between the NZ Sprites and the Australian project. I am happy NZ have them flying, but not particulary interested in a pissing competition. My original question was about any information on why they went for French assembly and not back onto the Australian build ?

Dunno know mate. Maybe because you guys are building the MRH and our model is the TTH. Then again it could have been a political decision considering who was PM at the time. You'd have to ask some who may have been closer to the decision making process at the time.

 

[aussienscale]

Dunno know mate. Maybe because you guys are building the MRH and our model is the TTH. Then again it could have been a political decision considering who was PM at the time. You'd have to ask some who may have been closer to the decision making process at the time.

The "MRH" AFAIK is the TTH, MRH is just the Australian designation used, though I am sure there could be subtle differences between the various requirements of each country ?
I am not sure if you guy's have taken my original question the wrong way, but judging by the replies, I am guessing you have ? I am not saying either option would have been better or worse for NZ, not having a go that NZ did not join in with Aus nor insisting they should do everything and join every build we do, just curious as to why they went this way, there are pro's and con's in either option, but as for Australia going with US on many things, there are many benefits not often seen or reported in doing such a thing, as there are for NZ joining Australia in projects

Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

The "MRH" AFAIK is the TTH, MRH is just the Australian designation used, though I am sure there could be subtle differences between the various requirements of each country ?

Hey aussienscale, I thought the previous NZ defmin made a brief comment years ago as to why NZ bought the NH-90 from Europe rather than the Australian assembled MRH-90 but I've spent the last half-hour searching the then Govt press-releases to no avail. From vague recall it may have been a matter of timing eg the package included machines off the line but more importantly training with the Germans and French, meaning that NZ could accelerate the process to get them into service (as the Huey was long overdue for replacement & NZ didn't have the luxury of already operating say the Blackhawk in the interim - which was better kitted out for the deployment/tempos of the time etc).

But you may also have a point (subtle differences between the various requirements of each country), NZG may have wanted to save some dollars by not incorporating the full Oz mods done to the MRH90's?
(Other than that there has been no real public explanation over here, as it mystified me at the time too).

The real answer though, like AD's comment on the ADF acquiring the MRH90 in the first place, was probably politics. Former Govt had many dealings with various Euro Govts (as the EU was taking more of an interest in affairs down under in terms of development aid and projects etc), and if one could be a wee cynical those contacts and dealings (and thus support) may have been helpful for our former PM's ambitions post NZ politics ... but hey I shouldn't be so cynical eh

 

[dave_kiwi]

Hey aussienscale, I thought the previous NZ defmin made a brief comment years ago as to why NZ bought the NH-90 from Europe rather than the Australian assembled MRH-90 but I've spent the last half-hour searching the then Govt press-releases to no avail. From vague recall it may have been a matter of timing eg the package included machines off the line but more importantly training with the Germans and French, meaning that NZ could accelerate the process to get them into service (as the Huey was long overdue for replacement & NZ didn't have the luxury of already operating say the Blackhawk in the interim - which was better kitted out for the deployment/tempos of the time etc).

(Other than that there has been no real public explanation over here, as it mystified me at the time too).

The real answer though, like AD's comment on the ADF acquiring the MRH90 in the first place, was probably politics. Former Govt had many dealings with various Euro Govts (as the EU was taking more of an interest in affairs down under in terms of development aid and projects etc), and if one could be a wee cynical those contacts and dealings (and thus support) may have been helpful for our former PM's ambitions post NZ politics ... but hey I shouldn't be so cynical eh

Actually there is equipment differences -- take look at the "nose" - NZ NH-90's are "parrot beaked" -- no FLIR, plus different cowling / intake arrangements (maybe even engine versions) from what I can gather / discussion on a local NZ board. Not sure if the Aussie MRH's are "more" marinised than the NZ NH-90s -- NZ NH-90's have folding rotors - but beyond that ? Not sure.

Also, I think if you were to search back - maybe 2006 / 2007 in this thread (??) or it may have been a specific RNZAF NH-90 thread, the reasoning behind the choice was discussed. From memory Army had some input I think, and mockups were made of the cabin areas for the various contenders. I do remember seeing a paper on the NZ MoD site somewhere discussing all of this.

EDIT: ok, found an old thread:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/kiwis-select-nh-90-rnzaf-3656/

Take a look at that.

Even more reading:

http://www.defence.govt.nz/reports-publications/major-projects-report-2010/part-3-project-nh90.html

From the MoD Paper:

Quote:

In October 2004 as part of Closer Defence Relations, New Zealand and Australian Defence Ministers agreed to discuss the practicalities of both countries acquiring the same brand of helicopter. In March 2005, Australia decided to acquire a variant of the NH90 helicopter (MRH90). Defence concluded it was beneficial for New Zealand to acquire a similar helicopter for cooperation on through-life support and training but that a joint purchase would not be financially advantageous for New Zealand

 

[gf0012-aust]

Dunno know mate. Maybe because you guys are building the MRH and our model is the TTH. Then again it could have been a political decision considering who was PM at the time. You'd have to ask some who may have been closer to the decision making process at the time.

part of procurement in australia requires the assessment teams to factor australian industry capability involvement - the absolute price is not a driver, and in fact in an assessment, the project manager team and the engineering team have the platform prices witheld so as to not interfere with or influence the capability assessment. Cost is assessed at the end of the PM and Engineering assessments and is not the sole key value for money requirement

the project management team is required to specifically assess AIC impact, so in the case of the 90's there would have been a proposal by the manufacturer about what benefits would come to Aust industry. That could be localised manufacture, support contract issues (eg obtaining regional or local support), regional main opportunities, a committment to skill the workforce, a committment to allow industry to build specific components for other countries (much like AusInd builds specific components of JSF for all JSF particpants

the reason why we may build locally is strategic national interest, industry benefit, future opportunity, access to other technology sets, opportunity to participate in similar contracts (eg support other countries assets in a specific maint regime etc... )

we build our own subs due to national interest requirements and capability benefit, and because we get access to capability sets that other countries do not get etc... we may build local helos because it furthers the rotary industry capability established by QLD State Govt etc...

the lowest cost does not define how or what will get bought

 

[recce.k1]

Actually there is equipment differences -- take look at the "nose" - NZ NH-90's are "parrot beaked" -- no FLIR, plus different cowling / intake arrangements (maybe even engine versions) from what I can gather / discussion on a local NZ board. Not sure if the Aussie MRH's are "more" marinised than the NZ NH-90s -- NZ NH-90's have folding rotors - but beyond that ? Not sure.

Well I'd be a bit p---d off if NZG didn't have the foresight to fund the FLIR as they made a big deal at the time on how it would be fitted with modern systems and countermeasures to operate in higher threat environments unlike the Huey which was confined to low threat environments due to lack of said modern systems (presumably the FLIR can be retro fitted though), anyway I'd like to see that officially confirmed one way or another. Guess we will find out soon as the NH-90 is better scrutinised now.

The engines are the same from what I can gather:
Turbomeca - RTM 322
http://www.turbomeca.com/english/our-products/helicopter-engines/rtm-322-50/rtm-322-01-9-38.html
Perhaps the different cowling etc, is a result of NHI mods being applied to the Euro NH90 fleets, being applied to the NZ NH90's (since they were over there & as said earlier by CD, spent the last 2 years in France awaiting certification/probably mods etc?

the reason why we may build locally is strategic national interest, industry benefit, future opportunity, access to other technology sets, opportunity to participate in similar contracts (eg support other countries assets in a specific maint regime etc... )

For NZ an important aspect would surely be what you've mentioned (support other countries assets in a specific maint regime), but presumably that's still do-able anyway?

But also could there have been little chance of NZ offsets/participation in the Australian Aerospace MRH90 project for the NZ pollies to look afar instead?