Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ngatimozart]

An update from the NZ MoD website on a couple of projects. The last NH90 NZ3308 is due to be delivered in September 2014. The fifth aircraft of the P3 upgrade, NZ4206 was delivered in February 2014 and the final aircraft, NZ4203 is due for completion mid 2014.

 

[RegR]

The Blackhawk wouldn't increased the numbers numbers of troops lifted per aircraft. 11 for the Blackhawk and at least 11 for the UH1H. The Blackhawk first flew in 1974 so now a 40 year old aircraft. Do we really want to be operating an 80 year old aircraft in 40 years time that gives us no increase in capability? I certainly think not.

Not quite as even as you make it sound Ngati, blackhawk can lift a lot more operationally than a UH1H, our hueys and even older blackhawks such as the aussie ones are in different leagues in terms of lift, range and performance. For example our hueys could realistically only transport around 5 fully combat loaded troops plus crew whereas a Blackhawk at least would double that. Do not go off the seating arrangement for a true representation as it is not taking into account lift, cabin volume, engine(s) power etc to put into practice.

I think the NH90 on paper is a better option with marked improvements in areas such as avionics, operations, lift and the added advantage of the rear ramp however I think it maybe still too early in its career to pass final judgement. Blackhawk is proven and known however probably at its peak whereas NH90 has future options but still needs to come into it's own to really prove it's worth, could be a gamble? maybe a lemon? definitely an improvement and could also be buy of the century, who knows.

 

[kiwipatriot]

The Blackhawk wouldn't increased the numbers numbers of troops lifted per aircraft. 11 for the Blackhawk and at least 11 for the UH1H. The Blackhawk first flew in 1974 so now a 40 year old aircraft. Do we really want to be operating an 80 year old aircraft in 40 years time that gives us no increase in capability? I certainly think not.

Fair enough on the age,but like I said, even a comparison from nh industries and three other site state a crew of 11 for the Blackhawk,only six for uh1, and a new build would only be in service 25, 30 years seems to be the norm for the services, oh well its a done deal now. NH90 is better of course,but I question the price tag. Must of been an olive branch gift for airforce, seeing the army spent a similar figure on the Lav 3 deal, effectively cutting the funding for the f16 and the resulting retirement of the Skyhawk. Here's hoping they don't have as many issues with the Nh90 as the have with the lav 3.

 

[ngatimozart]

Not quite as even as you make it sound Ngati, blackhawk can lift a lot more operationally than a UH1H, our hueys and even older blackhawks such as the aussie ones are in different leagues in terms of lift, range and performance. For example our hueys could realistically only transport around 5 fully combat loaded troops plus crew whereas a Blackhawk at least would double that. Do not go off the seating arrangement for a true representation as it is not taking into account lift, cabin volume, engine(s) power etc to put into practice.

I think the NH90 on paper is a better option with marked improvements in areas such as avionics, operations, lift and the added advantage of the rear ramp however I think it maybe still too early in its career to pass final judgement. Blackhawk is proven and known however probably at its peak whereas NH90 has future options but still needs to come into it's own to really prove it's worth, could be a gamble? maybe a lemon? definitely an improvement and could also be buy of the century, who knows.

Thanks Reg & t68 for your enlightening comments. I was looking at basic numbers. However my comments about design age are pertinent in a kiwi context just because of how we operate our aircraft so we do have to look at a 40 - 50 year life cycle. Larger users replace their airframes sooner than we do because they have greater resources than we do. My main point is starting with a 40 year old design now means that in 40 or 50 years time we have a far greater chance of being left with an orphan fleet, again. Seasprites tranche 1 and 2.

T68 with regard to the Romeo purchase the RAN were left with little choice. There was really only one MOTS helo available. NHI are having difficulties delivering the NFH and I think it still maybe in LRIP. The AW159 Wildcat is still LRIP so the Romeo is only one that could be procured with reasonable certainty of delivery, plus the RAN & USN relationship helps.

Kiwipatriot the price tag for purchase is just one part. The important cost, especially in a NZ context is the total life cost. That is all costs associated with the aircraft from its acquisition to its disposal. One might find that 15 Blackhawks could prove to be far more expensive than the 8 NH90. IIRC 10 NH90 were recommended to achieve the required output, but the pollies only went for 8.

 

[Volkodav]

The issues with the NH90 is although sold as a MOTS solution it was still developmental. This is what ever NH-90 customer is finding at the moment and to be honest what many nations buying pretty much any non- US kits goes through too. I could even risk being a little judgemental but there is a pattern I have observed and commented on previously in other threads on quite a few Euro systems (particularly French led) being sold as fully sorted MOTS solutions when they are no where near this point.

Don't get me wrong, the NH90 is a good platform and will be a great platform giving many years of effective and capable service, it is not however and likely never will be as sorted and supported as a US FMS UH-60M buy would have been.

Perfect is the mortal enemy of perfectly good enough, it just comes down to how much money and how much time you are able to invest in maintaining or building the capability.

 

[ngatimozart]

The issues with the NH90 is although sold as a MOTS solution it was still developmental. This is what ever NH-90 customer is finding at the moment and to be honest what many nations buying pretty much any non- US kits goes through too. I could even risk being a little judgemental but there is a pattern I have observed and commented on previously in other threads on quite a few Euro systems (particularly French led) being sold as fully sorted MOTS solutions when they are no where near this point.

Don't get me wrong, the NH90 is a good platform and will be a great platform giving many years of effective and capable service, it is not however and likely never will be as sorted and supported as a US FMS UH-60M buy would have been.

Perfect is the mortal enemy of perfectly good enough, it just comes down to how much money and how much time you are able to invest in maintaining or building the capability.

I agree & I think that is reason why we bought the knock down airframe for a spares supply. European after sales support is a bit like Kamans, not good, when compared to FMS. Actually Kamans wasn't at all good with the Seasprites first tranche.

 

[Cadredave]

Don't think govt would ever consider grippens, better chance winning lotto! Dreams are free, surely they can be convinced some light tactical armament on the Texan 2c we bought isn't impossible, there is a weaponised version out there used with missiles and 20 mm cannon on its hardpoints under wing, and it has the tech inside to fire them already, just buy another twelve or so? only $6 million each, and the infrastructure for training them,parts ect is in place.

My question is for what role and for what capability are you buying the armed Texan 2C, if its to help train our JTACs then it cheaper to send them off seas to qualify either in Hawaii or main land USA if its to train pilots for the role that the A4K used to do then again send them off to Australia etc.

NZDF has admitted that it has lost that capability for good and to resurrect the ACF will at least take well over ten+ years to get to BLOC and put a major strain on the current budget for no reasonable gain. I would love for NZ to have a ACF back but it is now beyond our means to ever afford 4+ gen aircraft far better to preserve what's left and to ensure the current capability is enhanced and is not lost due to in fighting within the NZDF.

 

[Bonza]

My question is for what role and for what capability are you buying the armed Texan 2C, if its to help train our JTACs then it cheaper to send them off seas to qualify either in Hawaii or main land USA if its to train pilots for the role that the A4K used to do then again send them off to Australia etc.

NZDF has admitted that it has lost that capability for good and to resurrect the ACF will at least take well over ten+ years to get to BLOC and put a major strain on the current budget for no reasonable gain. I would love for NZ to have a ACF back but it is now beyond our means to ever afford 4+ gen aircraft far better to preserve what's left and to ensure the current capability is enhanced and is not lost due to in fighting within the NZDF.

I really have to agree with CD here, Kiwipatriot. Hanging some weapons off a Texan is all well and good, but what do you propose to do with the capability? In fact, if not for training, then what capability does it fill at all? Besides training (and CD covered that logically in the above post), all you've got is a small, short-legged aircraft with some air support capability, but not nearly to the level at which you could send it into anything but the most permissive of environments. And if New Zealand is operating in a military capacity, chances are Australia is going to be there too, and the RAAF can provide levels of air support far beyond anything done by a group of Texans.

There's been a lot of talk over the last few years about single-prop aircraft like the Texans being used for low-threat counter-insurgency warfare, but I think people need to understand that it can't necessarily be seen as a surrogate for a real air support capability, there's a whole raft of systems in modern fast movers that are absent from aircraft like the Texan. Sure you could fit some of them in but costs will start to creep pretty quickly.

I wish New Zealand all the best in getting its air combat capability reinstated, but these planes you mention just won't do it on their own. It takes a bigger and much more capable aircraft to do this. I would love to see New Zealand get on to something like the Gripen, a late-generation F-16 variant or even the Korean FA-50, but for the moment it just isn't gonna happen. It's a shame.

 

[ngatimozart]

NZDF has admitted that it has lost that capability for good and to resurrect the ACF will at least take well over ten+ years to get to BLOC and put a major strain on the current budget for no reasonable gain. I would love for NZ to have a ACF back but it is now beyond our means to ever afford 4+ gen aircraft far better to preserve what's left and to ensure the current capability is enhanced and is not lost due to in fighting within the NZDF.

And that is the crux of the matter. Infighting wasn't the reason why the ACF got axed but it sure helped. We have to concentrate on what we have now and build on that. If you look at the RNZN now that is what CN Jack Steer is doing - building the RNZN up on what it has now, using that as the foundation and bringing back core skills, knowledge and traditions that the modern navy needs before it can embark on new journeys - making it a family in more than just a name. I think that is something the RNZAF and the NZ Army should have a look at.

Go back and have a look at your central ethos, traditions, skills cultures etc.,and imbue them into todays service personnel making it family, build on that foundation and then embark on new journeys when you have that sorted. I mean giving senior and long serving NCOs more respect especially from officers and managers,especially for their skills and knowledge. It might come as a surprise to some officers, but most SNCOs know a lot more and have a lot more skills than many officers do. That is something I hear amongst the traps.

When we have that sorted and with the gear we have and the new kit, then we can contribute more effectively, especially IF NZDF is given better resourcing.

 

[Cadredave]

And that is the crux of the matter. Infighting wasn't the reason why the ACF got axed but it sure helped. We have to concentrate on what we have now and build on that. If you look at the RNZN now that is what CN Jack Steer is doing - building the RNZN up on what it has now, using that as the foundation and bringing back core skills, knowledge and traditions that the modern navy needs before it can embark on new journeys - making it a family in more than just a name. I think that is something the RNZAF and the NZ Army should have a look at.

Go back and have a look at your central ethos, traditions, skills cultures etc.,and imbue them into todays service personnel making it family, build on that foundation and then embark on new journeys when you have that sorted. I mean giving senior and long serving NCOs more respect especially from officers and managers,especially for their skills and knowledge. It might come as a surprise to some officers, but most SNCOs know a lot more and have a lot more skills than many officers do. That is something I hear amongst the traps.

When we have that sorted and with the gear we have and the new kit, then we can contribute more effectively, especially IF NZDF is given better resourcing.

An inability of RNZAF to communicate its message to the Pollies and NZ public coupled with each service vying to win the precious limited funds from the Govt lead to the scrapping of the ACF. It was a fascinating time to watch from the inside out as a young developing SNCO.

 

[ngatimozart]

An inability of RNZAF to communicate its message to the Pollies and NZ public coupled with each service vying to win the precious limited funds from the Govt lead to the scrapping of the ACF. It was a fascinating time to watch from the inside out as a young developing SNCO.

Yes I get the impression they thought the ACF was almost sacrosanct. Looking at their website today I wonder they have really learnt the lesson about communication. Mind you they tend to use facebook a bit more now. Back then they were up against the M113 APC replacement and a third frigate purchase. I hope that now the 3 services finally realise that they have to work together to get what they need both as NZDF and as individual services. The old saying: united we stand, divided we fall.

 

[t68]

T68 with regard to the Romeo purchase the RAN were left with little choice. There was really only one MOTS helo available. NHI are having difficulties delivering the NFH and I think it still maybe in LRIP. The AW159 Wildcat is still LRIP so the Romeo is only one that could be procured with reasonable certainty of delivery, plus the RAN & USN relationship helps.

Agree that in an Australian context the MH-60 represented the best solution to the problem with minimum fuss, but there was also the Agusta-Westland AW101 Merlin to consider if Army/Navy wanted the great leap over the existing capability, Merlin should have been a shoe in and would have been a better bet for replacing Westland Sea King Mk 50s but unfortunately the size was a restricting factor pity we did not have Canberra then and wonder if they would fit on a Type 26 and the Hobart AWD.

 

[Volkodav]

Agree that in an Australian context the MH-60 represented the best solution to the problem with minimum fuss, but there was also the Agusta-Westland AW101 Merlin to consider if Army/Navy wanted the great leap over the existing capability, Merlin should have been a shoe in and would have been a better bet for replacing Westland Sea King Mk 50s but unfortunately the size was a restricting factor pity we did not have Canberra then and wonder if they would fit on a Type 26 and the Hobart AWD.

Basically as far as the Hobarts are concerned the Romeo fit with modifications to the hanger, as did the NF90 but it was a tighter fit while the Merlin would not have had a hope.

 

[Gibbo]

My question is for what role and for what capability are you buying the armed Texan 2C, if its to help train our JTACs then it cheaper to send them off seas to qualify either in Hawaii or main land USA if its to train pilots for the role that the A4K used to do then again send them off to Australia etc.

NZDF has admitted that it has lost that capability for good and to resurrect the ACF will at least take well over ten+ years to get to BLOC and put a major strain on the current budget for no reasonable gain. I would love for NZ to have a ACF back but it is now beyond our means to ever afford 4+ gen aircraft far better to preserve what's left and to ensure the current capability is enhanced and is not lost due to in fighting within the NZDF.

I have to admit until recently I too thought that whatever advanced trainer was purchased, it should be setup for weapons training - for JTAC training etc. However I do now grasp the fact that it would be more effective to send the JTACs overseas to train on the real thing rather than locally on a half-arsed equivalent.

Nice as it would be to arm the T6C, I’d agree there really isn’t a role for it. I had also thought about the light-attack / COIN type role but there just doesn’t seem the need for that in NZ.

I don’t know whether there’s any value in occasionally dropping a few dumb bombs and/or rockets near the Army when on manoeuvres to help make their training more realistic – do the Army do/need any ‘familiarisation with aircraft’ training (eg: camouflaging technique etc)? That’s about the only thing I can see an armed T6C being useful for in the RNZAF context.

Anyway to be honest I think we’ll find that even with the 2 x simulators that doing both basic & advanced courses with the one fleet will see the T6C nicely busy, with little scope to take on other roles. Also I wonder if civvy maintenance teams would be allowed to ‘work’ in & around armed aircraft!?!

Random thought - I wonder if the advanced trainees will do there ‘long-range Nav’ flights in the T6C (+ wing tanks?) or whether 42Sqn will do this as part of the MEPT!?!

I’ve heard comments liking the T6C purchase to a ‘big yawn’ – it’s just a trainer! I don’t think that’s the case at all. Firstly these aircraft are the show-ponies, the ones the public see at air-shows etc doing formation aeros etc. Often it’ll be the public’s first exposure to the RNZAF, and mark my words, the T6C will give a bloody good display – which leaves a positive impression and therefore I wouldn’t under-estimate their PR / recruitment appeal.

Then there’s internal RNZAF attitudes. Yes 3,5,6, & 40 sqn’s will have little to do with them on a daily basis, but eventually a lot of line pilots will be mostly ex-T6C trained & I’m fairly certain those pilots will look back at their training time as quite exhilarating & enjoyable – they’ll retain a soft-spot for the T6C thru their careers & that’s a positive. I bet you’ll eventually see a number of pilots quite keen to become QFI’s on 14sqn!

Then there’s the sales pitch, if you believe it, the T6C is apparently going to result in a better calibre pilot (don’t shoot the messenger, that’s basically the way the T6C has been sold to Govt!). If this is so, then the whole RNZAF will benefit!

Anyway back to armed T6C’s, whilst I agree there is little point in doing this, I still think the Army/RNZAF should look to develop a light-armed recon role for the AW109. I’m thinking of low end, South Pacific type ops where NZDF is likely to operate fairly independently at a tactical level (eg: think East Timor) – which is AFAIK the type of operation considered more likely for the JATF.

I don’t think we’d ever see the need for an anti-tank chopper on these ops, if we did the Aussies would probably deploy Tigers. But where infantry are chasing gun-toting insurgents (think East Timor again!) an AW109 overhead with a combo-gun/rocket pod, plus 1 x MAG58 & operator (if the a/c can carry weight of both at once!?!) would be a fairly cheap, but quite effective little deterrent.

The key is that we already have the aircraft (do need the extra 3 as suggested!) & the armed-recon config is low-key & therefore more affordable and can be provided with fairly limited extra work. The other point is being a chopper it is probably easier to deploy (ship-borne) into the South Pacific, and doesn’t need formed air-strips that a fleet of armed T6C’s would.

But I’m not holding my breath on there ever being such a role for the AW109!

 

[kiwipatriot]

I have to admit until recently I too thought that whatever advanced trainer was purchased, it should be setup for weapons training - for JTAC training etc. However I do now grasp the fact that it would be more effective to send the JTACs overseas to train on the real thing rather than locally on a half-arsed equivalent.

Nice as it would be to arm the T6C, I’d agree there really isn’t a role for it. I had also thought about the light-attack / COIN type role but there just doesn’t seem the need for that in NZ.

I don’t know whether there’s any value in occasionally dropping a few dumb bombs and/or rockets near the Army when on manoeuvres to help make their training more realistic – do the Army do/need any ‘familiarisation with aircraft’ training (eg: camouflaging technique etc)? That’s about the only thing I can see an armed T6C being useful for in the RNZAF context.

Anyway to be honest I think we’ll find that even with the 2 x simulators that doing both basic & advanced courses with the one fleet will see the T6C nicely busy, with little scope to take on other roles. Also I wonder if civvy maintenance teams would be allowed to ‘work’ in & around armed aircraft!?!

Random thought - I wonder if the advanced trainees will do there ‘long-range Nav’ flights in the T6C (+ wing tanks?) or whether 42Sqn will do this as part of the MEPT!?!

I’ve heard comments liking the T6C purchase to a ‘big yawn’ – it’s just a trainer! I don’t think that’s the case at all. Firstly these aircraft are the show-ponies, the ones the public see at air-shows etc doing formation aeros etc. Often it’ll be the public’s first exposure to the RNZAF, and mark my words, the T6C will give a bloody good display – which leaves a positive impression and therefore I wouldn’t under-estimate their PR / recruitment appeal.

Then there’s internal RNZAF attitudes. Yes 3,5,6, & 40 sqn’s will have little to do with them on a daily basis, but eventually a lot of line pilots will be mostly ex-T6C trained & I’m fairly certain those pilots will look back at their training time as quite exhilarating & enjoyable – they’ll retain a soft-spot for the T6C thru their careers & that’s a positive. I bet you’ll eventually see a number of pilots quite keen to become QFI’s on 14sqn!

Then there’s the sales pitch, if you believe it, the T6C is apparently going to result in a better calibre pilot (don’t shoot the messenger, that’s basically the way the T6C has been sold to Govt!). If this is so, then the whole RNZAF will benefit!

Anyway back to armed T6C’s, whilst I agree there is little point in doing this, I still think the Army/RNZAF should look to develop a light-armed recon role for the AW109. I’m thinking of low end, South Pacific type ops where NZDF is likely to operate fairly independently at a tactical level (eg: think East Timor) – which is AFAIK the type of operation considered more likely for the JATF.

I don’t think we’d ever see the need for an anti-tank chopper on these ops, if we did the Aussies would probably deploy Tigers. But where infantry are chasing gun-toting insurgents (think East Timor again!) an AW109 overhead with a combo-gun/rocket pod, plus 1 x MAG58 & operator (if the a/c can carry weight of both at once!?!) would be a fairly cheap, but quite effective little deterrent.

The key is that we already have the aircraft (do need the extra 3 as suggested!) & the armed-recon config is low-key & therefore more affordable and can be provided with fairly limited extra work. The other point is being a chopper it is probably easier to deploy (ship-borne) into the South Pacific, and doesn’t need formed air-strips that a fleet of armed T6C’s would.

But I’m not holding my breath on there ever being such a role for the AW109!

You hit the nail on the head , exactly what I had in mind for either the t6c or light heli, t6 as a trainer for the army against aircraft was an idea, and aw109 with rocket pods and cannons as light support on ships, although you have seasprites that are armed evidently.

 

[kiwipatriot]

Thanks Reg & t68 for your enlightening comments. I was looking at basic numbers. However my comments about design age are pertinent in a kiwi context just because of how we operate our aircraft so we do have to look at a 40 - 50 year life cycle. Larger users replace their airframes sooner than we do because they have greater resources than we do. My main point is starting with a 40 year old design now means that in 40 or 50 years time we have a far greater chance of being left with an orphan fleet, again. Seasprites tranche 1 and 2.

T68 with regard to the Romeo purchase the RAN were left with little choice. There was really only one MOTS helo available. NHI are having difficulties delivering the NFH and I think it still maybe in LRIP. The AW159 Wildcat is still LRIP so the Romeo is only one that could be procured with reasonable certainty of delivery, plus the RAN & USN relationship helps.

Kiwipatriot the price tag for purchase is just one part. The important cost, especially in a NZ context is the total life cost. That is all costs associated with the aircraft from its acquisition to its disposal. One might find that 15 Blackhawks could prove to be far more expensive than the 8 NH90. IIRC 10 NH90 were recommended to achieve the required output, but the pollies only went for 8.

Pity we didnt buy them along with the aussies when they bought thiers, make sense if we are buying similar gear, we could have got a discount! I hope there are enough helicopters to go round, otherwise those N90:s are going to get a lot of wear and tear.

 

[Cadredave]

You hit the nail on the head , exactly what I had in mind for either the t6c or light heli, t6 as a trainer for the army against aircraft was an idea, and aw109 with rocket pods and cannons as light support on ships, although you have seasprites that are armed evidently.

Look not trying to rain on your parade, but what are we training for exactly? if its to teach us to camouflage don't need the T6C to do that KAHU can do it a lot cheaper and take high Def linked photos to prove it.

We have spent the last decade on full Coalition Operations fully embedded into the USA & NATO force structures, a T6C is not going to bring anything to the party as it is not Data Linked into our comms system like the P3K2 is and that's the aircraft that has more to offer as an ISR platform to really teach the Army how it is going.

We will never be alone in a future Operation either the RAN will be supporting or the USN will as it did in East Timor during the early days of Interfet and NZBATT 1 off shore was an USN LHA-3 USS Belleau Wood and USS Mobile Bay plus a large amount of RAN, RN, and other nations frigates etc.

This is the reason NZDF is not to worried about AW109 being armed, SH2GI will be more than a match for anything in the Pacific as well as the NH-90 plus having an ANZAC 5 inch gun off shore will be more than over match.

If it's not data linked into the force structure it has no training value to the present and future force.

 

[ngatimozart]

If it's not data linked into the force structure it has no training value to the present and future force.

That is the core of the matter and the core of modern military strategic thought. Data and the ability to get it to where it needs to go as quickly and as secure as possible.

 

[Volkodav]

If CAS is the goal the NZ may well do better looking to some form of attack helicopter down the track rather than play around with armed trainers or investing huge sums of cash in a third or fourth tier ACF. A dozen armed scouts or even surplus USMC "W" model Sea Cobras could actually be quite affordable and fit in with NZ current sustainment structures much more easily than a fixed wing type.

 

[RegR]

Nice as it would be to arm the T6C, I’d agree there really isn’t a role for it. I had also thought about the light-attack / COIN type role but there just doesn’t seem the need for that in NZ.

Anyway to be honest I think we’ll find that even with the 2 x simulators that doing both basic & advanced courses with the one fleet will see the T6C nicely busy, with little scope to take on other roles. Also I wonder if civvy maintenance teams would be allowed to ‘work’ in & around armed aircraft!?!

Random thought - I wonder if the advanced trainees will do there ‘long-range Nav’ flights in the T6C (+ wing tanks?) or whether 42Sqn will do this as part of the MEPT!?!

I’ve heard comments liking the T6C purchase to a ‘big yawn’ – it’s just a trainer! I don’t think that’s the case at all. Firstly these aircraft are the show-ponies, the ones the public see at air-shows etc doing formation aeros etc. Often it’ll be the public’s first exposure to the RNZAF, and mark my words, the T6C will give a bloody good display – which leaves a positive impression and therefore I wouldn’t under-estimate their PR / recruitment appeal.

Then there’s internal RNZAF attitudes. Yes 3,5,6, & 40 sqn’s will have little to do with them on a daily basis, but eventually a lot of line pilots will be mostly ex-T6C trained & I’m fairly certain those pilots will look back at their training time as quite exhilarating & enjoyable – they’ll retain a soft-spot for the T6C thru their careers & that’s a positive. I bet you’ll eventually see a number of pilots quite keen to become QFI’s on 14sqn!

The key is that we already have the aircraft (do need the extra 3 as suggested!) & the armed-recon config is low-key & therefore more affordable and can be provided with fairly limited extra work. The other point is being a chopper it is probably easier to deploy (ship-borne) into the South Pacific, and doesn’t need formed air-strips that a fleet of armed T6C’s would

I suppose it's down to if you already have the added ability then why not use it. Better to train and not use then need and not know how and it can only add to any pilots training and experience with a flow on benefit to those on the ground. Another reason we lost the ACF was lack of operational use (or more likely govt commitment) therefore seen as 'not used, not required' when it came cost cutting time. We trained and trained but never commited to any actual ops so then what was the point. Even supporting Timor with the A4s or limited Gulf war duties could have flowed onto having kiwi F16s covering in Afghan but without actually sending them anywhere then of course an easy choice to take off the payroll. Im just glad they have finally sent a frigate back on coalition duties otherwise....

Who's to say the maintanence side won't be brought back into the military side or even a mix. Armourers would take care of weapon loads anyway. I think the T6s will do an even better job at airshows, displays etc just going off the the brilliant CT4 performances with their limited power.

42 already does yearly long range flights down NZ across and up east coast of Aus in a big loop as part of their training.

All pilots would go through T6 as they all go through PTS (equivalent) initially regardless of type they move onto both fixed wing and helo.

I think Between training and light ops the current A109s have a decent workload so to add roles would most definitely require the extra 3. Small fleets + busy workloads = shortened lifespan.