Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Todjaeger]

Wildcat would need new infrastructure that isn't already in place. The cost of maintaining another unique airframe and support infrastructure isn't something to be taken lightly. I'd want to see some detailed modeling to be sure that introducing another type into the mix was very solid financially and operationally. I'm just not convinced Wildcat provides enough of a difference in capability to increase the complexity of supporting a deployment by a third (assuming A109 and NH90 already deployed).

It really comes down to what can Wildcat do that NH90 or A109 can't? How much are you prepared to pay for the incremental capability?

Two immediate things came to mind. The first is that the Wildcat can fit onto/inside an ANZAC-class FFH, which an NH-90 for practical purposes cannot. The second is that a Wildcat can/is kitted out with systems useful aboard naval helicopters, like sea-search radars, E/O systems, comms, weapon hardpoints, etc. Given the low overall weight of an A109 (MTOW under 3,000kg) when compared to a Wildcat (MTOW ~6,000kg). Also the Wildcat is expected to be able to carry nearly 1,200kg in munitions, which means that even a fully tricked out AW109 is not going to be able to perform both the surveillance and combat roles of a naval helicopter.

-Cheers

 

[Zero Alpha]

Two immediate things came to mind. The first is that the Wildcat can fit onto/inside an ANZAC-class FFH, which an NH-90 for practical purposes cannot.

Yes - but that doesn't mean the hanger can't be rebuilt (as RNZN did for Leanders), and the ANZACs potentially have less service life remaining than the SH-2s (but that could go either way). I'm not sure that the hangar is too small. Tight fit - yes, but impossible? Maybe not.

The second is that a Wildcat can/is kitted out with systems useful aboard naval helicopters, like sea-search radars, E/O systems, comms, weapon hardpoints, etc. Given the low overall weight of an A109 (MTOW under 3,000kg) when compared to a Wildcat (MTOW ~6,000kg). Also the Wildcat is expected to be able to carry nearly 1,200kg in munitions, which means that even a fully tricked out AW109 is not going to be able to perform both the surveillance and combat roles of a naval helicopter.

I wouldn't be proposing to use the A109 for both roles. I think it fulfills someroles, freeing up more expensive assets for the higher end tasks. Fisheries protection, limited vertrep, liaison, boarding party support etc is well withing it's capabilities. While it can carry a limited armament (rockets and Hellfire-size weapons), I'd see it used more like a Wasp than an SH-2. I just don't think you need an expensive platform for a lot of the routine tasks.

 

[ngatimozart]

The A109 is not a maritime shipboard helicopter in that it is able to spend small amounts of time at sea but it is not a dedicated shipborne helicopter able to operate in sea states that the Seasprite or Wildcat can. So trying to number 8 wire an A109 onto an RNZN ship in anything other than sea state 2 or less is going to be very expensive. Cheaper to purchase a dedicated helo. Increasing the size of the hangars on the ANZAC FFHs is also not a realistic option because the increased weight of the hangar and the NFH/NH90 will have negative impacts on the ships stability. That is already a serious issue for the ANZAC Class FFH.

The new Seasprites have been refurbished so they are basically zero timed meaning they are good for minimum 10,000 hours per airframe. Hence 15 - 20 years in RNZN service should be quite achievable, considering RNZAF experience in operating aircraft well beyond their use by date.

 

[kiwi in exile]

The Phillipines Navy has recently acquired some marinised A109s. From memory it was only two or three. Strengthened landing gear etc.

My plan would be aim to retire the sprites and the current ANZACs around the same time and have the ANZAC replacements fitted for NFH90's, possibly room for two, or one and a UAV.

And have some cheap A109s for OPV EEZ stuff. Possibly with EO/FLIR basic radar package.
Either way our naval combat helos need to be correctly equipped for ASW, with onboard processing, dipping sonar and bouys. Any anti ship missiles need to have a tactically relevant range.

Cheers
KIE

 

[Gracie1234]

This an interesting conversation. I agree, i see the Seasprites lasting 10-15 years max. There will be too much risk and cost to upgrade an orphan fleet.
By the time we require replacements the next frigate will be operational, hopefully 3 hulls. I like to dream! They will obviously have room for a helicopter and some unmanned vehicles of various types. That seems to be the way things are going.
There is a big benefit to reducing the number of equipment types, i think we all agree there. The real question is would we go with the naval NH90s, they would do the job. But how much do they cost to run per hour compared to the alternatives? Would that difference make the money men go.....mmmm maybe we need to operate a cheaper platform like the Wildcat. The actual purchase cost for a Wildcat and NH90 would i imagine be similar as they would have similar sensor fit-outs as they are designed to do similar naval roles, with the NH90 being bigger therefore it can carry more people and stores.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Phillipines Navy has recently acquired some marinised A109s. From memory it was only two or three. Strengthened landing gear etc.

My plan would be aim to retire the sprites and the current ANZACs around the same time and have the ANZAC replacements fitted for NFH90's, possibly room for two, or one and a UAV.

And have some cheap A109s for OPV EEZ stuff. Possibly with EO/FLIR basic radar package.
Either way our naval combat helos need to be correctly equipped for ASW, with onboard processing, dipping sonar and bouys. Any anti ship missiles need to have a tactically relevant range.

Cheers
KIE

The marinized A109 does not have the deck locking equipment that the Seasprites etc., have enabling them to operate in sea states greater than 2. Without that you are inhibiting yourself unnecessarily and wasting taxpayers money. Methinks some people need to read up on the actual capabilities that the Wildcat offers rather than just making assumptions that it's a glorified Lynx. NZDF does not have the money to go number 8 wiring A109s or any other helos to fit a role for which they are not designed. If NZDF has to have three different types of helo to fill the capability requirements, so be it because that makes more logical, military, logistical and fiscal sense in the long term, than cutting corners and trying to do the same roles with inadequate aircraft types and numbers, which in the long term costs quite a lot more.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Assuming the SH-2s last as long as the Anzacs (and that's probably a marginal call), why are you convinced the Wildcat is the right aircraft for the job?

 

[recce.k1]

If NZDF has to have three different types of helo to fill the capability requirements, so be it because that makes more logical, military, logistical and fiscal sense in the long term, than cutting corners and trying to do the same roles with inadequate aircraft types and numbers, which in the long term costs quite a lot more.

1. I do agree that would be the ideal - the solution needs to be fit for purpose (and enough with misguided compromises that cost more in the long run or cuts capability etc).

I think the problem is though, we are talking about relatively small numbers (of all three or whatever the number is of types), which for a relatively small defence force may be problematic (eg in terms of costs/benefits etc). What's the solution?

2. From what I've read (or read into it) the SH-2G(I) purchase was in-effect simply the "SH-2G(NZ) mid-life upgrade" so the (I) variant should really last another 10-15 years (and no longer) and be replaced when the ANZAC's are at the same time.

(As an aside I wouldn't have seriously expected the NZG to have been considering replacing the SH-2G(NZ) with the MH-60R, as per the RAN announcement in 2011 to acquire that type, nor with the AW-159 as was being touted by the UKG at the time. It "wasn't the time" (funding wise) for a near $1b purchase. Instead rather than fund a SH-2G(NZ) mid-life upgrade it was deemed the smarter choice was to simply acquire the SH-2(I), which was quite attractive in many ways. Having said that when it comes to replace the SH-2G(I) in the 2025-2030 timeframe the then NZG would have to bite the bullet financially and ideally purchase a replacement type compatible with the RAN (and perhaps realise some synergies with eg sharing a common training/maintenance regime perhaps).

In the meantime the SH-2G it is for the ANZAC's (and OPV's?). Perhaps another type needs to be acquired for the Sealift vessel and proposed two new support vessels, perhaps not the A109 (leave that for training and air force/army light utility) and acquire something else (perhaps a somewhat fitted for but not with NFH-90, seeing the role here would be more transport , vertrep etc, not surveillance and attack)?

As been pointed out by ZA 8 operable SH-2(I)'s at a ratio of 2 per vessel is just enough for the Frigates and OPV's (and is still a somewhat unacceptable ratio if we should be aspiring to the RAN's 3:1). As acquiring further SH-2(I)'s would be out of the question (unless NZG want Karman to upgrade the current SH-2G(NZ)'s with glass cockpit etc but then introduce other potential pitfalls such as spares availability, actual operational numbers being still too few, simply delaying the inevitable replacement in the 2020's resulting in a massive spendup on top of other major acquisitions across the NZDF), I wonder what is defence thinking for another type to operate from the 3 support vessels? Wouldn't maranised NFH90 make some sense plus the hangers of the two new support vessels could be built larger to accommodate them? Perhaps we may get a hint of what may come in the next DWP next year?

 

[Todjaeger]

Yes - but that doesn't mean the hanger can't be rebuilt (as RNZN did for Leanders), and the ANZACs potentially have less service life remaining than the SH-2s (but that could go either way). I'm not sure that the hangar is too small. Tight fit - yes, but impossible? Maybe not.

As it has been described, the hangar on an ANZAC-class FFH is just large enough to fit an NH-90 with "barely enough room to fit a bee's d*ck". Which is an issue since that means there insufficient room to effectively perform any tasks on a helicopter which should be done within a hangar.

As for rebuilding the hangar... I do not see that as a viable (or wise/efficient) option in part due to the topweight margin limitations, but also due to cost, remaining frigate service life, and the service life of the SH-2G(I) Seasprites. Modding the hangar would require relocating the Phalanx, and all of that (time frigate in dock/out of service, sea trials to confirm ship buoyancy not negatively impacted, cost for modification work and trials, etc) does not seem a wise proposition when the NH-90 would at best likely only operate from the ANZAC-class frigates for a couple of years before the frigates are decommissioned.

I wouldn't be proposing to use the A109 for both roles. I think it fulfills someroles, freeing up more expensive assets for the higher end tasks. Fisheries protection, limited vertrep, liaison, boarding party support etc is well withing it's capabilities. While it can carry a limited armament (rockets and Hellfire-size weapons), I'd see it used more like a Wasp than an SH-2. I just don't think you need an expensive platform for a lot of the routine tasks.

The issue is just what is needed for the A109 to safely operate from a ship, what does the ship want/need from the helicopter in order for it to be effective, and what margins are available for those capabilities on the helicopter.

As mentioned by others, the A109 would need to be fitted with a recovery at sea system compatible with those in use aboard RNZN vessels. Without that, the A109 could only operate in rather mild conditions.

In order for a helicopter to be useful to a vessel today, then additional sensors and comms are needed. Basically the helicopter would be used as another set of 'eyes' able to take a look from higher up, move to investigate faster, etc. A different mission set from that of the Wasps, where they were essentially dropping LWT's where the ship told them to. For Fishery and EEZ patrolling, the ability to conduct area surveillance would be the most useful, and that would require modifications to the A109 which cost money, reduce the available weight for other tasks, etc...

As for all the RNZN vessels which might be able to carry the Seasprites... most of them cannot really operate them fully, only the frigates are really capable of that. The Protector vessels lack hangar magazines, so embarked Seasprites are essentially unarmed, and AFAIK Canterbury and the OPV's lack the comm and combat data systems to get datalinked information from any Seasprites.

This to me suggests that any Seasprites embarked for operational (vs. training) roles would be confined to the FFH's, which means that 8+2 helicopters should be sufficient to keep the Seasprites flying until the frigates are decommissioned.

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

As for rebuilding the hangar... I do not see that as a viable (or wise/efficient) option in part due to the topweight margin limitations, but also due to cost, remaining frigate service life, and the service life of the SH-2G(I) Seasprites. Modding the hangar would require relocating the Phalanx, and all of that (time frigate in dock/out of service, sea trials to confirm ship buoyancy not negatively impacted, cost for modification work and trials, etc) does not seem a wise proposition when the NH-90 would at best likely only operate from the ANZAC-class frigates for a couple of years before the frigates are decommissioned.

No need to rebuild ANZAC hangers or have NH90's (or NFH-90's which would be better suited to the combat role) when the plan is to keep the SH-2G(I) in service until the ANZAC's are replaced.

Well, assuming Kaman can support them that far out into the future

The issue is just what is needed for the A109 to safely operate from a ship, what does the ship want/need from the helicopter in order for it to be effective, and what margins are available for those capabilities on the helicopter.

As mentioned by others, the A109 would need to be fitted with a recovery at sea system compatible with those in use aboard RNZN vessels. Without that, the A109 could only operate in rather mild conditions.

I think it's fair to conclude we can rule the A109 out as being a serious option, for the very reasons you and NM have outlined etc

As for all the RNZN vessels which might be able to carry the Seasprites... most of them cannot really operate them fully, only the frigates are really capable of that. The Protector vessels lack hangar magazines, so embarked Seasprites are essentially unarmed, and AFAIK Canterbury and the OPV's lack the comm and combat data systems to get datalinked information from any Seasprites.

I can't see the problem in the OPV's embarking the Seasprite, despite the OPV's lack of magazines etc. As it's not as if OPV's will be used for war-fighting. However as the OPV is primarily an EEZ patrol vessel, the embarked Seasprite gives the OPV a much improved helo and improved situational awareness. If anything the OPV's are very fortunate to have a Seasprite (as opposed to a simpler A109 or general utility helo like the Squirrel).

This to me suggests that any Seasprites embarked for operational (vs. training) roles would be confined to the FFH's, which means that 8+2 helicopters should be sufficient to keep the Seasprites flying until the frigates are decommissioned.

Using the RAN's ideal 3:1 ratio (that the RNZN can't hope to match anyway) that would have meant simply acquiring 6 SH-2G(I)'s to operate from 2 ANZAC's. Seeing the NZG has acquired 8 (and two spares) it suggests they will also intend operate from the OPV's into the future too (as well as the Canterbury sealift vessel at present).

From what I can see both OPV's are deployed over the summer months (one into the Southern Ocean and one into the Pacific) and usually one of the two ANZAC's are tied up. Thus three vessels at sea. Over the autumn/winter months it appears one of the OPV's is operational and sometimes both ANZAC's are operational otherwise one. Again three vessels at sea.

Therefore I still think, rather than us here concerning about options for the ANZAC's and OPV's we may be better turning out attention as to what would be the optimal helo to operate from Canterbury in the future and the new replacement support vessels. All three ships do not need SeaSprite/Wildcat/Romeo combat capabilities (although something navalised with decent radar and FLIR would be handy). I don't think the A109 light-utility is appropriate for the sorts of conditions and roles these support vessels will find themselves in, so what are some other options?

It could be another type or perhaps not another type when NH-90/NFH-90 medium-utility (minus combat capabilities - FFBNW) could simply slot into existing training/support infrastructure etc?

(If NZDF were fortunate to invest into yet another type, I'd rather it be something heavy-lift like the Chinook or Merlin and give Army/Navy far more options in a JATF/HADR/Coalition environment etc).

 

[RegR]

The issue of fitting NH90 into an ANZAC is moot as they would be gone before/as the replacements are required (NZ would just keep using sprites until they are, silly not to).

Numbers only becomes an issue if every deck capable ship needs to deploy with its own helo at the same time (not very likely), some do not even routinely require air support depending on task (also takes up the crews 'gymnasium').

The marinised A109s would mainly be for the OPVs and maybe LWSV (and even then for what really?) for OPV/LWSV related tasks (again OPV is not for combat but constabulary) therefore a like helo would be sufficient and cost effective. Sweden and Phillipines use them so there is a market and surely modifications such as deck locks have been thought of and even if not then it is merely a hinderance and not a prevention, harder not impossible. Would still be a lot cheaper than alternatives in aqquisition, operation, maintanence and training. Apparently there are vast savings to be made in eliminating a whole fleet type just ask the ACF.

Wildcat would be yet another type introduced requiring training, infrastructure, logistics and another set of skillsets (aircrew and maintainers). Aus has Romeos now as they were the safer option at the time, by the time the sprites need replacing the NFH90 would be sorted (10-20 years of problem solving would work wonders) and we would already be semi-proficient at A109/NH90 maritime ops under JATF. NFH90s for the new frigates(to fully exploit fit out) for combat support, dedicated NH90s for MRV and tanker (as per RAN) for logistic support and A109s for OPV for generic support. No requirement to have fully capable frames for all ships in the navy as all ships have differing roles and requirements, extra cost for minimal gain and not entirely suited otherwise.

We already have the processes, training, infrastructure and support for these types and naval pilots will already be proficient in A109/NH90 via 3 Sqn so would be a relatively smooth transition compared to potentially introducing a new type for perceived gains. Training, ratings, support, maintanence, spares etc would all be streamlined and more cost effective even more so than now.

 

[Todjaeger]

I can't see the problem in the OPV's embarking the Seasprite, despite the OPV's lack of magazines etc. As it's not as if OPV's will be used for war-fighting. However as the OPV is primarily an EEZ patrol vessel, the embarked Seasprite gives the OPV a much improved helo and improved situational awareness. If anything the OPV's are very fortunate to have a Seasprite (as opposed to a simpler A109 or general utility helo like the Squirrel).

It is not so much that the OPV's could not make use of the Seasprite due to the lack of a magazine in the hangar. What IMO would be more of an issue are the capabilities(or lack thereof) of the OPV's electronics and comms suites. If the OPV's lack datalinks, and/or workstations to interpret and display data coming from the Seasprites, then the OPV would be reduced to responding to verbal reports from the helicopter crew of what they found, etc. If the OPV lacks an air search radar capability and/or an IFF transceiver, then the OPV will also have an issue keeping track of where the Seasprite is... Having a set of 'eyes' in the sky is of course better than not having them, but much of the potential advantages might be missed.

Using the RAN's ideal 3:1 ratio (that the RNZN can't hope to match anyway) that would have meant simply acquiring 6 SH-2G(I)'s to operate from 2 ANZAC's. Seeing the NZG has acquired 8 (and two spares) it suggests they will also intend operate from the OPV's into the future too (as well as the Canterbury sealift vessel at present).

The RAN 3:1 ratio is really about having enough helicopters in service so that 8 are available for deployment/operations at once. It is not to provide all the RAN escorts, nevermind all RAN helicopter-capable vessels, a naval helicopter. The planned escorts themselves could operate 11 naval helicopters, then a few for each of the LHD's, one for HMAS Choules, and the future replenishment ships... Having 8+2 for the NZDF should provide not quite 3 available at any one time.

As for what the future might hold... I do hope that planning for it starts soon. Given that the frigate replacement is going to need to start happening around the same time, the NZDF might have even more big ticket items, and the more time available spread those costs out, the more likely that the NZDF is going to be able to obtain comparable replacements.

What I think NZ might need to do, is increase the size of the NH90 fleet (assuming the bugs can be worked out) so that some can be embarked on Canterbury, without having half the RNZAF helicopter lift fleet being aboard.

As for using a future NFH90, the jury IMO is still very much out on that one. From my perspective there have been too many times when a new Euro design has over promised and under delivered, either in terms of cost, capability, timeframe, etc.

-Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

Of course Romeo's and Sierra's are due to start being replaced from 2028. The USN AIR 4.10 began its CBA study around a year ago.

An option that takes into consideration Anzac's plus the CY replacement as well as what also replaces the OPV's - all happening around that 2030 timeframe is where the focus should be. Extrapolating what we require then based on current legacy platforms is only of cursory relevance.

With 8 Seasprites operational from a pool of 10 I believe we will manage for the next 15 years if used judiciously. Part of the reason why the current Sprites got thrashed was that we originally just ordered 4. Eight new Sprites rotated through 3 principal vessels Anzacs/CY with the occassional embarkation on secondary vessels per event tasking is much more plausible.

.

 

[ngatimozart]

I do not see the Seasprites lasting more than about 10 years. By then they will be unsupportable. The replacements are just a stop gap measure that was a good price for the number. What will replace the Seasprites that will be interesting and they will feed into the new Frigate requirements.
Does anyone know the operating cost of a wildcat vs NH90? At this stage to me they seem to be the likely options.

What's the basis for your assertion that the SH2G(I)s will only last 10 years? Do you have some technical knowledge relating to them?

Assuming the SH-2s last as long as the Anzacs (and that's probably a marginal call), why are you convinced the Wildcat is the right aircraft for the job?

I don't think it's that marginal actually. We have a better spares system this time and 3D printer technology is moving ahead in leaps and bounds With 2 birds as spares and I believe a good spares package, the simulator as well as the fact that the airframes etc., are zero timed, we should get 20 years out of them.

Ok I "like" the Wildcat because at the moment, apart from the Seasprites it is the only helo out there that can operate off all the flight decks we have plus it has the unique ability of 60 minute re-rolling from dedicated maritime helo to dedicated light attack helo. Just feel we'd get more per kilo for our dollar - bang for buck. I do think that we would need to replace the helos before we replace the FFHs just because of the sheer costs involved and block obsolescence in the Naval Combat Force.

With regard to operating NFH/NH90s off the FFHs (ANZACs) that may not be an option available because the flight decks will not have been designed or rated for the NH90. It's a lot heavier than the Seasprite. Similar problem with the Endeavour and the Seasprite. the Endeavours flight deck was designed and rated for the Wasps and when they were replaced by the Seasprites the flight deck can't take the Seasprite so that's why the Endeavour never has a helo embarked now.

I do agree that the NFH90 would be a logical choice as the next RNZN naval helo but costs will count for a lot and the pollies and Treasury will see it as too much capability and too expensive. Wonder if you could launch a NSM or JSM from a NFH?

 

[Gracie1234]

Actually i was thinking about 3D printing last night, I agree it will be a game changer for support especially for small forces such as ours.
Agree, the Seasprites could be keep flying for longer than 10-15 years. But if we were to upgrade them, what would the costs and risks be? It seems to me that the number of projects which have blown out in cost and not delivered the capability are very well known. I am not sure that the govt would accept that risk. Hence my view that they would be replaced. I believe this govt has already stated a preference for off the shelf purchases.
I just had a thought. It might be that the Seasprite fleet, after the replacement frigates are operational, could be used as a utility helicopter for the army. They would not require a significant upgrade (electronics, software) and could perform this role. The army has grown and they are short on helicopters as they originally wanted 12 NH90s but received 8.

 

[Lucasnz]

There was an article on the bbc a couple of months back about the RAF using 3D printing to support the torandos. I think it has a big future for stuctural components
but only if you can control quality. Sustainability of the electronics is where potential issues might arise with the seasprite imho

 

[ngatimozart]

Actually i was thinking about 3D printing last night, I agree it will be a game changer for support especially for small forces such as ours.
Agree, the Seasprites could be keep flying for longer than 10-15 years. But if we were to upgrade them, what would the costs and risks be? It seems to me that the number of projects which have blown out in cost and not delivered the capability are very well known. I am not sure that the govt would accept that risk. Hence my view that they would be replaced. I believe this govt has already stated a preference for off the shelf purchases.
I just had a thought. It might be that the Seasprite fleet, after the replacement frigates are operational, could be used as a utility helicopter for the army. They would not require a significant upgrade (electronics, software) and could perform this role. The army has grown and they are short on helicopters as they originally wanted 12 NH90s but received 8.

A correction and it's more than semantics. The NZ Army don't own or operate any NH90s - the RNZAF does. No by the time the ANZAC FFHs are replaced the Seasprites will have reached their use by date. Yes the current NZG has a preference now for MOTS & COTS but the Seasprite buy was to good to let go. If those aircraft weren't any good then we'd be looking at probably a $700 million buy at least.

 

[40 deg south]

Airbus Military has just has its annual briefing of trade media in Seville. Stories based on this are starting to appear in aviation magazines. Not immediately relevant to NZ, but maybe one day?

A couple of pieces from Janes say that Airbus is set to announce a second A400 export customer (Malaysia is the first, with 4 aircraft). My guess is South Africa, which signed up before cancelling out, but still manufactures some A400 components.

Airbus targets A400M export customers by end of year - IHS Jane's 360

Also, new variants of the C295 are under development. I'm impressed with the effort Airbus has put into progressive development of the base platform, and think they have done more in this regard than Alenia has for the C27J.

Airbus DS discloses new variants, customers for C295 aircraft - IHS Jane's 360

 

[Gracie1234]

I do apologize, i did not wish to offend anyone. I am new to this forum and are still finding my feet.

 

[Zero Alpha]

I just had a thought. It might be that the Seasprite fleet, after the replacement frigates are operational, could be used as a utility helicopter for the army. They would not require a significant upgrade (electronics, software) and could perform this role. The army has grown and they are short on helicopters as they originally wanted 12 NH90s but received 8.

Apart from the age at that time, the airframe isn't really suitable. Basically it's too small to carry a section and exiting the aircraft isn't easy. You'd end up with something more expensive to operate than a Huey that is less capable (except without the performance limitations).