Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Fedup]

Interesting fact, The Australian Army chose for 12 new build S-70M Black Hawks with a planned follow on order of 36 new or re manufactured S-70M's, In the end the politicians over ruled them...

I imagine had Aussie politicians not stuck there nose in where it doesn't belong that NZ would have gone for the S-70M as well.

Same BS in Canada, just now receiving CH-148 Cyclones after the RCN's EH-101 contract was cancelled by Chrétien almost 25 years ago! BTW, Sikorsky is still trying to meet the specs agreed to. Future upgrades will take care of this....I would LMFAO except this mess isn't very funny.

 

[40 deg south]

Another interesting article from Richard Harman at Politik.co.nz
OUR "UNSUITABLE" DEFENCE EQUIPMENT PROBLEMS | Politik

OT: Gerry Brownlee seems to have the hate on for the NH90:

At this rate he is definitely going to be off the NHI Xmas card list! Which could be a problem if we decide we have to have more.

Of course, they were bought:
a) because they were what the Army (the force du jour at the time) wanted.
b) because they were what the Australians had bought.

Infact, I'm pretty sure Goff had to back to Cabinet and ask for more money specifically for them.

Perhaps Brownlee should direct his anger towards the two previous ministers of his own government who knew perfectly well about the deployment problems, yet failed to do anything about it. Labour aren't innocent though, they stuffed up big time by not ensuring the NH90s were operable at sea (as this press release from Ron Mark today notes (here, useful for the note on the time required to fold & stow the NH90 onboard Canterbury).

To give Brownlee some credit, he did acknowledge that "NZ is a maritime nation". Well done.

Chis73

Chis
I'm not sure what the previous ministers could have done. My understanding is that early in the new government, Mapp or his officals enquired as to whether it would be possible to get out of the NH90 contract, given the delays that were even then becoming apparent. The answer came back as a firm No - NZ would be on the hook for significant penalties if they tried to ditch the deal.

The NH90 deal is a good stick for Brownlee to beat Phil Goff with, and he will use it whenever he can since Goff is on the Foreign Affairs and Defence select committee.

I think the helicopter itself will come good over time. It was hugely over-sold to NZ as an in-service platform when it fact it was still very much a developmental work in progress. It is a bit of an indictment of the 'school of wishful thinking' mentality that seemed to pervade defence procurement back then that the contract evidently didn't contain robust penalty or escape clauses.

But we have the NH90 now, and will just have to make the best of it.

 

[RegR]

What exactly is wrong with the NH90s now? The problems I have seen recently are user related problems such as 'non-deployable' (France has dis-proven that), set up/pack away times on board ship (even black hawks take time) naval helos cost more for a reason, could'nt deploy to Vanuatu (just deployed to northen Aus in exact same way) and cannot fit inside C130 (uh is that 90s fault?) that's what happens when you buy the cart before the horse.

I think Brownlee is just using it as ammo to prop himself up, what does he want? Bring back hueys? and to keep bringing up delays into service is abit rich as most defence projects end up doing this and we can't keep living in the past and bringing it up, it's here now and here to stay so move forward.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Both Brownlee and Mark clearly have axes to grind. They are both politicians before they are defence analysts. Regardless of who ordered what back when, etc, lets focus on what we have at present and how well its working now and going forward. To me it says a lot about Brownlee that he spends more time focussing on the past, than looking ahead. Isn't he responsible for rebuilding Chch?

NH90s TTH versions have been deployed by France in Mali, and germany and Italy in afghanistan. As far as I am aware, they have performed well. At present two NZ Nh90 are in Queensland as part of Talisman Sabrre where they will be operating alongside Aust MRH90s. Australia deployed a NH90 to Vanuatu, where it apparently poerformed well Capabilities put to immediate use | Navy Daily

We didn't deploy ours to Vanuatu because they had not been signed off for deploying from Canterbury yet, notbecause they couldn't. To mistake this for a lack of capability is misleading.

Marks Scoop PR:

Our NH90s are like beached whales and take an unbelievable one hour and fifteen minutes to be made ready for flight and the same time to get them ready for storage aboard ship. At two hours and thirty minutes from woe to go, that is only two hours and twenty-eight minutes longer than the Frigate Helicopter variant of the NH90

Does anyone know if this is accurate? If these are accurate figures, then there is a strong case for getting at least a couple of NFH90s, or converting our NH90s. Although arguably, for what we do now, the extra time to fold outis not an issue.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Brownlee and Mark should see what the Aussies have to say:

Commanding Officer Tobruk Commander Leif Maxfield said having a MRH-90 was indispensable, as there was no faster way to distribute supplies, provide medical help, or access remote communities than by helicopter.

“The reliability and functionality of the MRH-90 can be demonstrated by how it has undertaken up to 16 flights a day since we arrived in Vanuatu,” he said.

“It’s genuinely a quantum leap over any other Navy helicopter and already proving vital to our amphibious capabilities.”

Capabilities put to immediate use | Navy Daily

Not Sure if RAN MRH90s are the same as Aust army MHR90 and how similar they are to ours, or if they have auto folding rotors/tails.

 

[Cadredave]

What exactly is wrong with the NH90s now? The problems I have seen recently are user related problems such as 'non-deployable' (France has dis-proven that), set up/pack away times on board ship (even black hawks take time) naval helos cost more for a reason, could'nt deploy to Vanuatu (just deployed to northen Aus in exact same way) and cannot fit inside C130 (uh is that 90s fault?) that's what happens when you buy the cart before the horse.

I think Brownlee is just using it as ammo to prop himself up, what does he want? Bring back hueys? and to keep bringing up delays into service is abit rich as most defence projects end up doing this and we can't keep living in the past and bringing it up, it's here now and here to stay so move forward.

Nothing Reg just Big Gerry being a politician and trying to point score against the Labour members on the committee.

CD

 

[John Newman]

Not Sure if RAN MRH90s are the same as Aust army MHR90 and how similar they are to ours, or if they have auto folding rotors/tails.

I believe that the ADF's MRH-90's are all the same and the aircraft can be rotated from within the 'pool' of 46 airframes, eg one of the reasons the Navy birds are painted in Army camo pattern rather than the usual Navy grey colour scheme.

The main difference is that the airframes that are in Navy service have 'flotation' devices attached to the fuselage which I believe are removable and can be refitted to another airframe from the pool if an when required. I don't believe that any of the 46 have folding main rotors.

Other than that, I don't know if the Navy does (or doesn't) fit some other 'removable' extras when an airframe is in Navy rather than Army service.

Cheers,

Edit: As far as differences between Australian and NZ birds, I do remember someone saying here (in one of the NZ threads, possibly the NZ Air Force thread), that Australian aircraft had a different undercarriage, a more 'heavy duty' undercarriage, don't know if that is true or not, but it's probably true.

There doesn't seem to be one standard (two, if you count the Naval and Army versions), from what I have read, each nation operating them seems to have slightly different configurations to the next which no doubt contributes to problems with spares availability etc.

 

[blackhawknz]

Big Jerry doesn't no what he is talking bout..TTH is 1- 2 generation ahead UH-1 , better than the UH-60L in some respects even thou i am blackhawk fan.You imagine a RNZAF pilot maintainer jumping onto NH90 be like :bum. After all teething issues sorted 90 will be worth it , TTH isn't meant to work off the LPD. , they aren't navalised salt will cause mayhem with them, Government needs to Navalise 3-4 of the 8 exsiting TTH or maybe invest into a bearbones NFH version less the (ASW), (ASuW) good upgrade option for later thou and bobs your uncle Send them on ANZACs ,Tanker,LPD all you want , gud alternative or bud if want bit more capability over SH in the VRS TT role, and screw Airbus/NHIndustries on a good price for troubles with TTH.Labour needs to take bit of crap Would have thought Labour would better clauses in contract when signed.

 

[vonnoobie]

From my reading into it all from what I can gather on land the S-70's are currently the better helicopter's, Though at sea the NH-90's apparently handle ship board life better then the S-70's.

Over the last few year's a number of problems have come out such as windows cracking, floor's getting damaged too easily, seats not strong enough, ramp limited on weight it can handle, corrosion on the naval variant etc etc

While I have no doubt much of this can be fixed and a few of them likely come down to shoddy production methods etc (Surprising considering the company) do we know where we stand? As in what has been solved or is in the process of having a solution.. etc

In hindsight has Australia and NZ not taken them at there word's we should have ordered the S-70's as a stop gap measure or even leased some..

 

[RegR]

If that is actually the case and MRH-90s are all stock apart from flotation then if anything ours should actually be easier to deploy as we have folding rotors and tail (although not auto) and 3 of ours are fitted with flotation. Unsure if flotation is easily swapped on the 90s as they look fixed in rather than bolted on like a109 and UH. I would have thought at least a portion of ADFs 90s would have rotating blades as it would take even longer to remove/fit blades individually especially at sea and since the RAN versions will no doubt feature predominately on their new LHDs.

Even the NFH90s were having corrosion problems due to exposure and settlement but I guess this will happen with new builds as you won't find long term critical points until you get out there and use it properly but I think this has now been remedied or at least mitigated. Composite builds are supposed to be more corrosion resistant anyway.

If we had blackhawks we would still have many of these problems, transport, set up/pack down, corrosion etc just with a smaller frame. I think alot of these issues are policy issues and not actual physical problems and the C130 debate is a no brainer, basic shapes and sizes, but we knew this when we commited to NH90 so is not a new problem and will no doubt be sorted with the new lifters.

 

[blackhawknz]

Big Jerry doesn't no whats hes talking about , RNZAF version of the NH-90 TTH isnt Marinised for a start, where RAAF MRH90 are Marinised , so to put them on ships is going to cause havoc air frame , Electrical increase the maintenance etc , really need to Marinise 4 of the 8 to say RA MRH90 standard , or if the government can open the wallet and screw airbus on price for issues with first 8 , and Purchase 4NFH(support) versions less ASW/ASuW. Alway put the ASW/ASuW on at later date as a maybe a Replacement for SH-2 .Yes the UH-60Ls is very good , but i think the 90s are better ,and awesome replacement for UH-1 for start they have a range,speed ,carrying advantage , more modern airframe over UH etc, maybe a different story when come to replace SH-2 with MRH60- or NFH90 it would be close , but with an all 90 fleet would save training maintenance part etc etc

 

[40 deg south]

Both Brownlee and Mark clearly have axes to grind. They are both politicians before they are defence analysts....

Marks Scoop PR:

Our NH90s are like beached whales and take an unbelievable one hour and fifteen minutes to be made ready for flight and the same time to get them ready for storage aboard ship. At two hours and thirty minutes from woe to go, that is only two hours and twenty-eight minutes longer than the Frigate Helicopter variant of the NH90

Does anyone know if this is accurate? If these are accurate figures, then there is a strong case for getting at least a couple of NFH90s, or converting our NH90s. Although arguably, for what we do now, the extra time to fold outis not an issue.

Even if the one hour fifteen figure is accurate, it that really a problem? The NH90s are being stowed aboard for a multi-day voyage. In comparison to all the other tasks involved in loading the Canterbury, a couple of hours seems no big deal to me. If they thought a helicopter was needed urgently, it'd be on the flight deck with the blades unfolded.

To make any sense of the claim, we need to know how long it takes to manually fold the blades for stowage of other helicopters, such as the UH1 and Seasprite.

It's also unclear whether the one hour fifteen time is the absolute minimum in which blades can be folded by a trained crew, or what it took on NZ's first ever overseas deployment of the NH90? If the latter, there is presumably lots of room for improvement.

 

[40 deg south]

Min Def quote, my itallics. haven't been able to access details online.

Finally found the scrap of paper with my GETS log-in and looked at the new RFI for the Littoral Operations Support Capability. All it appears to contain is a single Word doc and and Excel file, so presumably it is designed to be read in conjunction with the earlier RFI. On a quick scan I can't see many of he basic requirements I would expect, such as maximum/minimum ship dimensions or draft. Again, I assume the ones specified in the earlier RFI still hold.

The vessel is now to be introduced in Q/3/Q4 of 2019, which I think is about a year later than the previous RFI. Possibly to allow time for the Endeavour replacment to enter sevice first and bed down.

A few other points:

Must be able to allow landing/take-off of helicopters up to NH90 size, with on-deck and in-air refuelling. But no hanger required.

No mention I can see of ice capability.

Can embark up to 56 'special personnel' with armoury and magazines

Self-defence capability, with varying options of Phlanx, Typhoon, Mini-Typhoon and 0.5s

200 sea days/yr, with 165 alongside in port

Max transit speed of 16-18 knots but able to do 0-8 knots for extended periods for hydrography and diving

C4ISR capability, and sensor suite for self-defence

The document also has an unusual feature - it presents four scenarios the vessel could be used in, and presumably bidders will outline how their product would meet these challenges. I'll briefly outline those scenarios when I have a free moment later.

 

[Bluey 006]

Finally found the scrap of paper with my GETS log-in and looked at the new RFI for the Littoral Operations Support Capability. All it appears to contain is a single Word doc and and Excel file, so presumably it is designed to be read in conjunction with the earlier RFI. On a quick scan I can't see many of he basic requirements I would expect, such as maximum/minimum ship dimensions or draft. Again, I assume the ones specified in the earlier RFI still hold.

The vessel is now to be introduced in Q/3/Q4 of 2019, which I think is about a year later than the previous RFI. Possibly to allow time for the Endeavour replacment to enter sevice first and bed down.

A few other points:

Must be able to allow landing/take-off of helicopters up to NH90 size, with on-deck and in-air refuelling. But no hanger required.

No mention I can see of ice capability.

Can embark up to 56 'special personnel' with armoury and magazines

Self-defence capability, with varying options of Phlanx, Typhoon, Mini-Typhoon and 0.5s

200 sea days/yr, with 165 alongside in port

Max transit speed of 16-18 knots but able to do 0-8 knots for extended periods for hydrography and diving

C4ISR capability, and sensor suite for self-defence

The document also has an unusual feature - it presents four scenarios the vessel could be used in, and presumably bidders will outline how their product would meet these challenges. I'll briefly outline those scenarios when I have a free moment later.

It seems the BMT Salvas could fit the bill for this ship , you can see it here Link

My preference though would be something that could cover the assigned roles but also add something in terms of warfighting or maritime security ( perhaps one of the Damen crossover series)

 

[Lucasnz]

It seems the BMT Salvas could fit the bill for this ship , you can see it here Link

My preference though would be something that could cover the assigned roles but also add something in terms of warfighting or maritime security ( perhaps one of the Damen crossover series)

Not bad - seems pretty close to the mark except on range (though it doesn't say at what speed). The navy will probably have that high up the want list given the operational area. I was looking at some of the Damen designs for Specialist Diving Support Vessels - some of them are interesting seem to fall short in a number of areas - speed being one of them.

 

[RegR]

Even if the one hour fifteen figure is accurate, it that really a problem? The NH90s are being stowed aboard for a multi-day voyage. In comparison to all the other tasks involved in loading the Canterbury, a couple of hours seems no big deal to me. If they thought a helicopter was needed urgently, it'd be on the flight deck with the blades unfolded.

To make any sense of the claim, we need to know how long it takes to manually fold the blades for stowage of other helicopters, such as the UH1 and Seasprite.

It's also unclear whether the one hour fifteen time is the absolute minimum in which blades can be folded by a trained crew, or what it took on NZ's first ever overseas deployment of the NH90? If the latter, there is presumably lots of room for improvement.

Exactly, 3 sqn helos do not need to operate from naval vessels in the same way 6 sqn helos do and it is just another form of transport (by sea) to/from a location with lillypadding to/from a shore base the most they should do once in loc and up and running. If they needed to operate from a ship in transit or even in general then we should just get naval variants, again 6 sqns feed.

Surely the sprites would be auto folding being purpose built shipbourne platforms and UH1H does not fold and are taken off completely for transit.

Agreed, for a relatively new type skillset they will only get better with more deployments/moves as time goes on and more pers are qualified.

 

[ngatimozart]

Exactly, 3 sqn helos do not need to operate from naval vessels in the same way 6 sqn helos do and it is just another form of transport (by sea) to/from a location with lillypadding to/from a shore base the most they should do once in loc and up and running. If they needed to operate from a ship in transit or even in general then we should just get naval variants, again 6 sqns feed.

Surely the sprites would be auto folding being purpose built shipbourne platforms and UH1H does not fold and are taken off completely for transit.

Agreed, for a relatively new type skillset they will only get better with more deployments/moves as time goes on and more pers are qualified.

Well the UH1H no longer feature because today is their last day of service. I presume that we agree that the marinsed NH90 needs to be acquired for RNZN use and I feel that four airframes would be sufficient for 6 Sqn. Then the govt would only have to retrofit the other eight with two done quickly and the remainder one at a time. That would give us 12 NH90s enabling us to have somewhat better helos cover. It is at a level where quantity has a very distinct quality of its own.

 

[RegR]

Well the UH1H no longer feature because today is their last day of service. I presume that we agree that the marinsed NH90 needs to be acquired for RNZN use and I feel that four airframes would be sufficient for 6 Sqn. Then the govt would only have to retrofit the other eight with two done quickly and the remainder one at a time. That would give us 12 NH90s enabling us to have somewhat better helos cover. It is at a level where quantity has a very distinct quality of its own.

Yip just answering the question ref UH. I think the best we can hope for in terms of a full marinised helo type of NH90 ilk will be when the current sprites are replaced and RNZAF will just airmen on with their 90s in it's current guise and adapt accordingly as at the moment it is a hinderance not a liability for what we want from them.

I still cannot see us getting any extra NH90s at this stage as it would be known by now if we were running short on numbers, I am yet to see this. Just because 12 is a classic squadron number to field there is still a justification required for the extra numbers and we also need to remember these are expensive machines to aqquire, operate, own and maintain and those extra costs will have implications now and over their LOT without added funding.

NZDF has smaller 'fleet' types and this particular sqn is no different and in fact coupled with the 109s is actually one of the more rounded and numerically typical sqns we have.

 

[ngatimozart]

Yip just answering the question ref UH. I think the best we can hope for in terms of a full marinised helo type of NH90 ilk will be when the current sprites are replaced and RNZAF will just airmen on with their 90s in it's current guise and adapt accordingly as at the moment it is a hinderance not a liability for what we want from them.

I still cannot see us getting any extra NH90s at this stage as it would be known by now if we were running short on numbers, I am yett to see this. Just because 12 is a classic squadron number to field there is still a justification required for the extra numbers and we also need to remember these are expensive machines to aqquire, operate, own and maintain and those extra costs will have implications now and over their LOT without added funding.

NZDF has smaller 'fleet' types and this particular sqn is no different and in fact coupled with the 109s is actually one of the more rounded and numerically typical sqns we have.

I didn't pull 12 out if the air or because it was the traditional number of aircraft in a Sqn. In fact that was a very old number for a Sqn establishment. It could, did and does vary. I calculated that number based upon probable tasking requirements and aircraft availability due to maintenance requirements etc. In fact tasking requirements have now broadened and increased from the Huey days due to the aircraft expectation of going to sea at various times. Secondly 6 Sqn have 8 Sprites which are light - medium helos and at times will be required to operate off the OPVs as well as the Endeavour replacement and of course the frigates. Maybe a NH90 can do the Endeavour replacement helos ops. Would certainly give it greater versatility and would be able to undertake heavier vertreps, which would be advantageous and quicker.

 

[RegR]

I didn't pull 12 out if the air or because it was the traditional number of aircraft in a Sqn. In fact that was a very old number for a Sqn establishment. It could, did and does vary. I calculated that number based upon probable tasking requirements and aircraft availability due to maintenance requirements etc. In fact tasking requirements have now broadened and increased from the Huey days due to the aircraft expectation of going to sea at various times. Secondly 6 Sqn have 8 Sprites which are light - medium helos and at times will be required to operate off the OPVs as well as the Endeavour replacement and of course the frigates. Maybe a NH90 can do the Endeavour replacement helos ops. Would certainly give it greater versatility and would be able to undertake heavier vertreps, which would be advantageous and quicker.

I understand 12 is a traditional sqn number, that is why I said it. Whilst there is supposedly added at sea days will 3 still be overworked? Again I am yet to see this and unless we get alot busier then at the moment the current sqn org seems to be sufficient, a balance between operation and operating as it all comes down to financing the show in the first place. Pointless buying more if you have to cut the hours on the rest to fund/run the extras as the 90s are wildly more expensive to run PFH then their predecessors.

Even if End replacement got a sprite that is 100% more organic helo support than is currently available so in itself would be a vast improvement and the 90s and even 109s are still there. Ever since we started quoting JATF we have suddenly turned 3 sqn assets into 6 sqn operators where TBH I am yet to see any overly great change to date in terms of operation, transport and conduct. If defence had not coined the phrase JATF I somehow suspect NZ will stiil be operating as per, it just gave some officers in Wellington some flow diagrams to come up with and an overall focus for the 'future'.