Royal New Zealand Air Force

[kiwipatriot69]

Yes. I do agree with you they paid too much price. In some more added cost. They may had developed their own smaller aircrafts.

Not for the capability they bring, the arent! triple the loadout of personnel that prior hueys can handle, we a talking brand new heavy lift helicopters not light trainers like A109 or similar. If your suggesting civilian aircraft to retrofit or 'developing own aircraft' from scratch, you only have to look at major manufacturers like Airbus and others too see what kind of issues that has.

Nh90 is widely used and indeed preferred by both our military and many of our defence partners, makes sense to be interoperable. As for cost, well only issue with that i see is maybe we could have purchased them when Australia did theirs to save with a bulk purchase, also our exchange rate is a factor too. I wouldnt mind seeing a few more of them though, or extra A109 as one spare NH90 at present seems a bit light should we damage one.

 

[t68]

Nh90 is widely used and indeed preferred by both our military and many of our defence partners, makes sense to be interoperable. As for cost, well only issue with that i see is maybe we could have purchased them when Australia did theirs to save with a bulk purchase, also our exchange rate is a factor too. I wouldnt mind seeing a few more of them though, or extra A109 as one spare NH90 at present seems a bit light should we damage one.

I imagine that one knock down airframe would mostly have been used up by now, from the lightning strike blades to whatever wiring looms may have been damaged to consumable parts which may have to be returned to the manufacture for service and whatnot. ope

 

[John Newman]

I imagine that one knock down airframe would mostly have been used up by now, from the lightning strike blades to whatever wiring looms may have been damaged to consumable parts which may have to be returned to the manufacture for service and whatnot. ope

With regard to the 'ninth' spare NH90 airframe (and I'm sure my Kiwi cousins can correct me on this), was that yes it is a source of spares, but if a part, or parts, are removed to restore one of the other eight active airframes that the part taken was then sourced from the manufacturer.

I don't think the idea of obtaining that ninth airframe was that it was to be stripped once (and only once), it was there to be able to get the part needed right now and not having to wait for the part to arrive.

Am I correct in what I understand, a part is taken when needed off the airframe, but then replaced in due course for next time??

 

[ngatimozart]

With regard to the 'ninth' spare NH90 airframe (and I'm sure my Kiwi cousins can correct me on this), was that yes it is a source of spares, but if a part, or parts, are removed to restore one of the other eight active airframes that the part taken was then sourced from the manufacturer.

I don't think the idea of obtaining that ninth airframe was that it was to be stripped once (and only once), it was there to be able to get the part needed right now and not having to wait for the part to arrive.

Am I correct in what I understand, a part is taken when needed off the airframe, but then replaced in due course for next time??

From what I understand the ninth airframe is utilised as an immediate source of spares for situations of AOG where time is a factor. The spare is ordered from the manufacturer and replaced in 09s crate when it arrives. We have a different relationship with the manufacturer to that of the ADF.

 

[MrConservative]

From what I understand the ninth airframe is utilised as an immediate source of spares for situations of AOG where time is a factor. The spare is ordered from the manufacturer and replaced in 09s crate when it arrives. We have a different relationship with the manufacturer to that of the ADF.

IIRC this spare airframe approach had its genesis with the F-16's back in 1998. Six of the 28 were to be their for parts and attrition. It makes sense for a small fleet air force and helps to address ballooning support costs.

 

[Rob c]

With regard to the 'ninth' spare NH90 airframe (and I'm sure my Kiwi cousins can correct me on this), was that yes it is a source of spares, but if a part, or parts, are removed to restore one of the other eight active airframes that the part taken was then sourced from the manufacturer.

I don't think the idea of obtaining that ninth airframe was that it was to be stripped once (and only once), it was there to be able to get the part needed right now and not having to wait for the part to arrive.

Am I correct in what I understand, a part is taken when needed off the airframe, but then replaced in due course for next time??

I think that the parts removed would be what are known as rotable parts, these are parts that when they fail or are due for recon are replaced on the effected aircraft, then either repaired or reconned as required and returned to the stores system, it is unlikely they would be refitted to the spare airframe. The reason for buying parts this way was it was vastly cheaper buying the completed product from the production line than buying the parts at the time individually from the different contractors, as we got them at the bulk price not retail,

 

[ngatimozart]

I think that the parts removed would be what are known as rotable parts, these are parts that when they fail or are due for recon are replaced on the effected aircraft, then either repaired or reconned as required and returned to the stores system, it is unlikely they would be refitted to the spare airframe. The reason for buying parts this way was it was vastly cheaper buying the completed product from the production line than buying the parts at the time individually from the different contractors, as we got them at the bulk price not retail,

09 or the ninth airframe is in a series of crates. It's a knocked down airframe and was delivered that way with no intention to assemble the aircraft per se.

 

[gf0012-aust]

IIRC this spare airframe approach had its genesis with the F-16's back in 1998. Six of the 28 were to be their for parts and attrition. It makes sense for a small fleet air force and helps to address ballooning support costs.

RAAF did a similar thing with the F-111G's, they were originally bought as spares to supplement and support the F-111C's, then some became active frames and the balance were donors.

they eventually all turned into active frames

 

[t68]

RAAF did a similar thing with the F-111G's, they were originally bought as spares to supplement and support the F-111C's, then some became active frames and the balance were donors.

they eventually all turned into active frames

I guess it was a bit easier for the RAAF as there was a plentiful supply of parts as needed out at AMARG.

According to AMARG inventory list there is still 148 A4's, 489 F16,187 F4's and 53 C5 Galaxy still in storage on site. Didn't see any C17 Globemasters on the list yet.

 

[MrConservative]

Didn't see any C17 Globemasters on the list yet.

Please let is know when you do.

 

[RegR]

I imagine that one knock down airframe would mostly have been used up by now, from the lightning strike blades to whatever wiring looms may have been damaged to consumable parts which may have to be returned to the manufacture for service and whatnot. ope

And then they would have been replaced as per use, that is the whole point of the attrition frame, so that we have a source of major components available straight away rather than waiting the inevitable lead in times to order from factory. As soon as it was used any item would then be re-ordered and replaced within stock ready to go again, negating any downtime caused by transit.

It's not a case if using the ninth frame up until everything is gone then running out of parts in say 5 years time and parking up the fleet it just means between the spare frame and rotables in store we essentially have everything available at a moments notice and not hostage to the euro supply chain. Would only start to be a problem is multiple frames had the same major component problems within a relatively short period of time but smaller fleet generally means less chances of that unless a common fault, which is then usually a factory issue anyway.

I could be wrong but I also think I read the lightning damaged frame was sent back to airbus for repair under warranty due to the nature (literally) of the damage.

 

[t68]

And then they would have been replaced as per use, that is the whole point of the attrition frame, so that we have a source of major components available straight away rather than waiting the inevitable lead in times to order from factory. As soon as it was used any item would then be re-ordered and replaced within stock ready to go again, negating any downtime caused by transit.

It's not a case if using the ninth frame up until everything is gone then running out of parts in say 5 years time and parking up the fleet it just means between the spare frame and rotables in store we essentially have everything available at a moments notice and not hostage to the euro supply chain. Would only start to be a problem is multiple frames had the same major component problems within a relatively short period of time but smaller fleet generally means less chances of that unless a common fault, which is then usually a factory issue anyway.

I could be wrong but I also think I read the lightning damaged frame was sent back to airbus for repair under warranty due to the nature (literally) of the damage.

Yep exactly, I thought it was good planing on RNZAF part with such few airframes, whereas the ADF would be able to purchase in bulk. Would be interesting to see if a common order system has been put into place to increase the buying power for both nations.

I may not have explained myself correctly I knew the spare airframe most parts would be rotate-able, I also imagine there would have been a one time only part, like wiring looms which once they have been fried would only be good for scrap afterwoods. I know in the transport industry most elec problems are replaced whole except for alternators etc

Did they assemble the airframe so they can use it as a training add?

 

[RegR]

Yep exactly, I thought it was good planing on RNZAF part with such few airframes, whereas the ADF would be able to purchase in bulk. Would be interesting to see if a common order system has been put into place to increase the buying power for both nations.

I may not have explained myself correctly I knew the spare airframe most parts would be rotate-able, I also imagine there would have been a one time only part, like wiring looms which once they have been fried would only be good for scrap afterwoods. I know in the transport industry most elec problems are replaced whole except for alternators etc

Did they assemble the airframe so they can use it as a training add?

You would hope we have a common order arrangement at least for the basics being all the way down here together with the same type of helo, unsure if the origin ie ours from france, theirs locally assembled would affect this.

The last time I saw the 9th frame it was basically a shell sitting at the back of the hanger, would make sense to make use of it for at least a part task trainer for loadmasters, loading, tech/mech famil, embus/debus drills etc instead of potentially gathering dust as hopefully we will never have to press it into use (as a direct replacement anyway).

 

[Rob c]

Yep exactly, I thought it was good planing on RNZAF part with such few airframes, whereas the ADF would be able to purchase in bulk. Would be interesting to see if a common order system has been put into place to increase the buying power for both nations.

I may not have explained myself correctly I knew the spare airframe most parts would be rotate-able, I also imagine there would have been a one time only part, like wiring looms which once they have been fried would only be good for scrap afterwoods. I know in the transport industry most elec problems are replaced whole except for alternators etc

Did they assemble the airframe so they can use it as a training add?

On aircraft most non rotation parts tend to be small and common, so I would have expected a separate lot would have been purchased. Parts like wiring looms tend to last the life of the aircraft and would not be touched unless up for significant modification.

 

[40 deg south]

I think that the parts removed would be what are known as rotable parts, these are parts that when they fail or are due for recon are replaced on the effected aircraft, then either repaired or reconned as required and returned to the stores system, it is unlikely they would be refitted to the spare airframe. The reason for buying parts this way was it was vastly cheaper buying the completed product from the production line than buying the parts at the time individually from the different contractors, as we got them at the bulk price not retail,

I've also been told by someone in light blue that buying the spare airframe was at least in part a cost saving measure, as buying an equivalent set of spare parts ("We'll have one of everything, thanks Jacques") worked out a hell of a lot more expensive.

 

[40 deg south]

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/training-simulation/new-zealand-gets-t-6c-training-capabilities/

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...-t6-equipped-pilot-training-operation-424212/

On a completely different topic, the international defence media are reporting that the the new pilot training system is up and running.

In a week when NZDF has been hit with accusations of poor asset management (with the Navy IPVs), I'm surprised they didn't try harder to push this as a good news story for local media consumption.

 

[40 deg south]

New Zealand replaces old Seasprite helicopters

I never know whether to put Seasprite-related info in the Navy of Air Force forum - advice welcome.

The final SH--2G(NZ) has retired from NZ service, and will presumably be en route of new home in Peru soon (via North America for refurbishment).

The Sprite is dead, long live the Sprite!

 

[t68]

New Zealand replaces old Seasprite helicopters

I never know whether to put Seasprite-related info in the Navy of Air Force forum - advice welcome.

The final SH--2G(NZ) has retired from NZ service, and will presumably be en route of new home in Peru soon (via North America for refurbishment).

The Sprite is dead, long live the Sprite!

Will be interesting to see how long these last with an addition of three for the squadron, considering five lasted 15 years, certainly would make a good case study into only buy the minimum.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Will be interesting to see how long these last with an addition of three for the squadron, considering five lasted 15 years, certainly would make a good case study into only buy the minimum.

Those five provided coverage to two frigates initially. If you Google you'll find a report that catalogues some of the challenges in running such a low ratio of choppers to ships. Depending on maintenance cycles for both ships and aircraft occasionally more would be available, or one available for embarked ops from a frigate and the other from Canterbury.

 

[ngatimozart]

Those five provided coverage to two frigates initially. If you Google you'll find a report that catalogues some of the challenges in running such a low ratio of choppers to ships. Depending on maintenance cycles for both ships and aircraft occasionally more would be available, or one available for embarked ops from a frigate and the other from Canterbury.

It was interesting that until the Aussies decided to go with the Sprites, the RNZN and I believe the NZG were seriously looking at the Lynx, which in hindsight would have been the far better acquisition. I will have to find the reference again.

On another note, the ex RNZAF UH1H Iroquois sold offshore have been packed onto flat racks and are starting their journey to the US. All the spares etc. , have been packed up and started shipping as well.