Royal New Zealand Air Force

[MrConservative]

As a recent reference ET 99 utilised 6 hueys to support a Bn sized deployment (arguably the largest we would realistically do and even then not without issues so not likely to be repeated anytime soon) in the surge dropping to 4 after everyone was established so comparitively 3 NH90s would be needed to support our largest deployment (throw in a lone A109 for SAR, overwatch, contingency etc for good measure) and you have a pretty standard helo package for us. This could then downsize to 2 NH90s and a A109 once it all settled down if need be (though probably not as likely for redundancy reasons). Aus army also had 3 blackhawks supporting their battalion in timor leste post 06 ops so obviously a considered option.

That would leave 5 NH90s and 4 A109 in NZ for tasking, training, rotation and maintainence keeping in mind that with main effort being a Bn gp overseas, not much else commital wise will be happening around this time due to manpower required to sustain, raise, retrain such a large deployment (for NZ). So realistically the most NH90s we would deploy at once should be 3 at the most, 2 for coy sized ops and 1 for smaller tasks along with the obvious A109 option to supplement or even conduct said task (unlike the sioux of old).

I don't see us getting any 'extra' 90s just yet which is why I think a way to alleviate any perceived 'shortage' of usable frames is to just replace the seasprites with a mix of NFH90 and marinised 90s when the time comes (obviously coinciding with naval ship replacements as well, namely ANZACs and otagos). Give 6 squadron say 4 NFHs, 3 standard 90s and marinise 2 of the extra 3 109s and there are your extra NH90s (for a total of 11 baseline NH90s). Makes sense as no doubt a majority user will be this JATF we keep hearing about operating from naval vessels so why not keep them with the SME squadron. 3 standard 90s under navy control just gives govt another option for taskings such as TC Winston, DOC island tasks, organic JATF flight etc and cuts down on required currency training keeping the likes of 3 sqaudron fully versed in maritime ops as working from sea is completely different to merely being transported via sea, a key difference between 6sqn and 3sqn. This will also open up more tasks to our naval crews with a more optioned fleet that would otherwise be the domain of their air force counterparts, sharing the load so to speak.

The SOP for an INTERFET like UNSC Chp VII deployment of a Combined Arms Taskforce Group is for a minimum 4 NH-90s at operational preparedness due to the requirement of phased serving. The addition of another single type such as a LUH as part of a 3 Squadron detachment as you suggest would create havoc in the supply and support chain. Illogical if there is another NH-90 sitting in a hanger at OH. If the UNSC mandate tunes down for example to an UNTAET deployment under UNSC Chp VI then the SOP may dictate a reduction such as what happened in Timor. Yes then you could go down to 2-3. However, the decision making addressing support elements at UNSC Chp VII is not entirely the RNZAF’s to make in isolation. In ET General Cosgrove’s planners had a substantial say in deployment contexts under his watch.

 

[Zero Alpha]

I don't see us getting any 'extra' 90s just yet which is why I think a way to alleviate any perceived 'shortage' of usable frames is to just replace the seasprites with a mix of NFH90 and marinised 90s when the time comes (obviously coinciding with naval ship replacements as well, namely ANZACs and otagos). Give 6 squadron say 4 NFHs, 3 standard 90s and marinise 2 of the extra 3 109s and there are your extra NH90s (for a total of 11 baseline NH90s).

Managing the availability of frames is the key challenge.

Conventional wisdom is you need a ration of around 3.5:1 of aircraft one land to support one at sea. So realistically you would need 3-4 aircraft to keep one flight deployable.

Programmed time at sea for some ships makes it easier to line up airframes 'allocated' to them to a certain degree. I the funding was made available, it would probably be achievable to have a NH90 available for Canterbury over the cyclone season, and potentially another one throughout the year to operate from MSC or LOSC.

With a bit of luck perhaps 4 additional aircraft aircraft could be made to make it work with a certain degree of risk and accepting 'seasonality' of the capability.

 

[Zero Alpha]

I still find it strange even for NZ standards that they hobbled the operation guidelines for less than a 100 million. The original contract was 771m NZD at the time which includes spares and associated paraphernalia when two more machines was clearly needed.

The problem is it wasn't 'clearly' needed at all. With various studies underway that would impact on the size of supported units, it was entirely possible that a slightly smaller fleet would still achieve the effect required at a tactical level. An extra couple of aircraft would undoubtedly be useful, but if more funding was available it would probably be more useful to spend it on automatic tail and rotor folding and a deck haul-down system for each frame.

Ironically if Army needed more helicopter lift, it probably would have got it if so much capital hadn't been tied up in LAVs that were parked up and never used. The surplus number of LAVs being more than sufficient to fund at least two additional NH90s.

 

[RegR]

The SOP for an INTERFET like UNSC Chp VII deployment of a Combined Arms Taskforce Group is for a minimum 4 NH-90s at operational preparedness due to the requirement of phased serving. The addition of another single type such as a LUH as part of a 3 Squadron detachment as you suggest would create havoc in the supply and support chain. Illogical if there is another NH-90 sitting in a hanger at OH. If the UNSC mandate tunes down for example to an UNTAET deployment under UNSC Chp VI then the SOP may dictate a reduction such as what happened in Timor. Yes then you could go down to 2-3. However, the decision making addressing support elements at UNSC Chp VII is not entirely the RNZAF’s to make in isolation. In ET General Cosgrove’s planners had a substantial say in deployment contexts under his watch.

Phased servicing does not require the AC to be based in loc but can be in NZ ready to go and rotated as per with managed hours, any servicing in the AO can be acheived by then dropping down to 2 frames, again all down to planning and forthought. Also bear in mind no doubt at least 1 naval helo (more initially) will be floating around (literally) for use in a pinch, again which is why I am an advocate for those 'extra' 90 frames to be 6sqn assets as the current sprites do have their limitations but can still do planned tasks nonetheless.

For a long term op like ET the supply chain would be well established and extensive or are you suggesting the NH90s and A109s will never work together due to logistics? Using an NH90 to do the inevitable smaller tasks for a BN group overtime would become costly in itself somewhat justifying any havoc. While we would have a single fleet on a shorter term op for ease of deployment a long duration of years not months gives abit more certainty in setting up any added tails.

If the UN was picking up the tab we could send half our defence force over but as was shown it does create issues back in NZ and the NZDF (and NZ) continues to function despite what the UN think or want. If NZ was funding any op outright then I'm pretty sure there are going to be compromises both seemingly good and bad.

 

[MrConservative]

　Phased servicing does not require the AC to be based in loc but can be in NZ ready to go and rotated as per with managed hours, any servicing in the AO can be acheived by then dropping down to 2 frames, again all down to planning and forthought. Also bear in mind no doubt at least 1 naval helo (more initially) will be floating around (literally) for use in a pinch, again which is why I am an advocate for those 'extra' 90 frames to be 6sqn assets as the current sprites do have their limitations but can still do planned tasks nonetheless.

Oh Please. Creating another logistical nightmare. Swapping aircraft in and out of theatre. Sending them back to NZ for a phased service - good grief. It is not huge in the technical sense to do a phased service it just means that an airframe has to be checked, audited and maintained on a schedule based on hours of use. That is often done in situ like happened in ET. In a C-130H getting a single Huey airframe was a huge effort for air movements and 3 Sqd.

Please get it into your head that 4 is the SOP of a CTAG deployment and move on. There is a reason why 4 NH-90s fit in the CY.

For a long term op like ET the supply chain would be well established and extensive or are you suggesting the NH90s and A109s will never work together due to logistics?

No. But it is simply unorthodox to instead of deploying 4 NH-90s as per the Conops you would want to take only 3 and then throw in a LUH for good measure because you think it is a good idea.

Using an NH90 to do the inevitable smaller tasks for a BN group overtime would become costly in itself somewhat justifying any havoc. While we would have a single fleet on a shorter term op for ease of deployment a long duration of years not months gives abit more certainty in setting up any added tails.

If you want to add to the baseline of 4 NH-90s an LUH capability to cover small tasks then all well and good. If you wanted the justification of the extra expense in having them there to be available when you need them and never mind the ramping down of the rotary training capability back in NZ to do so. But frankly it is a false economy.

If the UN was picking up the tab we could send half our defence force over but as was shown it does create issues back in NZ and the NZDF (and NZ) continues to function despite what the UN think or want. If NZ was funding any op outright then I'm pretty sure there are going to be compromises both seemingly good and bad.

The UN does not pick up tab. The compromise is that the UN Force Commander who executes the mandate says who is in and who is out. They do not want liabilities. We had a close call in Bosnia in 1994. Borderline liability due to our lack of interoperability and dated equipment in insufficient numbers.

 

[RegR]

Oh Please. Creating another logistical nightmare. Swapping aircraft in and out of theatre. Sending them back to NZ for a phased service - good grief. It is not huge in the technical sense to do a phased service it just means that an airframe has to be checked, audited and maintained on a schedule based on hours of use. That is often done in situ like happened in ET. In a C-130H getting a single Huey airframe was a huge effort for air movements and 3 Sqd.

Please get it into your head that 4 is the SOP of a CTAG deployment and move on. There is a reason why 4 NH-90s fit in the CY.



No. But it is simply unorthodox to instead of deploying 4 NH-90s as per the Conops you would want to take only 3 and then throw in a LUH for good measure because you think it is a good idea.



If you want to add to the baseline of 4 NH-90s an LUH capability to cover small tasks then all well and good. If you wanted the justification of the extra expense in having them there to be available when you need them and never mind the ramping down of the rotary training capability back in NZ to do so. But frankly it is a false economy.




The UN does not pick up tab. The compromise is that the UN Force Commander who executes the mandate says who is in and who is out. They do not want liabilities. We had a close call in Bosnia in 1994. Borderline liability due to our lack of interoperability and dated equipment in insufficient numbers.

If you actually believe NZ sticks to SOPs in terms of equipment deployment then you obviously hold too much faith in our military. I've read many unit SOPs and what they are supposed to have and feild for each chapter and scenario is always max effort and looks amazing on paper but in actuality due to manning and actual equipment available rarely happens and is usually down to what the unit can actually provide comfortably. My old unit did not even have the required amount of manpower, equipment and vehicles to fullfill the 'full' capability SOPs stated and was always downsized accordingly. Like most NZDF policy there are always low-mid-high ranges for planning and comparison, your dreaming if you think we always go for the stated high option and as has been stated we would have 10 90s if we followed SOPs, policy or even common sense reccomended, however we compromised at 8. Exs like SK give an idea of a typical 3sqn contribution to a major deployment today (as that's what they are practicing for, not for good measure so to speak). Guess we will just have to wait for NZs next battalion+ group deployment to find out for sure.

The reason CY can fit 4 NH90s is because it has room for 4 helicopters. Could just as easily be sprites, 109s, civi, trucks, generators etc. We selected the 90s after project protector so we had the cart before the horse.

Frames are rotated out regularly for major servicing, happened in Bougainville for hueys and ET for blackhawks, what I am saying is we do not need to essentially keep a spare frame in theatre just to cover deployed servicing intervals we would just drop down a frame for that period again down to planning. I would assume our SOPs are not too dissimilar to Aus in this regard for a similar sized deployment and even they did not do this (and they have the numbers). I bet their 'SOPs' stated they take x amount of frames for y op as well according to the play book but adjusted accordingly.

Whilst we do not have to take 109s having options is always good and adds variance and efficiency for tasks, same reason we don't take just LAVs on ops or just trucks
or just hiluxes, can't do all jobs with one platform. If we were not going to deploy 109s ever we could have passed on the milspecs and got all civi versions at cost. They purposely have more roles than the sioux rather than purely a training capacity for a reason.

 

[Todjaeger]

If you actually believe NZ sticks to SOPs in terms of equipment deployment then you obviously hold too much faith in our military. I've read many unit SOPs and what they are supposed to have and feild for each chapter and scenario is always max effort and looks amazing on paper but in actuality due to manning and actual equipment available rarely happens and is usually down to what the unit can actually provide comfortably. My old unit did not even have the required amount of manpower, equipment and vehicles to fullfill the 'full' capability SOPs stated and was always downsized accordingly. Like most NZDF policy there are always low-mid-high ranges for planning and comparison, your dreaming if you think we always go for the stated high option and as has been stated we would have 10 90s if we followed SOPs, policy or even common sense reccomended, however we compromised at 8. Exs like SK give an idea of a typical 3sqn contribution to a major deployment today (as that's what they are practicing for, not for good measure so to speak). Guess we will just have to wait for NZs next battalion+ group deployment to find out for sure.

The reason CY can fit 4 NH90s is because it has room for 4 helicopters. Could just as easily be sprites, 109s, civi, trucks, generators etc. We selected the 90s after project protector so we had the cart before the horse.

Frames are rotated out regularly for major servicing, happened in Bougainville for hueys and ET for blackhawks, what I am saying is we do not need to essentially keep a spare frame in theatre just to cover deployed servicing intervals we would just drop down a frame for that period again down to planning. I would assume our SOPs are not too dissimilar to Aus in this regard for a similar sized deployment and even they did not do this (and they have the numbers). I bet their 'SOPs' stated they take x amount of frames for y op as well according to the play book but adjusted accordingly.

Whilst we do not have to take 109s having options is always good and adds variance and efficiency for tasks, same reason we don't take just LAVs on ops or just trucks
or just hiluxes, can't do all jobs with one platform. If we were not going to deploy 109s ever we could have passed on the milspecs and got all civi versions at cost. They purposely have more roles than the sioux rather than purely a training capacity for a reason.

A couple of which comments/responses to this.

If the NZDF does not stick to SOP (to one degree or another) on deployments, then that would mean that the NZDF has no SOP. A situation I do not believe to be the case, frankly. I fully expect that depending on circumstances, portions of the SOP become 'flexible' to allow personnel/forces to adapt and overcome the situation, but there does have to be a standard approach or operating procedure. Otherwise, that would mean that for every incident or deployment, Kiwi personnel 'make up' their response on the fly, including the types and numbers of personnel to deploy.

The second involves the NH90 capacity of Canterbury. As part of Project Protector, there was a requirement for Canterbury to be able to operate varying numbers of helicopters of different sizes. IIRC it was one Chinook-sized helicopter, or two Cougar-sized ones from the helipad, which has two landing spots. The AS532 Cougar (military version of the Puma) is roughly the same size as the NH90, so it would appear that as part of Project Protector, there was an expectation of a medium-lift helicopter being in RNZAF service. While the decision makers might not have known it would be the NH90 in service, it would be reasonable for them to know that something of that size and weight class would be getting brought into service. Which means that capacity for four in the hangar is not exactly putting the cart before the horse.

 

[MrConservative]

If you actually believe NZ sticks to SOPs in terms of equipment deployment then you obviously hold too much faith in our military. I've read many unit SOPs and what they are supposed to have and feild for each chapter and scenario is always max effort and looks amazing on paper but in actuality due to manning and actual equipment available rarely happens and is usually down to what the unit can actually provide comfortably. My old unit did not even have the required amount of manpower, equipment and vehicles to fullfill the 'full' capability SOPs stated and was always downsized accordingly.

So do you condone that behavior? I have an expectation that SOP are followed. especially when it comes to deployment because that is the crux of the issue when we are discussing the deployment of NH-90s as part of a future NZ CATG that works under the umbrella of typically an Australian led operation. Were these minor or major breaches of SOP's that you are talking about? Did your unit deploy as part of UN mandated coalition force without an acceptable complement or material. Has this been done in recent years? OK the Bosnia deployment 20 odd years ago was lets say difficult but the lack of our preparedness and interoperability was clearly spelt out by the British to the NZG.

Like most NZDF policy there are always low-mid-high ranges for planning and comparison, your dreaming if you think we always go for the stated high option and as has been stated we would have 10 90s if we followed SOPs, policy or even common sense recommended, however we compromised at 8.

I actually find it totally unacceptable that compromises were made over the acquisition. Do you therefore find that such compromises are acceptable? To actually procure what was the optimal fleet size following all the investigation to inform the MUH replacement project is not dreaming.

Exs like SK give an idea of a typical 3sqn contribution to a major deployment today (as that's what they are practicing for, not for good measure so to speak). Guess we will just have to wait for NZs next battalion+ group deployment to find out for sure.

What NZ contributes is sifted through what the mandated force commander requires.

The reason CY can fit 4 NH90s is because it has room for 4 helicopters. Could just as easily be sprites, 109s, civi, trucks, generators etc. We selected the 90s after project protector so we had the cart before the horse.

Actually as Todj says there was a likelihood that a 10 tonne helicopter would be chosen as the main utility platform. The scoping for the MUH project was done in 2003 and was concurrent with the design parametres of the CY.

Frames are rotated out regularly for major servicing, happened in Bougainville for hueys and ET for blackhawks, what I am saying is we do not need to essentially keep a spare frame in theatre just to cover deployed servicing intervals we would just drop down a frame for that period again down to planning.

During Interfet a full-phase maintenance crew was deployed alongside the 6 Hueys to ensure that 4 were always available for tasking. Operating Level Maintenance and Intermediate Level Maintenance (or phase servicing) was conducted in-situ. It was only later under the UNTAET mission that Hueys were rotated home for Depot Level Maintenance.

I would assume our SOPs are not too dissimilar to Aus in this regard for a similar sized deployment and even they did not do this (and they have the numbers). I bet their 'SOPs' stated they take x amount of frames for y op as well according to the play book but adjusted accordingly.

I am pretty certain that Operating Level Maintenance and Intermediate Level Maintenance were conducted in Timor on their 20 Blackhawks during INTERFET. Because again that is the context. A Chp VII event. They may have rotated back an airframe during that period but with 20 airframes in-situ however I am sure that they would have maintained capability readiness. They were also a lot closer and having more than 6 airframes were able to be flexible. Not a luxury we had or will have.

Whilst we do not have to take 109s having options is always good and adds variance and efficiency for tasks, same reason we don't take just LAVs on ops or just trucks
or just hiluxes, can't do all jobs with one platform. If we were not going to deploy 109s ever we could have passed on the milspecs and got all civi versions at cost. They purposely have more roles than the sioux rather than purely a training capacity for a reason.

You are completely missing the whole rationale and lessons learnt in ET why we bought a 10 tonne utility helicopter capability. The operational requirements in the capability definition phase had the expectation that three NH90 helicopters would be required for the Air Movement of an Army platoon, with a minimum of 27 soldiers and equipment in a single wave to ensure synchronised arrival of combat elements.

All this sideshow about LUH deployment, hiluxes and LAV's has no bearing on that inescapable fact with respect to NH90's deployment.

 

[RegR]

A couple of which comments/responses to this.

If the NZDF does not stick to SOP (to one degree or another) on deployments, then that would mean that the NZDF has no SOP. A situation I do not believe to be the case, frankly. I fully expect that depending on circumstances, portions of the SOP become 'flexible' to allow personnel/forces to adapt and overcome the situation, but there does have to be a standard approach or operating procedure. Otherwise, that would mean that for every incident or deployment, Kiwi personnel 'make up' their response on the fly, including the types and numbers of personnel to deploy.

The second involves the NH90 capacity of Canterbury. As part of Project Protector, there was a requirement for Canterbury to be able to operate varying numbers of helicopters of different sizes. IIRC it was one Chinook-sized helicopter, or two Cougar-sized ones from the helipad, which has two landing spots. The AS532 Cougar (military version of the Puma) is roughly the same size as the NH90, so it would appear that as part of Project Protector, there was an expectation of a medium-lift helicopter being in RNZAF service. While the decision makers might not have known it would be the NH90 in service, it would be reasonable for them to know that something of that size and weight class would be getting brought into service. Which means that capacity for four in the hangar is not exactly putting the cart before the horse.

Yes I am not talking about TTP SOPs but more from the equipment/platform/infrastructure side to support. Procedures, responses and actions on are a safety issue and ensure everyone knows their role and what to do to avoid confusion and chaos but when it comes to equipment and even personnel numbers lets just say this will not always be best case scenario for varying reasons such as availability, maintainence/training, concurrent activities etc and therefore will flex more whereas drills should be more close to the mark according to the set list.

Understand they would have had a requirement for options ie the fact the deck of CY is large enough for chinook size landing and yet we have none but again is more to cover the worst case/possible scenarios not nesscessarily what we would actually do. To be honest I would be surprised if 4 NH90s actually would fit in CYs hanger comfortably, 4 helos at a squeeze but possibly a mix and definately some tetris skills involved.

 

[RegR]

So do you condone that behavior? I have an expectation that SOP are followed. especially when it comes to deployment because that is the crux of the issue when we are discussing the deployment of NH-90s as part of a future NZ CATG that works under the umbrella of typically an Australian led operation. Were these minor or major breaches of SOP's that you are talking about? Did your unit deploy as part of UN mandated coalition force without an acceptable complement or material. Has this been done in recent years? OK the Bosnia deployment 20 odd years ago was lets say difficult but the lack of our preparedness and interoperability was clearly spelt out by the British to the NZG.




I actually find it totally unacceptable that compromises were made over the acquisition. Do you therefore find that such compromises are acceptable? To actually procure what was the optimal fleet size following all the investigation to inform the MUH replacement project is not dreaming.



What NZ contributes is sifted through what the mandated force commander requires.



Actually as Todj says there was a likelihood that a 10 tonne helicopter would be chosen as the main utility platform. The scoping for the MUH project was done in 2003 and was concurrent with the design parametres of the CY.



During Interfet a full-phase maintenance crew was deployed alongside the 6 Hueys to ensure that 4 were always available for tasking. Operating Level Maintenance and Intermediate Level Maintenance (or phase servicing) was conducted in-situ. It was only later under the UNTAET mission that Hueys were rotated home for Depot Level Maintenance.



I am pretty certain that Operating Level Maintenance and Intermediate Level Maintenance were conducted in Timor on their 20 Blackhawks during INTERFET. Because again that is the context. A Chp VII event. They may have rotated back an airframe during that period but with 20 airframes in-situ however I am sure that they would have maintained capability readiness. They were also a lot closer and having more than 6 airframes were able to be flexible. Not a luxury we had or will have.



You are completely missing the whole rationale and lessons learnt in ET why we bought a 10 tonne utility helicopter capability. The operational requirements in the capability definition phase had the expectation that three NH90 helicopters would be required for the Air Movement of an Army platoon, with a minimum of 27 soldiers and equipment in a single wave to ensure synchronised arrival of combat elements.

All this sideshow about LUH deployment, hiluxes and LAV's has no bearing on that inescapable fact with respect to NH90's deployment.

Not sure where you are getting that I support deploying without the exact numbers of equipment that your book says? I am just saying that what they say needs to deploy to support an op is not always what they in fact actually send and is more a guideline also not sure why you keep quoting the UN as well, I'm talking about what our military does not what someone thinks we should do, I'm not even talking about UN ops in general so unsure why you keep referencing the UN chapters?

20 blackhawks in ET? I doubt it was that many and as I said the last (not interfet) Timor mission was in support of a Bn gp, the largest possible deployment we would consider therefore a good comparison, and again was supported by 3 Blackhawks from 5avn and again yes they did rotate frames back to Aus for heavy maintainence so to state we WILL send 4 NH90s in support of such a force is again all I am saying probably not nesscessarily going to happen as if Aus can survive on 3 frames then surely we could too (considering our small fleet), regardless of what the UN dictates as not all our Ops are under a UN banner and we can think for ourselves. I think the crux of it is you believe we will always send 4 NH90s whereas due to our small numbers I think 3 will suffice and to be honest I don't care what a UN book says infact do we even still do UN ops in large numbers? Our military is not run on UN SOPs for all our overseas ops so to think that is how we will always operate and equip is abit off. While they maybe a good indicator to gauge off and I assume our thinking would be similar they do not govern our own way of operating our limited resources.

I am not blind to the reasoning of 3 90s to support infantry ops hence why I state 3 90s for such a deployment in the first place, unsure why you are even suggesting it.

Let's just say that again we will never know if we will deploy 3 or 4 NH90s or the possibility of A109 back up until we next deploy a Bn gp overseas so we are going to just have to wait and find out I suppose.

 

[MrConservative]

Not sure where you are getting that I support deploying without the exact numbers of equipment that your book says? I am just saying that what they say needs to deploy to support an op is not always what they in fact actually send and is more a guideline also not sure why you keep quoting the UN as well, I'm talking about what our military does not what someone thinks we should do, I'm not even talking about UN ops in general so unsure why you keep referencing the UN chapters?

You used INTERFET as your example in post 4176 and made reference to the deployment of a battalion group (CATG) as you dated it 1999 and not from March 1 2000.

The UN Charter is very relevant with respect to Chp VII. The powers under a UNSC mandate that it gives the force commander under international law are significant with huge responsibilities. They include command and control of subordinate combat force elements under his command. Coalition of the willing is inaccurate. Coalition of the willing and able is more realistic.

Force elements and C&C obligations are very different between Chp VII and Chp VI. Expectations are also very different as Chp VII is combat enforcement scenario. Interfet in 1999 to early 2000 was UNSC VII. UNTAET that followed was UNSC VI.

20 blackhawks in ET? I doubt it was that many and as I said the last (not interfet) Timor mission was in support of a Bn gp, the largest possible deployment we would consider therefore a good comparison, and again was supported by 3 Blackhawks from 5avn and again yes they did rotate frames back to Aus for heavy maintainence so to state we WILL send 4 NH90s in support of such a force is again all I am saying probably not nesscessarily going to happen as if Aus can survive on 3 frames then surely we could too (considering our small fleet), regardless of what the UN dictates as not all our Ops are under a UN banner and we can think for ourselves. I think the crux of it is you believe we will always send 4 NH90s whereas due to our small numbers I think 3 will suffice and to be honest I don't care what a UN book says infact do we even still do UN ops in large numbers? Our military is not run on UN SOPs for all our overseas ops so to think that is how we will always operate and equip is abit off. While they maybe a good indicator to gauge off and I assume our thinking would be similar they do not govern our own way of operating our limited resources.

20 Blackhawks were deployed to ET in the Interfet stage. Force planners do care what is available, able and deliverable in terms of force elements. In Timor NZDF liaison staff were imbedded with Cosgroves people and lawyers were involved to make sure all was tickety boo. The political expectations are also significant.

NZ deployed forces within a UN mandated context at Chp VII are very prescribed and are subordinate to both international law as one would expect and also to the force commander who sets the objectives, ROE and operational principles. It is not just here we are this is what we would like to do and we will see you guys later once we have done it for beer and skittles kind of situation.

I am not blind to the reasoning of 3 90s to support infantry ops hence why I state 3 90s for such a deployment in the first place, unsure why you are even suggesting it.

And I am making the point that there is a very real risk management rationale why 4 are sent under a Chp VII event. Risk management is central to UNSC ops and of significant concern to force commanders.

Let's just say that again we will never know if we will deploy 3 or 4 NH90s or the possibility of A109 back up until we next deploy a Bn gp overseas so we are going to just have to wait and find out I suppose.

The distinction is clearly in what UNSC mandated event scenario we would be deploying under. If it is a Chp VII event things are not laissez faire.

 

[Zero Alpha]

RegR

I'm not sure where you get the idea about 4 airframes from. I know there was a clear statement around Iroquois availability, but I'm not aware of anything in the public domain similar about NH90 (except for SAR tasks around NTM levels). Can you enlighten us?

 

[MrConservative]

RegR

I'm not sure where you get the idea about 4 airframes from. I know there was a clear statement around Iroquois availability, but I'm not aware of anything in the public domain similar about NH90 (except for SAR tasks around NTM levels). Can you enlighten us?

Four Airframes? In the context of an another ET level deployment? I mentioned it not RegR. It is neither in or out of the public domain in a generic public form that I am aware of. You get the information from asking questions. An OIA will suffice or in my case directly to Goff when he was DefMin. There is no big deep dark secret or plan to hide such things.

 

[gf0012-aust]

And I am making the point that there is a very real risk management rationale why 4 are sent under a Chp VII event. Risk management is central to UNSC ops and of significant concern to force commanders.

The distinction is clearly in what UNSC mandated event scenario we would be deploying under. If it is a Chp VII event things are not laissez faire.

just to add to this, country specific provisions are governed by the force commander. in the case of ET one of the things that happened very quickly was that contributing nations stopped local force planning assumptions and went to the lead nation force planners for input.

so even though one country might have 4 rotors of a specific available, they might be asked to only send 2 as the overall lift requirement using that type might already be addressed - and the force planners will go back and suggest that a more approp contribution would be of greater benefit and utility

ie we don't need more rotors but we need more dunnys, water desal units, fuel bladders and temp landing strip mats.

in the case of ET there was an initial nightmare with multiple countries providing multiple types of 10T trucks with different motors and spare parts - and providing spares that were less useful to the broader force as they just buggered up overall logistics coherence etc.....

So as an extension, NZ may have 4 available platforms, but be requested by the lead nation planners to consider provision of something else or a reduced/expanded capability depending on the demands on the ground (over the timeline of the overall force insertion etc.....)

 

[MrConservative]

just to add to this, country specific provisions are governed by the force commander. in the case of ET one of the things that happened very quickly was that contributing nations stopped local force planning assumptions and went to the lead nation force planners for input.

so even though one country might have 4 rotors of a specific available, they might be asked to only send 2 as the overall lift requirement using that type might already be addressed - and the force planners will go back and suggest that a more approp contribution would be of greater benefit and utility

ie we don't need more rotors but we need more dunnys, water desal units, fuel bladders and temp landing strip mats.

in the case of ET there was an initial nightmare with multiple countries providing multiple types of 10T trucks with different motors and spare parts - and providing spares that were less useful to the broader force as they just buggered up overall logistics coherence etc.....

So as an extension, NZ may have 4 available platforms, but be requested by the lead nation planners to consider provision of something else or a reduced/expanded capability depending on the demands on the ground (over the timeline of the overall force insertion etc.....)

Thanks for that GF. I was hoping you would chime in per Force Commanders and their plans staff. Their significance under laws of the Charter is substantial. Which needs to be appreciated.

Force contingents such as the NZDF within the umbrella of an ADF led scenario at Chp VII events have a baseline inventory of provision / support from which the HQ planners can action. Scale up or down according to event. Having NZ staff imbedded within the ADF planning system and vice versa is vital to making it work with coherency.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Having NZ staff imbedded within the ADF planning system and vice versa is vital to making it work with coherency.

its incredibly valuable.

even with aust only events the NZ staff embedded at HQJOC get to see what is evolving and they are still perimeter lessons learnt opportunities.

not sure about NZ's primary JOINT command capability, but all 5I's members are permanently represented at HQJOC. Where relevant there is immediate visibility and the embeds start talking to their relevant shops while things are evolving

the international partner planning and decision loops are so much shorter and better now

just to add further... in HADR especially there are capabilities that participating nation force planners can offer up that overall force commander may need but the host nation (ie the nation in HADR distress) may not necessarily think of or have thought of. eg they might need working dogs nut not realise it - so a participant force such as NZ might offer up cadaver teams in advance of formal force structure being defined. that might trigger up the need for rotary to get them into place - but the rotary might need to be able to land on the LHD as thats where the hospital and surgery facilities are.

force planners and loggies do the black magic stuff of trying to make it all work - so there is a strong need for particpating nations to have force planners that can work together as seamlessly as possible - and that simple things like rejection of specific capabilities is driven by greater in theatre/site demands

 

[Zero Alpha]

Four Airframes? In the context of an another ET level deployment? I mentioned it not RegR. It is neither in or out of the public domain in a generic public form that I am aware of. You get the information from asking questions. An OIA will suffice or in my case directly to Goff when he was DefMin. There is no big deep dark secret or plan to hide such things.

OK. As far as I know 4 went out the window for anything other than a surge when Labour got given the DCM.

3 would be more likely (3 in theatre,the rest in NZ - 3 for the next rotation (including meeting NZ stby tasks, 1 for individual training and 1 in for DM).

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Thanks for that GF. I was hoping you would chime in per Force Commanders and their plans staff. Their significance under laws of the Charter is substantial. Which needs to be appreciated.

Force contingents such as the NZDF within the umbrella of an ADF led scenario at Chp VII events have a baseline inventory of provision / support from which the HQ planners can action. Scale up or down according to event. Having NZ staff imbedded within the ADF planning system and vice versa is vital to making it work with coherency.

Speaking of recent RNZAF NH90 deployments, why was it that for FIJI Canterbury deployed then with only 2 NH90, and one Seasprite, instead of 3 Nh90 or more, given the capacity Canterbury has,was it due to unavailable helo's? or simply not required as Australia already had several operating there.

 

[MrConservative]

OK. As far as I know 4 went out the window for anything other than a surge when Labour got given the DCM.

3 would be more likely (3 in theatre,the rest in NZ - 3 for the next rotation (including meeting NZ stby tasks, 1 for individual training and 1 in for DM).

That surge for a 4th is exactly the ET type Chp VII deployment scenario I have been describing. If/when if eventuates it certainly degrades all other concurrent NZDF activities. Which completes the circle and drags us eventually back to the point often made by various people who post here. If only there were just one or two airframes originally purchased.

My take on this is that the NZDF is to be able to deploy and support CTAG with a rotary component at Chp VII whilst being able to concurrently provide for a a LTG sized short term deployment in support of a HADR Op in the South Pacific. Hence the absolute bottom line of 8 airframes not being regarded as optimal unlike option 5C which sort 10. Even one further airframe would make a difference in not stressing 3 Sqd / NZDF activities.

 

[MrConservative]

Speaking of recent RNZAF NH90 deployments, why was it that for FIJI Canterbury deployed then with only 2 NH90, and one Seasprite, instead of 3 Nh90 or more, given the capacity Canterbury has,was it due to unavailable helo's? or simply not required as Australia already had several operating there.

Because it was a HADR mission and not for example a full Combined Arms Taskforce Group undertaking a MIC mission or higher scenario which may impact what is required/requested. There is a distinction. Also where crew training is within the cycle can impacts more than airframe which may or may not be a factor.