Totally agree with the point that we would have to use overseas expertise to get started and well down the road. The big saving with using overseas courses is that you don't have the big capital injection at the start, so all your costs become operational, but you can be sure that the provider would include his proportional capital expenditure as part of his charge out rate, plus a bit for profit, so over time you will pay just as much or more for using an other provider, (there are no free rides out there) It is a bit like getting your training under a hire purchase agreement there by spreading out the costs but ultimately paying more.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
King Wally
Active Member
Actually there are some amazing things that can occur when economies of scale take place... and conversely there are massive business penalties to bare when attempting to energise a tiny model in isolation, as would be the NZ reality. It wouldn't surprise me if NZ would stand to save money not only in the short but also the long term under such a scheme even if the provider made a healthy profit on the side.
When it comes to aircraft the cost per flight hour only alters slightly as usage goes up. if you want to check the Rand corp site it will explain it for you, but warning it is heavy going.In this case economies of scale only have a minor effect. http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1100/RR1178/RAND_RR1178.pdf
As we would probability going to a higher wage economy the wage difference would in all likelihood, cancel out any advantage of scale
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
PM's delegation grounded by a faulty microswitch, airforce confirms | Stuff.co.nz
This piece from Stuff is a bit less over-the-top than most of the previous reporting. The most interesting point to me is that the PM has only used the Boeings 4-6 times per year over the past three years. It is hardly the full-time VIP jet that some in the media have been portraying.
Time for some blue-sky thinking about the PM's travel needs | Stuff.co.nz
Meanwhile, at the 'I need to file some copy but know nothing about the topic' end of the journalism spectrum, Vernon Small chips in with a hastily-slapped-together-by-google article.
It was reported in the DOM this morning that the fault was the failure of a spoiler indication system micro switch which caused a spoiler open indication when it was closed. Hardly earth shattering and probably a common part fitted to large numbers of different aircraft around the world. I bet you wont get any retraction of some of the over the top reporting by the various journalists we saw over this very minor incident . A case of an emotive amateurish rush to look stupid.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
An almost six year old Flightglobal article stated a further three AW109's would be acquired within five years? https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...-air-force-plans-to-boost-aw109-fleet-351104/
I asked the question a couple of months ago if there was any thing new on this front and it was pointed out that in 2018 the fleet was due for a refresh. At the quoted cost of $15 million per helicopter it's a cheap capability.
Beyond its training role is it getting much or any use in the utility role or in support of army operations? Have they deployed outside of the country? Have they operated from naval vessels?
I think it was a good choice to buy but far too few in numbers. Is there any scuttlebutt amongst those with contacts talking about a possible expansion to the fleet numbers.
I asked the question a couple of months ago if there was any thing new on this front and it was pointed out that in 2018 the fleet was due for a refresh. At the quoted cost of $15 million per helicopter it's a cheap capability.
Beyond its training role is it getting much or any use in the utility role or in support of army operations? Have they deployed outside of the country? Have they operated from naval vessels?
I think it was a good choice to buy but far too few in numbers. Is there any scuttlebutt amongst those with contacts talking about a possible expansion to the fleet numbers.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Nova
From memory, the prospect of buying three additional aircraft was first floated in the 2010 White Paper. It has periodically surfaced since, but there has never been a clear commitment to following through. I'm unclear on whether there is a shortage of airframes, or a shortage of crew to operate the aircraft we already have. The use of simulators for training has supposedly been very successful, which should reduce pressure on the fleet.
Others will have more knowledge than me, but I am not aware of the 109s deploying overseas or embarking on any navy vessels. They have been used on some well-publicised coastal fisheries patrols, as well as other light utility work.
RNZAF - Air Force Media Release
(FYI, paua is a local abalone species much-prized in Asia)
The current Defence Capability Plan promises a 'refresh' around 2018, whatever that means. It could refer to the addition of a decent day/night sensor package - I've heard that they are very under-specced in this regard.
The recent White Paper promised a new Capability Plan in 2016 that should make the situation clearer. Unless, like the DWP itself, it fails to be delivered until the following year!
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
40deg south
What is the reason for lack of air crew? Poor pay and benefits? Competition from the private sector? Lack of interest from the populace to join the military? Lack of funding from government?
Nice new kit should be a huge draw to join.
Was there not an initial push to deploy these on the OPV? I understand the lack of auto folding blades is a challenge and they aren't marinized.
Thanks for the insight.
What is the reason for lack of air crew? Poor pay and benefits? Competition from the private sector? Lack of interest from the populace to join the military? Lack of funding from government?
Nice new kit should be a huge draw to join.
Was there not an initial push to deploy these on the OPV? I understand the lack of auto folding blades is a challenge and they aren't marinized.
Thanks for the insight.
My pick would be the lack of funding from the government why they have never added the extra 3 airframes.
Salary & Working Conditions | Defence Careers
Without knowing what exactly grounded this flight we are only speculating, it could have been as simple as a dash light or led not coming on as required in the cockpit, maybe due to a blown globe.
I would bet that if the flight was a covert visit to Afghanistan with the PM on board there would have been 2 Rolls Royce (maybe GE) engines at full throttle to take off and get out of there.
Thankfully most flights don't proceed with any fault, no matter how minor.
And it generally is that simple however rules are rules and checks are checks. Funnily enough when this happens to DF flights full of mil pers (and it does) the media does not even bat an eyelid most of the time as it's not newsworthy. I've been delayed a few times, switched aircraft even extended my stay and yet not even a mention, throw the PM in there and all of a sudden talk of new aircraft, air force blame and the world stood still.
Media doing what it does best, telling stories.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Poor pay and benefits would be the primary factors, as with most defence forces.
A decade ago, there was also a very poorly-executed restructuring programme that drove morale through the floor, and led to an exodus of skilled trades. The intend was to reduce costs, largely by contracting out support functions. So experienced staff were given their marching orders, then promptly invited to apply as civilians to carry out their old job, on much reduced terms and conditions.
The mining boom in Australia through the early 2000s also caused significant retention issues for certain trades (e.g. diesel engineers) in both the Aust. and NZ forces (NZ workers have free access to the Australian labour market, but not to all welfare benefits). The mining industry was paying huge wages that neither military could match - the situation has stabilised with a down-turn in mining. I woudn't be surprised in Canada experienced some of the same issues.
The base rebuilding programme announced a couple of months back will probably also help with retention, simply by providing better living/working conditions over the next decade. Much defence real estate has a run-down look at present, which can't help with morale.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Sorry, forgot this part of your question. I think the interest in sending the 109s to sea was due to the lack of Seasprite airframes. Now they have gone from five airframes and no simulator to eight airframes (plus two spares) AND a simulator, there should be much less pressure on the fleet. I suspect the idea of marinizing some 109s will quietly fade away.
http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/media-releases/2016/20160414-shtbrwnm.htm
As always, remember I am an ignorant civilian, and often 100% wrong!
I agree that buying further marinised 109's has been overtaken through the acquisition of the extra SeaSprite airframes and Sim.
http://www.kaman.com/aerosystems
You can link through here to a great little video about the new RNZN Sprites that Kaman produced.
Kaman with General Dynamics have a $50.5m remanufacturing contract for the Peruvians who are taking over our old G models. It will be interesting to see what eventuates.
Last edited:
I always thought the mooted extra 3 A109s were going to be stock models freeing up the milspecs for operational needs. You think it would have then been a fairly easy aqquisition, cheaper and smooth assimalation. Milspec marinised versions would perhaps be a better long term proposition as TBH A109 in general seems to be alittle on the fragile side for shipboard life in its current form and without mods.
Surely our old sprites will be zero timed as if they were on their last legs with us then would seem like a bit of a bum deal for their new owners and potential trouble spree in the making especially with such a small fleet as we found.
t68
Well-Known Member
Yes, I remember that incident a few red faces over the ditch. Even the Australian PM is not immune from the problem.
https://www.crikey.com.au/2014/06/05/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-pms-clapped-out-vip-jet/
Originally when Dr Mapp became DefMin there was a view that buying more 109's which could go to sea on the OPV's was considered, but with the bringing forward of the SH-2G(NZ) replacement project and the cost to do so during the height of the GFC that got parked and then came the DWP10 and view that an extra three 109 Powers as trainers was the way forward leaving the five LUH's free'd for light utility duties. Eventually Minister Coleman arrived who oversaw the 8(+2) Sprites replacements arrive and the proposed extra 109's became a 'refresh'.
As for the five old SH-2G(NZ), Peru will fly four with the other being the spare. I have not followed it closely or sought information, but I guess they went with the NZ versions over going to the boneyard and doing a 'new' I model was due to value for money reasons with a possible refurbishment of systems as opposed to going for new built gear and possibly ease through the approval side of things. Peru bought the old Sprites being attracted to the Mavericks and the spares. I gather the airframes will be zero houred.
It does raise an interesting point in that if we need to quickly expand our overall maritime rotary capability, going into the AMARC Boneyard and finding good candidate H-2 airframes, contracting Kamam and GD to do remanufactures with T-700 powerplants could be a feasible and somewhat lower cost way to go rather than new build marinsed 109's. For example a lower spec general purpose / utility work horse version without the ASuW/ASW systems for work off the Protector OPV's / Endeavour leaving the current 2GI's for the Anzacs or as task directed?
That's interesting and not silly. They refurbish helos regularly and it could be an attractive option. From recent discussions on the RAN it appears that the T-700s on the Sprites are derated by 200 SHP because of the gearbox. So a question for the techies, if we had some ex Boneyard Sprites refurbished and re-engined with new engines, would it be cheaper to get new derated T-700s specially built for the Sprites or get new gearboxes that could handle the power from the T-700s used in the MH60R & MH60S?