Things break or go U/S in flight yes they had to shut down one engine as a precaution following standard procedure nothing new and it won't be the first or last time either.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Yes. Thats exactly what im suggesting. We had twice as many hercs then to begin with. Getting them in such small numbers using the extra capability as a reason to justify was folly in my book.
Only having 2 available for Cyclone winston and what, 3 or 4 at best for Kaikoura quake too.
i think we were extremely lucky to have that happen during a major exersize. A few more i think at least is called for, the increased tempo in recent years with disaster relief and increased exersizes i think wouldnt have helped.
KP you have missed the point of raise train and sustain this isn't a Holden we brought two available for cyclone Winston and 4 frames for Kaikoura earthquake was more than enough and yes they would of done far better than all 14 Huey's combined used for Kaikoura.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
No i do see your point, obviously a much larger vehicle ether a ship, helo, or aircraft would mean more support in crew, maintainence and of course training, funding for a new capability set the huey didnt have.
Yet still one has to admit the extra demand of late of them and other craft has been there and with two recent incidents with the Nh90 does that leave us with two non operational now?
Given just how bad these natural disasters go, ive experianced a few myself and i dont just mean locally. I was in Veitnam in 2009 for hurricane ketsana. One complaint of locals there was no avalible air rescue.Quite a few drowned as a result. I had a flooded hotel to spend three nights in, so thats where im coming from. A close shave, not wanting to see that here.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Maybe the USAF could park a couple of these jets in NZ. The RNZAF would welcome the opportunity to run the engines too.
To Save Millions, Military Grounds Planes Worth Billions
To Save Millions, Military Grounds Planes Worth Billions
As long as they could be run at full power down the runway with the normal out come, eg to another runway.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Seems strange.. wasnt Trump bleating recently about massivly increasing military spending? 60 million is small change for a country that size , especially if he and his admin plan another intervention say in middle east, or even korea they are going to need them !
I'll offer you two possible answers:
1. The US budget is still someway off, so Trump's proposed budget increases haven't gone through yet. Of cause, given increasing chaos and disorder in the Republican party and their deeply entrenched habit of saying no to utterly everything, who knows if it'll actually go anywhere.
2. Given Trump's background (real estate salesman...) there's a certain tendency for style over substance. Thus, funding flashy new weapons, a great big yep, funding the ongoing operation of logistical capabilities, nope.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Twice as many hercs??? When? What are we even talking about here?
There was'nt only 2 available for cyclone Winston, we only sent 2, along with 2 seasprites actually a decent helo contribution from NZ. 3 or 4 "at best" was again a good contribution to Kaikoura. I actually doubt even in the days of the hueys we would have nesscessarily sent anymore going off past deployments so there goes that theory. You don't just throw numbers at a problem to solve it, it is a planned, considered and intergrated operation that requires more than merely throwing multiple platforms around just because. There were actually so many helos in Kaikoura that it required its own air traffic control to deconflict airspace, more helos just presents more challenges in command and control and ends up slowing up ops not helping.
Increased tempo? NZDF is in one of its quietest periods in decades in terms of deployments and most of these excersises are actually regular annual, bi and periodic fixtures that we have always attended in some form or capacity, I would'nt exactly see a need for any great expansion.
Capability is actually a very valid consideration in terms of numbers when we replace any equipment as is cost, size and multi-role abilities. We actually had so many hueys to ensure we always had x amount available at any one time. If you think we had a fleet of 14 ready to go on a daily basis for taskings then you would be sadly mistaken and with the advent of modern technology(s) the requirement for "spare" frames is diminished accordingly especially in these initial new years. In saying that no tech is immune from failure, adverse from hiccups or exempt from maintainence but again all planned, considered and intergrated as much as possible and more importantly within budget.
Remember also 3 Sqn (alongside 6) is not just the NH90s now but also the A109s so in fact along with the added capability, options and technology I would say NZDF helo elements are noticebly and greatly improved by a long shot. Numbers is nice but usable/tangible hours and capability that add value to any task is more important and beneficial at the end of the day.
The recent incident with the NH90 shutting down an engine is causing alittle more controversy than probably warranted as if we did this everytime a RNZAF asset went U/S across the fleets for any reason then it would be in the news on a weekly basis if not more. Another media over-reaction about the expensive shiney new toys.
Hmmm parking up seemingly important assets to save money.....sounds familiar. Big budgets, same problems.
Exactly, people tend to get caught up on numbers ie generic squadron sizes when it comes to these particular assets especially, and tend to forget like for like takes into account more than just 1 for 1. Capacity, performance, reliability, simulated training oppourtunities etc all can be deciding factors for replacement options to achieve desired outcomes and keep within budget for an overall package or project.
Be good to have 20 of these, 12 of those, 6 of them etc sometimes but not always practical, possible or affordable come upgrade time due to a number of reasons for our small country as something usually has to give.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Made a typo,apologies. Meant heuys obviousy, as we were on helo deployment topic.
Well media reports seem to have been fairly topical on defence purchases and recent deployments,with fires, quakes and cyclones, to name a few ,so that too has shaped my reasoning.
Shouldnt such disaster relief be the sole domain of defence regards to air support, with adequate provisions for such? Those civilian helicopters must have took some organizing.
And yes, its capability that im refering to there too, a one or two seater civy helo obviously wont have the capacity to airlift out casualties or ferry in supplys as even the old hueys could. Lucky lives werent lost in recent months.
Well media reports seem to have been fairly topical on defence purchases and recent deployments,with fires, quakes and cyclones, to name a few ,so that too has shaped my reasoning.
Shouldnt such disaster relief be the sole domain of defence regards to air support, with adequate provisions for such? Those civilian helicopters must have took some organizing.
And yes, its capability that im refering to there too, a one or two seater civy helo obviously wont have the capacity to airlift out casualties or ferry in supplys as even the old hueys could. Lucky lives werent lost in recent months.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The US congressional gridlock on sequestration isn't going to end anytime soon. Maybe NATO members should pay the the USAF to operate these C-5Ms as part of reaching the 2% GDP goal.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Cant see how trump is going to enforce such a ruling anyway. Good luck tryingThe US congressional gridlock on sequestration isn't going to end anytime soon. Maybe NATO members should pay the the USAF to operate these C-5Ms as part of reaching the 2% GDP goal.
Requirements Analysis in the Capability Definition Phase of the MUH and LUH Replacement saw that Option 5C of 10 MUH's and 10 LUH's were deemed to be the optimum mix to meet all key NZDF operational tasking requirements.
What we have is an acceptable solution for now - though no one would disagree if the optimal mix was meet - though it would cost north of $200m. A turnkey lease or purchase of 3 AW109E Power airframes for most of the training curriculum and VIP supplementing the five existing LUH versions with some utilisation offsets flowing onto the NH-90 would be a quick, simple and budget friendly way to boost overall fleet capability as was noted by Wayne Mapp post DWP10. At present there does not seem to be great urgency though.
What we have is an acceptable solution for now - though no one would disagree if the optimal mix was meet - though it would cost north of $200m. A turnkey lease or purchase of 3 AW109E Power airframes for most of the training curriculum and VIP supplementing the five existing LUH versions with some utilisation offsets flowing onto the NH-90 would be a quick, simple and budget friendly way to boost overall fleet capability as was noted by Wayne Mapp post DWP10. At present there does not seem to be great urgency though.
Countries that are perceived not to be making the effort will get ignored – not just Defence support but the US Department of Commerce and US State Department contacts will atrophy. Message - you neglect defence and we will ignore you. That is how their displeasure will be played out.Cant see how trump is going to enforce such a ruling anyway. Good luck trying
The US will simply be selective in their support towards European / NATO nations. So called vulnerable states such as Lithuania, Estonia, Lativa, Romania, Bulgaria; Slovakia and Hungary will likely be modestly bolstered with US support (up to the point of maintaining the territorial status quo of their borders and maintaining US engagement and influence in their Capitals and vice versa) and the older wealthier western European powers who this is targeted at will be left to funding more of their own defence needs without proactive US co-operation – which in the context of an under pressure EU is going to cause themselves strain.
The call for Western Europe for boost defence spending is not new. Chuck Nagel two years ago was threatening the same thing. Even Eisenhower 60 years ago was making similar statements once the Marshall Plan was creating thriving Western European Economies.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
What i was driving at was just how financial are some of those countries like estonia, lithuania, slovakia ect?
Trump surely should be at least made aware of the economic,political scenarios,those leaders like ours here would have a tough time selling several billion more in taxes to fund military needs over social policy.Not that im against that, of course
Of course then there is the current migrant crisis europe is going through and has to find solutions for.
Ironically Trump is unwilling to help there either. Nz/Australia might be willing to take a few provided they are vetted.
Note that I said the 'vulnerable' ones are likely to be considered more favourably than the likes of Spain, Italy, Germany and others in the West with respect to Defence spend.
Trump is more concerned with America First than the underfunding of Defence & Security in Western Europe as his job is POTUS and not the head of the European Commission. The EU/Eurozone selling defence spending to their people is their problem.Trump surely should be at least made aware of the economic,political scenarios, those leaders like ours here would have a tough time selling several billion more in taxes to fund military needs over social policy.Not that im against that, of course
Again their problem. Europe failed to secure its borders, failed the leadership test 7 years ago when all of this kicked off. It is up to them to find solutions.
Why should the US or we help the EU? Wouldn't the Gulf Oil States be closer to home and culture. Why should they get a free pass? NZ and OZ already do enough heavy lifting in the world.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Yes the migrant problem is Europes immeadiate security issue.Trump isnt their leader, although the policy of interventional in middle east can certainly be seen as a contributing factor. Current numbers on refugees to Nz are what , 1200 or so per year, Australia 12,000 last year when media debated the issue.
Just saying we have a limited military budget, unlikely govt will raise ours to 2 percent regardless of Trumps rhetoric.
So taking a few hundred or even a thousand more as a token guesture to take the pressure of Nato allies could also help with the shortage of skilled workers,migration currently being discussed in parliament
Just saying we have a limited military budget, unlikely govt will raise ours to 2 percent regardless of Trumps rhetoric.
So taking a few hundred or even a thousand more as a token guesture to take the pressure of Nato allies could also help with the shortage of skilled workers,migration currently being discussed in parliament
Last edited: