A RFT for a NH-90 Simulator has been issued.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
I had always assumed that they had purchased one as part of the original purchase as they did with the A109, seems crazy they have left it so long after the introduction, especially as it is not a cheap aircraft to operate
That would've been a decision made at Cabinet level. As it was there were cost cutting measures taken anyway. The NZ NH-90s don't have the IR sensor on the nose that the other nations do and only nine were acquired rather than the 10 operational and one KDK as a sources of spares, which would've given far better capability cover. The then Labour Govt was quite parsimonious with defence. They only acquired and did what they absolutely had too.
Last edited:
And the last three National govts have had plenty of time in the hot seat to redress that shortcoming.
Agree but now at least the $20 billion CAPEX has been approved but it still only looks like it will be used to keep current capability level unfortunately. They have not signalled any desire to increase the annual OPEX funding by any significance.
Heading into the political arena, the current Leader of the Opposition has stated that he sees the $20 billion CAPEX as a wish list and that some or all of that funding maybe diverted to social policy items if they win the upcoming election.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Care to elaborate on how this could have been reasonably done?
One has to keep in mind both the lack of appetite in NZ for defence spending, and the long-term force structure the NZDF was committed to under Clark. The cost of just two additional NH90's would likely have been somewhere north of USD$80 mil. at a time when the C-130H SLEP was underway and Gov't would also need to determine a long-term replacement for the C-130 (and B757 to a degree as well).
Gov't was also in the process of getting the Project Protector vessels into service as well as considering upgrades for the ANZAC-class to keep them viable and relevant.
Some of the big issues with force structure planning is that implementing changes or even updates and expansions, requires significant resources, and takes time. At the same time, capability gaps can manifest themselves and be felt quite quickly.
As an example, if something catastrophic happened to one of the RNZAF's current NH90's, causing a total loss of the aircraft, how quickly could a replacement be brought into Kiwi service, assuming cost was no issue and Gov't was ready, willing and able to sign a contract on the spot? Based upon a French Army order from Dec. 2015 for six NH90 helicopters in the TTH configuration with deliveries to commence between 2017 and 2019 (IMO the order delivery would be in 2019) it looks live delivery would be at least a year away, and more likely 3+ years away, unless NZ was allowed to 'skip the line' on the order book.
Realistically, it takes years to develop capabilities and bring kit into service. Look at the entire history of Project Protector as an example of what I mean. There were about two years of various reviews and policy papers to determine what the gov't of the day could/should/would do to ID and address patrol and other capability gaps. It would be another two years before contracts were signed, ordering the vessels which would be the solutions to the identified issues, and then a further three years before the first of the ordered vessels started to enter service. So basically it took seven years from when the 2000 Defence Policy Framework was released to when the first of the ordered vessels, HMNZS Canterbury, first entered service. I am not even bringing up the issues the various vessels had/have, I am just attempting to point out that for most non-personal pieces of kit, there is usually a significant and often multi-gov't lead time between when an issue is identified, idea had or policy selected, and the capability or solution actually enters service.
In the case of the gov'ts which followed the Clark gov't, the gov't needed to plan for the projects already underway, as well as identify existing and upcoming service needs and capability gaps.
The result of the upcoming election could be very telling in regard to the CAPEX money, but this is not unusual. Since 1999 there has been no desire by any government to improve or even maintain the capability level of the armed forces. We all know what happened under Helen Clark and a friend of mine was talking to John Key in regard to reinstating the ACF at a meeting a little after he came to power and was told there was no chance for that or any other improvements. Bill English use to send out pro defence signals, but that was over a decade ago. There is one party with a pro defence policy. However how much push they would exert in this area should they become part of the government is questionable.
Guessing either ACT or NZ First.
NZ First allegedly have a pro defence policy. Did nothing in 2005 and 2008 when Winston was ForMIn and had some sway on the Clark Govt. They talk a big game but are just powder puff and were the ones who killed the F-16 deal and the 3rd Anzac when the Shipley Govt wanted them. Other than wanting to create a Coast Guard and buy some unsold L-159's for an 'air combat training' capability on the cheap there is nothing new but just rhetorical reheats.
Unless you mean ACT:
Maintain and strengthen our traditional alliances, while leading the world with our relationships in Asia. Alliances, such as the Five Eyes and the Commonwealth are more important than ever and ACT will continue to support these alliances.
We need strong alliances with like-minded countries backed up by adequate investment in our own defence capabilities to ensure New Zealand’s security.
Right first time and their history is not great, that is why I grade them as questionable.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
NZ signed up for the NH90 in 2006. I'm not sure there was a proven in-service simulator available at that time? Apart from penny-pinching, the original decision may have been waiting for technology to mature or reduce in price. Pure speculation on my part, but plausible.
On another forum I recall someone who seemed well-informed claiming the IR sensor originally offered was both very expensive and dated in design. NZ's strategy was supposedly to wait until someone else had integrated a better system then retro-fit it.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Act are unlikely to get more than 1 MP, so their influence will be modest at best.
Peter Dunne's one-man party may struggle to even hold his seat.
NZ First look like being the kingmaker. Unfortunately they don't have policy so much as a series of unrelated brain dumps from the glorious leader. Like all populists, their main objective is to supply expensive handouts to parts of the population likely to vote for them. They haven't done anything for Defence in their previous stints in government, and I see no reason to see whey they would start now.
Last edited:
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Incidentally, the tender closes one week after the election. Approving a purchase will presumably be a task for the new defence minister.
Publications | Ministry of Defence Website
The Briefing to Incoming Minister (well worth reading) mentions capability decisions the Minister would have to take to Cabinet before the election. Page 21 is headed 'Major Capability Decisions out to August 2017'. The entire page is redacted, but in three blocks. Based on that, it is likely there are three major decisions to be made pre-election. One will almost certainly be the final sign-off for the frigate upgrade. Any thoughts on the others? Could issuing a RFI for the Southern OPV be a possibility?
Ocean1Curse
Member
IMO, no. If you go back through past DWP and associated literature, capital infrustructure has almost zero to do with redacted information.
danonz
Member
Hi guys sorry might be a silly question but what are the chances the NZDF select one type aircraft for the FAMC project. If the A400 or C2 can fulfil both the tactical and Strategic roles would it not make sense, or are they over kill for some of the requirements.
If they did select the A400 or C2 and also wanted a second type of aircraft would they go for something significantly smaller or stick with the herc?
Thanks
If they did select the A400 or C2 and also wanted a second type of aircraft would they go for something significantly smaller or stick with the herc?
Thanks
My personal take on the FAMC is that one aircraft is not out of the question and the either the A400 or the C2 could conceivably cover all the roles with limited adaptations. It may be noted that operations from austere locations was part of the FAMC, operations from unimproved sites was not.
I don't see a smaller aircraft in the mix in the short term. The telling question in regared to the selection would be the costs, including long term operational cost. I think a lot will depend on the makeup of the new government after September. At this stage I think that the smart money would be on a two aircraft mix, but I would not set this in concrete.
Tends to make me think can we have an all helo fleet of just NH90s, all navy fleet of just OPVs or all vehicle fleet of just soft skin pinzgauers. Answer is yes but then we end up having serious problems of suitability, flexibility and usability, plus or minus in any number of scenarios so in fact ends up being more problematic than problem solving. The old one size fits all rarely works out in reality without some form of compromise, cost or loss and in this regard even our current multi-type fleet still has it's limitations depending on level of required function and application.
Justin Case
New Member
I agree with Rob. I believe this project should not be considered only as a "replacement" of aging aircraft. If the life-cycle of the project may reach 40 to 50 years, a new concept should be taken into account, providing high flexibility to accommodate the evolving operational needs.
The less risky option for this moment probably would not be the most effective solution for the whole life-cycle.
The KC-390, which has been with us recently, completed its demonstration tour. Check the report:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/...t-completes-40-day-demonstration-tour-5881043
Cheers,
Justin
Last edited by a moderator:
The FAMC requirements for both the strategic and tactical replacement are for the most part the same, the difference being mainly in what is considered essential in the different capabilities. For this reason the possibility of the same aircraft covering both requirements is not out of the question.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Portal Embraer
Embraer has put out a media release marking the end of their sales tour.
Embraer has put out a media release marking the end of their sales tour.
It is hard not to be impressed by Embraer's confidence in maturity of the aircraft, especially compared to the slow progress of both the A400m and C-2. That said, I still think it will be considered too developmental for NZ, and lacking assurance of a large enough user base.
A4kscooter
Member
A mix of 3 x A400, 4 x P8 & 3 or 4 x C295MPA with 2? palletised mission systems may be an option.
The C295MPA with palletised mission systems enables the a/c to undertake fishery protection etc considerably cheaper than using a P8 and also allowing the P8 to concentrate on duties where its additional capabilities are required.
Using the C295 with its palletised mission system removed could also supplement the A400 etc in undertaking operations where a larger aircraft isn't required which again could save money.
The C295MPA with palletised mission systems enables the a/c to undertake fishery protection etc considerably cheaper than using a P8 and also allowing the P8 to concentrate on duties where its additional capabilities are required.
Using the C295 with its palletised mission system removed could also supplement the A400 etc in undertaking operations where a larger aircraft isn't required which again could save money.