Yes 4 x B(KA)350i, NZ2350 - 2353... 42 Sqn. What suggested to you they had B200 still?
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
ImJustDubzzz
Member
I was looking at ADSBExchange, and a B200 was flying around. Probably just a misidentification.
Civvies fly B200s here too.
ImJustDubzzz
Member
Yup, but it was classing it as an RNZAF B200 and it was flying out of Ohakea. Likely a misidentification.
Let's throw something out there.
We know that the NZDF is short of helicopters, The RNZAF more NH90s, the Army require armed overwatch, RNZN a utility helicopter and we know that the ADF are divesting themselves of their MRH90 and Tiger fleets.
So why don't we acquire 18 of the Aussie Army MRH90s and convert them to NZ NH90 standards, which would mean replacing the winches with the same as the ones in our NH90s, removing Aussie Army specific capabilities such as the Aussie Army data transfer system etc., and give them a MLU. Fly 9 with 3 Sqn, 6 with the RNZN and use the remaining 3 for spare parts. The RNZN 6 can be operated off Aotearoa, the first LHD / LPD, Canterbury, and its replacement. Once the ex ADF aircraft are upgraded the current 3 Sqn ones can be given their MLU. This also frees up the Seasprite and its replacements for its main role.
We should also acquire the full Tiger fleet, upgrade 15 and use the remaining 7 as spare parts. With the upgrade Link 16 should be integrated along with Spike LR. The Tiger would be the armed overwatch and provide the CAS that the Army requires. This would require Army aircrew to fly it so in the long term we would have to look at Army Aviation and the transfer of RNZAF NH90 operations to Army Aviation. When the NH90 moves over to Army leave 3 with RNZAF.
Extra AW109M would have to be acquired for the extra training slots required and I think that we also would need to look at acquiring say 6 well armoured and armed ones for scouting and reconnaissance, similar to what the AH-6 Little Birds used to do.
Finally we would probably need some AW139M for roles like operation off OPVs, RNZAF SAR roles, working with 1NZSF & NZ Police etc. and general RNZAF utility work. They are marinised and can be armed so ideal for OPV work plus the other roles.
Just an idea.
We know that the NZDF is short of helicopters, The RNZAF more NH90s, the Army require armed overwatch, RNZN a utility helicopter and we know that the ADF are divesting themselves of their MRH90 and Tiger fleets.
So why don't we acquire 18 of the Aussie Army MRH90s and convert them to NZ NH90 standards, which would mean replacing the winches with the same as the ones in our NH90s, removing Aussie Army specific capabilities such as the Aussie Army data transfer system etc., and give them a MLU. Fly 9 with 3 Sqn, 6 with the RNZN and use the remaining 3 for spare parts. The RNZN 6 can be operated off Aotearoa, the first LHD / LPD, Canterbury, and its replacement. Once the ex ADF aircraft are upgraded the current 3 Sqn ones can be given their MLU. This also frees up the Seasprite and its replacements for its main role.
We should also acquire the full Tiger fleet, upgrade 15 and use the remaining 7 as spare parts. With the upgrade Link 16 should be integrated along with Spike LR. The Tiger would be the armed overwatch and provide the CAS that the Army requires. This would require Army aircrew to fly it so in the long term we would have to look at Army Aviation and the transfer of RNZAF NH90 operations to Army Aviation. When the NH90 moves over to Army leave 3 with RNZAF.
Extra AW109M would have to be acquired for the extra training slots required and I think that we also would need to look at acquiring say 6 well armoured and armed ones for scouting and reconnaissance, similar to what the AH-6 Little Birds used to do.
Finally we would probably need some AW139M for roles like operation off OPVs, RNZAF SAR roles, working with 1NZSF & NZ Police etc. and general RNZAF utility work. They are marinised and can be armed so ideal for OPV work plus the other roles.
Just an idea.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,026
I like it but do think the extra aircraft type in the AW139M might be a bit of a logistics strain. Better to acquire more AW109M in my view.
Fancy advocating passing the NH90 to Army. The last time that was tried was in the 70's it ended very badly. An Army Major ordered to words Army to be painted on the nose of the UH1H. The CAS not sure which one could have been Bolt. He arrived for some sort of parade spotted the words Army on his helicopters and demanded to know who did it and why. The story goes the Major is alleged to have said "I did, as they are Army Helicopters we use them the most" or words to that effect. The CAS ordered any Safety and Surface SNCO on the parade one stepped forward and he ordered him to paint out the words Army and paint the words in white Royal New Zealand Air Force in full down the side of the aircraft now.
As I said it ended very badly. And I do agree with most of what you said.
Last edited:
ImJustDubzzz
Member
I'm for the most part in agreement but I have a few things I'd like to say; moving the NH-90s to the Army seems like an avoidable headache. Would the Army want to take them on in the first place? would the RNZAF want to lose the majority of it's NH-90s and receive a less capable helicopter in turn? I'm not opposed to it personally, but it does pose some questions to me at least.
The Tigers are, problematic to say the least... terrible availability, meant to be cheap yet turned out to be the expensive option and when you compare it to the Apache for example it really starts to seem not that worth it. 100% in agreement for the Army getting some sort of Armed overwatch capability, it being the Tiger though doesn't seem like the right move.
Adding another additional airframe to the fleet being the AW-139 does seem like a logistical headache as Lucasnz mentioned, would it not be more worthwhile to possibly replace the AW-109 fleet as they are now with the AW-139M as a whole and have a dual role of general RNZAF utility and training? I do recognise that you've mentioned a sort of scouting / recon capability but if an attack helicopter were purchased they're far more capable (although more expensive) at a scouting / recon role.
RetirementIsGood
New Member
This is a great idea and one that might even work: these airframes should be available really cheaply
I don't understand why the ADF haven't been able to make their MRH90s 'just work' when the NZDF seems to find the NH90s 'amazingly adequate'. Maybe the NZDF can 'do a Seasprite' again.
I agree that if the NZDF is ever to buy an air platform with offensive capacity, attack helos are much more likely than anything fixed wing
I'm not sure if the Tiger is the right answer, though
You know that's never going to work, practically or more importantly politically.
Stop trouble making
Maybe some more training / liaison / SAR helos would be a good idea, but I can't see that adding another type would be affordable.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I think most of these ideas have significant merit but a couple of quick questions.
Overwatch & CAS options: Regarding the Tiger ARH, do we know (roughly) how many flight time hours the airframes have used (and how much is left), plus also roughly the cost per flight hours to operate them and support them? Asking as the cpfh may be an important factor as to whether to consider the Tiger or something else (or do nothing). Support will also be an important factor but presumably we would be reliant on a contract with the supplier for most servicing needs (additional costs to factor in - but at least technically it could be "doable").
But if I pause (this line of thought over overwatch & CAS) and step back for a moment and look at the wider picture, I think we are all here mostly in agreement that we need NZDF force (and logistics) elements to be prioritised to be operating in the maritime domain (because both funding is tight but also because assuming new funding will be released as Defence reassesses its priorities then surely the priority is to enhance operating in the maritime domain which includes potential for "island hopping" or at least protection of NZDF forces operating forward from NZ or in conjunction with Australian forces (as opposed say to funding Overwatch & CAS for UN Peacekeeping/enforcement type operations - perhaps let's not do that now, as a priority that is)).
So is ARH the right type (be that Tiger or say Apache - commonality with ADF), or should we look at armed mil-spec "drones" to support land forces?
And can we easily deploy ARH's and/or armed mil-spec "drones" via air (C-130J / future Strategic airlift) or via HMNZS Canterbury sealift (until the future LPH is acquired - assuming it is)?
I'll come back to NH90's and the rest in another reply, except to say briefly surely if we acquire extra MRH90's then that negates the need for AW139M's as they are very similar plus the NH90/MRH90 has a crucial advantage (as we don't operate Chinooks) is that it's under-slung cargo load is 4,000kg v the AW139M's 2,200kg underslung cargo load.
RNZN warships don’t have a deck-mounted SSM that is true, but RNZAF do have the AGM-119B Penguin ASM in-service capable of deployment from their SH-2G(i) naval helicopters, carried on-board RNZN warships, so it seems there at least isn’t an ideological opposition in NZ Government at least, to anti-ship missiles per se.
Perhaps it is merely a funding / priority issue?
Australia’s ARH Tiger model is a generation or more behind current state of the art attack helicopter systems and requires a significant MLU to remain current. Hence the Tiger Mk.3 upgrade program that Airbus helicopters has designed which France and Spain have signed on for but Australia passed on and (perhaps significantly…) Germany has yet to sign onto...
Not upgrading the Tigers to some degree is not an option because many aircraft components are obsolete, requiring integration work and replacement, which is being done via the Mk.3 program. Not committing to the Mk.3 program would also leave NZ an orphan operator of the platform with absolutely nowhere to go for support in operating a standard no longer used anywhere else in the world.
Committing to the Mk.3 upgrade program, would see NZ committing to the eye-watering €133m per aircraft upgrade cost, that I suspect (along with the poor support problems etc) is one of the main reasons Australia passed on the project (besides the fact that Airbus helicopters were unable to provide additional aircraft to meet our 29x aircraft requirement, hence their ludicrous Tiger + EC-635 Scout offering) and why Germany is reportedly considering ditching Tiger for an Apache acquisition.
It’s not completely impossible, but there is a lot more to acquiring Tiger than first appearances suggest. It’s probably why no-one in the world did outside the original 4 nations…
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
IIRC the Greens defence spokesperson pressed for either no weapons, or no standoff weapons, to be acquired for the P-8A Poseidons. At present, AFAIK no aAShM apart from the Penguin is in the NZDF inventory, nor are there any plans for this to be changed anytime soon. Also, AFAIK (and happy to be corrected if I have this wrong) the Penguin has not been fitted or integrated with the Poseidon and there are no plans to do so given the age of the Penguin and the size of its user base. IIRC the later Mk 3 (RNZAF has ex-Oz Mk 2 Mod 7) Penguins have a range of ~60 km when fired from a helicopter at altitude. That sort of missile launch range would put any launching aircraft well within the range of long-range ship mounted area air defences, and potentially within the range of medium-to-long range missile defences as well. In short, any naval vessel with a role like that of the RAN's Hobart-class DDG would be able to engage a potential launch aircraft before the aircraft could get within launch range to use any Penguin AShM. So yes, whilst the NZDF might have an AShM in inventory, it really is not one which can be relied upon for use. There is a reason why Kongsberg (maker of the Penguin) developed the NSM which entered into service as a Penguin replacement, 40 years after the Penguin entered service. The NSM is a slightly heavier missile, somewhere between 25 kg and 40 kg more than the Penguin, depending on Penguin version, but has a standoff range of 100+ n miles.
My take, given how often the NZDF seems to have problems getting new/replacement ordnance, is that there are ideological objections, which then cause funding and/or priority to be denied to needed ordnance programmes. I recall not long after I first joined, reading through the then LTDP which noted that NZDF's stock of Mk 46 LWT's at the time were set to expire in the near future, IIRC on or before 2010, but the LTDP did not call for replacing the LWT stocks until 2015 or thereabouts. In effect, the official plan at the time was to continue (to attempt) fielding expired ordnance for several years, whilst ignoring the potential risks associated with carrying expired ordnance. As I understand it, the risks were that if the NZDF needed to use an expired Mk 46 (as opposed to one that was inspected/re-manufactured to ensure that it was good) there would be the potential that a launched Mk 46 would be a dud.
Given the current lack of known plans to either arm the P-8 Poseidons set to enter service, or be mounted to ships and then queued from the Poseidons... It seems that the NZDF will have a great tool for maritime domain awareness, but still have little ability for any sort of response.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
The suggestion that the NZDF acquire some of the to-be-decommissioned MRH-90 makes eminent sense based on logic. I feel that such good sense and logic will run into difficulties from:
1. Political (and fiscal) will,
2. Funding availability, and
3. Manpower.
The politicians and their advisors (policy and fiscal) would see such a suggestion as an admission that the earlier professional advice from NZDF (and RNZAF in particular) regarding the number of transport helicopters required to meet the GoTD's requirements was right (and more damningly, their advice was wrong). Such a position would be unpalatable.
Even if the first obstacle was passed the political and fiscal advisors would have the 'economic situation' card to play in order to prevent (their preferred outcome) or at least minimise any budget allocation that could (foolishly in their opinion) provided in the future for the purchase of a very limited number of airframes (perhaps less than 5 including airframes to be stripped down for use as spares).
The final obstacle to pass would be the availability of experienced manpower (aircrew and maintainers) to support the expanded fleet. To achieve this stage would also require successful outcomes in the first 2 stages in order to expand the training pipeline to ensure a continued availability of suitably trained personnel to fill both new positions and vacancies due to retirements etc.
The overwatch and CAS element of the suggestion would, I believe, encounter and additional obstacle being what would be the NZDF CONOPS. Whether this obstacle was before the first obstacle or after it is largely irrelevant, but it would be needed to inform the desired outcomes of the 2nd and 3rd stage. Perhaps the approach could be to expand the CONOPS for LOH/LUH to include a limited escort function based on FFAR & HMG for protection of TTHs, rather than going full attack helo mode with ATGM & 20mm cannons.
As for introducing one or more new airframe types (be it ARH, AH-6 or AW139M) into NZDF service may be the metaphorical bridge too far, based on the logistical and training demands such an introduction would impose upon the NZDF in general, and potentially the RNZAF in particular.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I will be honest I am much less certain that it would be 'logical' for NZ to acquire any ex-Australian MRH90's. Yes, reportedly NZ has had success with their NH90's in service whilst the Australian version of the NH90, their MRH90 is being replaced sooner than originally planned due to a variety (or perhaps more a series) of issues with the helicopter.
I am very much uncertain that NZ could repeat whatever they have managed to do with ex-Australian helicopters, even if these examples could be modified or remanufactured to be exactly the same as the ones already in Kiwi service. BTW might simply be unfeasible to get the Australian produced helicopters to be the same standard the Kiwi ones.
Additionally I would be concerned about the costs to operate and support 'extra' NH90's. A significant driver of why Australia is retiring their MRH90's some ten years ahead of schedule I believe has to do with costs, availability, and maintenance support. IIRC the Cpfh the Australian Cpfh for their MRH90's was something like 4x that of their Black Hawks, which IMO could have been born had the MRH90 been able to lift 4x as much as a Black Hawk. The reality though was that the MRH90 was in some areas only marginally better, like being able to lift an extra 100 kg in a slung load, etc.
I would be very interested to find out what NZ has been doing differently that has enabled them to make a success of their NH90's. However, I would be concerned that NZ has been dealing with high Cpfh by simply reducing the amount of flying their NH90's engage in or something similar, as these efforts would not be improved by adding more aircraft into the fleet.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Lets not get to carried with giving away the Aussie MRH-90s yet, no order for new Blackhawks have been placed at this stage only an intention to by the former Morrison Government. The new Government has announced a Defence review, lets see if this replacement survives that review first.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Agreed, though I think it might still be a good idea for the Taipans to be retired if the Cpfh and Mpfh issues are still ongoing. IIRC the Blawk Hawk as a type is expected to continue in US service until some time into the 2040's.
Indeed, there are a myriad of issues with NZDF capabilities, though the Penguin example cited isn’t so cut and dried, not every engagement would be over open-water for example where the full range of a defensive anti-air system might be best employed... Additionally we have seen multiple examples of combat ships operating what might be termed ‘lax’ defensive postures in recent years as well. The point was simply that the NZG isn’t “totally” opposed to air-launched weapons, because they have air-launched anti-ship missiles, air-launched torpedoes and Mk.82 bombs in-service today, capabilities which are at the lower end of the scale of such definitely, but they ARE operational…
The Greens are a political party in NZ of importance, but they are not the ruling party. Their views may or may not have influence with respect to the ruling party (at present Labor I believe?)
In any case, the Mk.46 Mod 5 torpedoes operated by RNZN and RNZAF are currently up to date certification-wise, according to the attached article from 2021. They are not integrated onto the P-8A in that standard, but I suspect Mk.54’s will be, in due course seen in RNZAF service.
Attachments
Last edited:
Just my thoughts regarding the helicopter fleet. I'm not a fan of the NH90. Its a European battlefield helicopter and not a South Pacific maritime nation helicopter. Its cost per hour is alot (I seem to remember the operation budget was increased by $100M many years back to cover 3sqn added costs), its construction of plastic/fiberglass is just not up to the rough and tumble of Mil Ops (note bespoke wooden floor installed to stop floor cracking), the civil world gets away with it because they can be precious with the airframes, you just cant beat Al construction. The NZ model can't operate off a ship whilst under way in even moderate/light sea states is the final nail for me, so with that in mind, sell the whole fleet back to NHI.
- Id like to replace it with ten Bell 214 Griffons for general use throughout NZ and the Pacific. Great for all those mundane tasks, hay bales in winter, SAR, NZPOL support picking secret stashes of tomato plants etc. I seem to remember they fit in a C130 too. Bell CH-146 Griffon - Wikipedia
- To compliment them at the high end ten UH 1Y Huey's with the pylon weapon systems, eg rockets and heavy machine guns etc for ground support. These aircraft are built for the US Marine Corps, fully marinised, auto folding blades and are designed to operate off a ship. Bell UH-1Y - The Ultimate Utility Helicopter (bellflight.com)
- There is a sense of commonality training between the Griffins and the Yankees. Id rather many airframes carrying smaller loads than a few frames carrying a lot. We saw this in ET, the ying/yang relationship of having a smaller UH1 airframe complementing a larger Blackhawk frame, be it loads , LZ size or frequency of flights. The Yankee could bridge the gap between a full ARH and not.
- If we were choosing ARH, then for me the Bell Cobra Viper is cost effective if we had Yankees, engines, rotor, and appendage is the same as the Yankee. Again fully marinised and keeps the logistic/training mtce pool smaller.
- For the medium lift Id purchase eight Karman KMAX helicopters, single-pilot operation only, as operated by the US Marine Corps. These are medium lift helicopters with a sling load of an excess of two and a half tonne and are (in Helicopter world) cheep as to run. Great for all that lifting of things painted green and ship to shore ( DOC tasks on remote Islands etc). Since the RNZAF does not conduct single pilot Ops anymore I would like to see these operated as a VR (Reserve) Squadron and and piloted by WOs, civil qualified. Keeping the cost lower again. Kaman K-MAX - Wikipedia
- The AW109 will be kept, increasing the number by three to a fleet of eight. Noting the age of the existing airframes.
- From a Naval aviation perspective the AW Wildcat it's probably the better helicopter, size vs cost. 10 purchased, again fitted for and with dipping sonar and weapon systems. If you need to move bulk pers off a ship , take a Yankee, bulk lift , take a KMAX.
Teal,
you had me at "I'm not a fan of the NH90'. Snap, for reasons that I've stated previously. As well as the wooden floors, they are just not combat helicopters. The door guns, operating costs, configurations, and European data links, being other significant issues. I am unsure of availability of Y and Z, and admit that I am not up to speed in current LUH areas.
With of the maritime role, I would be arrogant enough to suggest that SH-60R is the only 4 Sqn answer due to pure ASW & AShW avionics and weapons operational ability (despite its high zero fuel weight), availability, and RAN/USN compatibility. Additionally this might significantly, in short order, increase the combat capability of our frigates at a time when they are relatively unarmed and tensions are rising. Eg. I suspect that the current SH/Penguin has sever limitations
In turn this could drive the UH-60M slicks and MH-60M over-watch for 3 Sqn. Noting previous comments about the relative age of the 60's technology and new USA helo systems just around the corner, I counter that its the avionics, evolving weapon packages, and again compatibility with Australian Army/USA/USAF that makes this a military answer. I'm speculating that Tiger etc is too much of a specialist helo for NZDF CONOPS/manning and that the commonality of SH/MH/UH-60s airframes would assist engineering & training etc. Finally, their (again operational) AAR capability in the Pacific would also enable huge advantages with our new 40 SQN J's ... assuming extra M/KC-130Js are
If I may strongly spike the baby seal that is NZ Army taking the helicopter role. This should be avoided at all costs. Due to Vietnam mythology and service politics, Australia did this and destroyed their UH capability for decades. Army should concentrate on tanks, infantry, arty, etc. NZ has enough problems without brown jobs attempting to fly too.
Apologies for sounding all light blue!
you had me at "I'm not a fan of the NH90'. Snap, for reasons that I've stated previously. As well as the wooden floors, they are just not combat helicopters. The door guns, operating costs, configurations, and European data links, being other significant issues. I am unsure of availability of Y and Z, and admit that I am not up to speed in current LUH areas.
With of the maritime role, I would be arrogant enough to suggest that SH-60R is the only 4 Sqn answer due to pure ASW & AShW avionics and weapons operational ability (despite its high zero fuel weight), availability, and RAN/USN compatibility. Additionally this might significantly, in short order, increase the combat capability of our frigates at a time when they are relatively unarmed and tensions are rising. Eg. I suspect that the current SH/Penguin has sever limitations
In turn this could drive the UH-60M slicks and MH-60M over-watch for 3 Sqn. Noting previous comments about the relative age of the 60's technology and new USA helo systems just around the corner, I counter that its the avionics, evolving weapon packages, and again compatibility with Australian Army/USA/USAF that makes this a military answer. I'm speculating that Tiger etc is too much of a specialist helo for NZDF CONOPS/manning and that the commonality of SH/MH/UH-60s airframes would assist engineering & training etc. Finally, their (again operational) AAR capability in the Pacific would also enable huge advantages with our new 40 SQN J's ... assuming extra M/KC-130Js are
If I may strongly spike the baby seal that is NZ Army taking the helicopter role. This should be avoided at all costs. Due to Vietnam mythology and service politics, Australia did this and destroyed their UH capability for decades. Army should concentrate on tanks, infantry, arty, etc. NZ has enough problems without brown jobs attempting to fly too.
Apologies for sounding all light blue!