Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ADMk2]

Actually I don't care who in particular flies any of Australias troubled fleets and not sure where you got the idea I got any of the relevant services wrong anyway? And TBH it has no bearing on my arguments anyway, New Zealand helos work, Australian not so much, Army, navy, air force dosent change that? The boy scouts could maintain the 90s and the local pub the seasprites and I would still be asking why/how these ones are working and these ones are not? Lol

Much like I don't really care about what/how/why any particular type doesn't perform based on what any particular country did or didn't do to them as like Im saying, that is then country caused not type. Point being they work in other countries service so if Australia wants to get all technical and fancy then to me that is somewhat on them, risk and all.

Sorry, hundreds of millions not billions, my bad, but I'd like to think you get my drift.

You would only hope the bigger your overall fleet then the higher your flying hours but then that seems like a strange way to gain flying hours, to essentially buy more helicopters, and no doubt ridiculously expensive? Pretty sure the more generic baseline is CPFH and availability rate for a truer performance indicator vs total fleet numbers.

Again we, well to be more specific you, seem to focus on the 4 countries that are "prematurely" retiring their 90s and not on the other 10 that are not? For example why don't we figure out how RNZAF is getting the availability rates they are getting out of their frames or even why Germany is buying 31 more examples?? In all honesty if it was even the other way around and 10 countries were ditching them and 4 countries were still flying them then we should be then be asking what are those 4 doing so different? Heck even if it was 1 country! Thing is they obviously have a working plan to their "problems", so what is the secret??

And you seem to have a rather large chip on your shoulder about Australia’s retirement of the capability which is how this present discussion kicked off. You were “enjoying“ watching the “drama” surrounding it remember? If that isn’t trolling then I clearly don’t know what is…

It boils down to the fact that Australia is simply not prepared to live with the issues with MRH-90 and those included program acknowledged issues with over-water flying, problems with ingress / egress from the main cabin and fields of fire with the door-mounted gun in place, the lack of flaring capability of the aircraft and ‘other’ issues in the SF helo space, leading Army to conclude that the helicopter will never achieve some capability aspects that were promised and which are required.

Certainly not at the cost the capability runs at and the fact that a similarly sized fleet of UH-60M’s actually cheaper to acquire and sustain than the MRH-90 is the icing on the cake as far as 2 separate Governments on each side of the political spectrum have now concluded.

NZ however appears happy to live with the known issues of the platform and I say good luck to them. Hopefully they deliver all the capability NZ requires at the most affordable cost. But that wasn’t Australia’s experience and I for one am glad we‘ve binned them and pissed at the same time it took this long to reach this point.

I’ll never change my long held opinion that we should have replaced S-70A Blackhawk with UH-60M Blackhawk in the mid 2000’s and never got into this situation in the first place. Likewise with Tiger. Army wanted Apache and with it’s sterling record and enormous user base, would have suited us perfectly. But once again, took us 20 odd years to reach that point…

That is a lesson we could probably take from NZ acquisition practices broadly speaking (and no insult intended) and that is sensible, straight forward acquisitions should be our baseline, instead of shooting for the stars.

So all that said, let’s move the discussion forward shall we and get back to why the RNZAF should buy the Wildcat…

 

[Volkodav]

And you seem to have a rather large chip on your shoulder about Australia’s retirement of the capability which is how this present discussion kicked off. You were “enjoying“ watching the “drama” surrounding it remember? If that isn’t trolling then I clearly don’t know what is…

It boils down to the fact that Australia is simply not prepared to live with the issues with MRH-90 and those included program acknowledged issues with over-water flying, problems with ingress / egress from the main cabin and fields of fire with the door-mounted gun in place, the lack of flaring capability of the aircraft and ‘other’ issues in the SF helo space, leading Army to conclude that the helicopter will never achieve some capability aspects that were promised and which are required.

Certainly not at the cost the capability runs at and the fact that a similarly sized fleet of UH-60M’s actually cheaper to acquire and sustain than the MRH-90 is the icing on the cake as far as 2 separate Governments on each side of the political spectrum have now concluded.

NZ however appears happy to live with the known issues of the platform and I say good luck to them. Hopefully they deliver all the capability NZ requires at the most affordable cost. But that wasn’t Australia’s experience and I for one am glad we‘ve binned them and pissed at the same time it took this long to reach this point.

I’ll never change my long held opinion that we should have replaced S-70A Blackhawk with UH-60M Blackhawk in the mid 2000’s and never got into this situation in the first place. Likewise with Tiger. Army wanted Apache and with it’s sterling record and enormous user base, would have suited us perfectly. But once again, took us 20 odd years to reach that point…

That is a lesson we could probably take from NZ acquisition practices broadly speaking (and no insult intended) and that is sensible, straight forward acquisitions should be our baseline, instead of shooting for the stars.

I had an interesting conversation with a maintainer experienced with the type. He was actually certified on multiple types across Army Aviation.

His take, it wasn't really a suitable battlefield or utility helicopter, it wasn't easy to deploy on the LHDs, it was a maintenance hog, it was complex and difficult to keep on top of defects during operations.

But over all he liked it, he just thought it was the wrong platform for the job.

He pointed out that it would actually have made a very good SAR and CSAR platform out of the box. I.e. a smaller number operated as required for training and actual missions, but otherwise kept in mint condition ready to go.

This is basically the complete opposite to what the ADF needed. It needed a rugged, reliable tactical truck and it got a blinged up SUV.

 

[RegR]

And you seem to have a rather large chip on your shoulder about Australia’s retirement of the capability which is how this present discussion kicked off. You were “enjoying“ watching the “drama” surrounding it remember? If that isn’t trolling then I clearly don’t know what is…

It boils down to the fact that Australia is simply not prepared to live with the issues with MRH-90 and those included program acknowledged issues with over-water flying, problems with ingress / egress from the main cabin and fields of fire with the door-mounted gun in place, the lack of flaring capability of the aircraft and ‘other’ issues in the SF helo space, leading Army to conclude that the helicopter will never achieve some capability aspects that were promised and which are required.

Certainly not at the cost the capability runs at and the fact that a similarly sized fleet of UH-60M’s actually cheaper to acquire and sustain than the MRH-90 is the icing on the cake as far as 2 separate Governments on each side of the political spectrum have now concluded.

NZ however appears happy to live with the known issues of the platform and I say good luck to them. Hopefully they deliver all the capability NZ requires at the most affordable cost. But that wasn’t Australia’s experience and I for one am glad we‘ve binned them and pissed at the same time it took this long to reach this point.

I’ll never change my long held opinion that we should have replaced S-70A Blackhawk with UH-60M Blackhawk in the mid 2000’s and never got into this situation in the first place. Likewise with Tiger. Army wanted Apache and with it’s sterling record and enormous user base, would have suited us perfectly. But once again, took us 20 odd years to reach that point…

That is a lesson we could probably take from NZ acquisition practices broadly speaking (and no insult intended) and that is sensible, straight forward acquisitions should be our baseline, instead of shooting for the stars.

So all that said, let’s move the discussion forward shall we and get back to why the RNZAF should buy the Wildcat…

Not at all, I merely queried the seemingly vast operating experiences with the same type over multiple operators and have to then wonder why/how as to if it's all down to the type (as keeps being suggested), end user (which surely is a factor IMO) and obviously a combination of both.

In all honesty If I was to choose the huey replacement way back when then I would have probably gone with the blackhawk as well based on cost/costs alone (Im not blind to the fact NH90 cost more but then I actually expected so) as not doubt we then could have got more for the same price, a bonus in itself. But we have the NH90 and it is working so we then make best use, as we tend to do with any capability in our limited defence force with limited funding and limited resources (and I know, I was there).

You're right, and the fact there is/was "drama" is exactly why I started questioning/quoting/opinionating in the first instance ie I didnt start it but I will then comment, why wouldn't/shouldn't I?

If it makes everyone feel better I won't question/query/quote Helos anymore.

 

[Volkodav]

Not at all, I merely queried the seemingly vast operating experiences with the same type over multiple operators and have to then wonder why/how as to if it's all down to the type (as keeps being suggested), end user (which surely is a factor IMO) and obviously a combination of both.

In all honesty If I was to choose the huey replacement way back when then I would have probably gone with the blackhawk as well based on cost/costs alone (Im not blind to the fact NH90 cost more but then I actually expected so) as not doubt we then could have got more for the same price, a bonus in itself. But we have the NH90 and it is working so we then make best use, as we tend to do with any capability in our limited defence force with limited funding and limited resources (and I know, I was there).

You're right, and the fact there is/was "drama" is exactly why I started questioning/quoting/opinionating in the first instance ie I didnt start it but I will then comment, why wouldn't/shouldn't I?

If it makes everyone feel better I won't question/query/quote Helos anymore.

Do you know anything about configuration management? I'm not being facicious, it's a serious question.

FMS, you pretty much get the config of the current US production version, you may or may not be able to make minor changes. You buy FMS you hook into the spiral development and support systems.

Tiger was bought by a small number of operators, and there were very few varients. There were initially issues with spares but these were eventually addressed.

NH90 tried to be everything to everyone. There were different configurations for pretty much every user. The irony here being spares for one type very may well be useless for another. So while NZ may well have been able to secure the required parts for their small fleet, Australia's much larger fleet would have to do without.

It's not a uniform homogenous global fleet, it's more like a dozen different, surprisingly incompatable fleets.

 

[RegR]

Do you know anything about configuration management? I'm not being facicious, it's a serious question.

FMS, you pretty much get the config of the current US production version, you may or may not be able to make minor changes. You buy FMS you hook into the spiral development and support systems.

Tiger was bought by a small number of operators, and there were very few varients. There were initially issues with spares but these were eventually addressed.

NH90 tried to be everything to everyone. There were different configurations for pretty much every user. The irony here being spares for one type very may well be useless for another. So while NZ may well have been able to secure the required parts for their small fleet, Australia's much larger fleet would have to do without.

It's not a uniform homogenous global fleet, it's more like a dozen different, surprisingly incompatable fleets.

Yea I actually thought I read somewhere about an upgrade that grounded the Taipans briefly on an ex but because NZ had bit the bullet and just got them they were then able to fly as normal? I remember thinking for once NZ had actually spent some coin and upgraded early (whereas we usually just stick to baseline as long as possible) and for once had paid off. I would like to think this new way of thinking continues as yes, the problem with tech nowadays is inevitable obsolescence.

That is kinda what I was questioning as to wether or not the Australian requested/dictated configs/updates (or lack of due to numbers/cost/time) were at least some of the then root cause problems? and others were either applied, used or handled differently to then get such wide and varying end results (in terms of availability at least).

Yes NZ bought the 9th frame purely as a source of spares as it worked out cheaper than buying everything separately at least initially anyway, and you then have an attrition frame for any, god forbid, major incident/accident rebuild. Aus did have the 47th frame and I did wonder if you guys would use the 6 naval frames out of service to at least address the spares side of the problem for the rest which I do understand was an issue for alot of other users directly affecting availability. The irony of ADF retiring the Taipans early is the amount of spares it should flow into the global market but then I guess as you say it all depends on the configuration. Hopefully we can leverage as I assumed we tried to keep ours as close to yours for that very reason, commonality, spares and operational considerations.

 

[Rob c]

Hey Guy's how about giving this saga about the NH90 a rest. you seem to be on an ego trip and are going around in circles.

 

[recce.k1]

Gentlemen, this has been an "interesting" wild ride of late with lots of turbulence and some "disagreement" coming from the cockpit but it appears things are settling down because at the end of the day I think the "protagonists" (sorry, for lack of a better description) pretty much want the same thing - the best for their forces (it's just how to get there and/or how and why did we get to where we are, what are the lessons learnt etc).

I think at the end of the day the reality is Australia has identified a "problem" (suspect it was a number of problems all adding up, rather than just one or two issues that could be pinned down precisely hence why the vagueness in public about specifics etc) and have the funding resources to "move on" with a replacement platform.

For NZ NH90 is such a massive improvement over its predecessor so for better or worse is probably content to be making do. Because the reality is we don't have the funding resources to move on (as quick as the AusGov can). And I think this is the dilemma for Defence. To request an early replacement to make NZDF compatible with the ADF (UH-60M) will have its advantages many-fold (training, support, operations etc). But the disadvantages would be prioritising a platform replacement over many other acquisition/capabilities across the NZDF that are just as critical if not more so. So are we better delaying replacement for another few years and maybe look to acquire spares from other nations in the meantime? And as Reg points out other nations are still operating them meaning there shouldn't be short/medium/possibly longer term issues acquiring spares (unlike the issue we are having with the Seasprites where spares and now difficult if not impossible to obtain in some cases). But is this still the best approach looking ahead into the (medium term) future? What if other nations also start retiring their NH90's earlier than expected too? Does NZ wish to face another "Seasprite" obsolescence dilemma? Especially if impacts the Maritime Helicopter Replacement project (eg does Defence rule in or rule out the NFH-90)?

We all have our views but no doubt the experts at Defence are already leaps and bounds ahead of us and have or are doing the sums and Defence heirarcy will be seeing how it fits into overall defence planning for the defence review. And the Martime Helicopter Project gives Defence further and better informed opportunities to gauge the type's future. But they have milestones too and I guess too they also have to make calls. Let's hope there is some clarity over the next few months so maybe let's talk about the future rather than the past ...

 

[Redlands18]

Gentlemen, this has been an "interesting" wild ride of late with lots of turbulence and some "disagreement" coming from the cockpit but it appears things are settling down because at the end of the day I think the "protagonists" (sorry, for lack of a better description) pretty much want the same thing - the best for their forces (it's just how to get there and/or how and why did we get to where we are, what are the lessons learnt etc).

I think at the end of the day the reality is Australia has identified a "problem" (suspect it was a number of problems all adding up, rather than just one or two issues that could be pinned down precisely hence why the vagueness in public about specifics etc) and have the funding resources to "move on" with a replacement platform.

For NZ NH90 is such a massive improvement over its predecessor so for better or worse is probably content to be making do. Because the reality is we don't have the funding resources to move on (as quick as the AusGov can). And I think this is the dilemma for Defence. To request an early replacement to make NZDF compatible with the ADF (UH-60M) will have its advantages many-fold (training, support, operations etc). But the disadvantages would be prioritising a platform replacement over many other acquisition/capabilities across the NZDF that are just as critical if not more so. So are we better delaying replacement for another few years and maybe look to acquire spares from other nations in the meantime? And as Reg points out other nations are still operating them meaning there shouldn't be short/medium/possibly longer term issues acquiring spares (unlike the issue we are having with the Seasprites where spares and now difficult if not impossible to obtain in some cases). But is this still the best approach looking ahead into the (medium term) future? What if other nations also start retiring their NH90's earlier than expected too? Does NZ wish to face another "Seasprite" obsolescence dilemma? Especially if impacts the Maritime Helicopter Replacement project (eg does Defence rule in or rule out the NFH-90)?

We all have our views but no doubt the experts at Defence are already leaps and bounds ahead of us and have or are doing the sums and Defence heirarcy will be seeing how it fits into overall defence planning for the defence review. And the Martime Helicopter Project gives Defence further and better informed opportunities to gauge the type's future. But they have milestones too and I guess too they also have to make calls. Let's hope there is some clarity over the next few months so maybe let's talk about the future rather than the past ...

NZ does need to replace the Seasprites in the next few years and there would be a lot of advantages in consolidating on one airframe type, in trg, log and ease of operations, either the NH-90 TTH/NFH-90 or the UH-60M/MH-60R. You could throw the AW-159 in the mix but the battlefield version is a significant step down in size compared to the NH-90.
One issue with the NFH-90 is fitting it inside the Anzac Hangars, the RAN did do trials with the MRH-90, it did fit but with no room to spare.

 

[Teal]

UPDATED: Ukraine requests unwanted Army Taipan helicopters - APDR

Technicians are currently – and in secret – disassembling all 45 Army Taipan Multi Role Helicopters

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

Anyone up for a mid-night raid to liberate some parts ??

 

[recce.k1]

UPDATED: Ukraine requests unwanted Army Taipan helicopters - APDR

Technicians are currently – and in secret – disassembling all 45 Army Taipan Multi Role Helicopters

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

Anyone up for a mid-night raid to liberate some parts ??

Interesting development considering the six RAN examples were allegedly being maintained and preserved for a potential sale?

Anyway from that it appears to rule out anyone obtaining any flyable examples. NZ included - so it's probably fair to say the current fleet won't be expanded (or at least not from ex-ADF examples). So I wonder then about the longevity of the NZ fleet (as in, will we also ditch the NH90 earlier than planned)?

That's very generous of Australia to offer NZ some crucial spares.

Anyway looks like Airbus have been given a bit of a hiding (reputation wise), wow it seems pretty harsh!

 

[Todjaeger]

Interesting development considering the six RAN examples were allegedly being maintained and preserved for a potential sale?

Anyway from that it appears to rule out anyone obtaining any flyable examples. NZ included - so it's probably fair to say the current fleet won't be expanded (or at least not from ex-ADF examples). So I wonder then about the longevity of the NZ fleet (as in, will we also ditch the NH90 earlier than planned)?

That's very generous of Australia to offer NZ some crucial spares.

Anyway looks like Airbus have been given a bit of a hiding (reputation wise), wow it seems pretty harsh!

One thing I have been wondering for some time is what the RNZAF's NH90 availability rate is. Apparently the average global availability rate in mid-2022 was ~40% with NHI having a goal of reaching an average global availability rate of 50% this year. Additionally, I wonder about the maintenance, support and flight ops costs.

As a side note, I would not place too much credence in much of the APDR article since there are a number of statements in the article which are unsupported and in a number of cases are contrary to information available from a number of other sources or are vague enough to be both accurate/correct but also misleading. Take for instance the claim of an Army insider describing the Blackhawk as the aviation equivalent of a farm tractor whilst comparing that to the extremely modern NH90... That could be an accurate description, which could also be completely misleading since Army has had S-70A Black Hawk helicopters in service for decades, but the first three of 40 UH-60M Black Hawks were delivered this year. No word that I am aware of on which Black Hawk version the claimed Army insider was talking about, but it does suggest an axe to grind.

 

[alexsa]

Gentlemen, this has been an "interesting" wild ride of late with lots of turbulence and some "disagreement" coming from the cockpit but it appears things are settling down because at the end of the day I think the "protagonists" (sorry, for lack of a better description) pretty much want the same thing - the best for their forces (it's just how to get there and/or how and why did we get to where we are, what are the lessons learnt etc).

I think at the end of the day the reality is Australia has identified a "problem" (suspect it was a number of problems all adding up, rather than just one or two issues that could be pinned down precisely hence why the vagueness in public about specifics etc) and have the funding resources to "move on" with a replacement platform.

For NZ NH90 is such a massive improvement over its predecessor so for better or worse is probably content to be making do. Because the reality is we don't have the funding resources to move on (as quick as the AusGov can). And I think this is the dilemma for Defence. To request an early replacement to make NZDF compatible with the ADF (UH-60M) will have its advantages many-fold (training, support, operations etc). But the disadvantages would be prioritising a platform replacement over many other acquisition/capabilities across the NZDF that are just as critical if not more so. So are we better delaying replacement for another few years and maybe look to acquire spares from other nations in the meantime? And as Reg points out other nations are still operating them meaning there shouldn't be short/medium/possibly longer term issues acquiring spares (unlike the issue we are having with the Seasprites where spares and now difficult if not impossible to obtain in some cases). But is this still the best approach looking ahead into the (medium term) future? What if other nations also start retiring their NH90's earlier than expected too? Does NZ wish to face another "Seasprite" obsolescence dilemma? Especially if impacts the Maritime Helicopter Replacement project (eg does Defence rule in or rule out the NFH-90)?

We all have our views but no doubt the experts at Defence are already leaps and bounds ahead of us and have or are doing the sums and Defence heirarcy will be seeing how it fits into overall defence planning for the defence review. And the Martime Helicopter Project gives Defence further and better informed opportunities to gauge the type's future. But they have milestones too and I guess too they also have to make calls. Let's hope there is some clarity over the next few months so maybe let's talk about the future rather than the past ...

Good day folks

Some very valid advice here when should heeded. The subject is done based on the information to hand. Please, lets move.

Alexsa

 

[recce.k1]

One thing I have been wondering for some time is what the RNZAF's NH90 availability rate is. Apparently the average global availability rate in mid-2022 was ~40% with NHI having a goal of reaching an average global availability rate of 50% this year. Additionally, I wonder about the maintenance, support and flight ops costs.

Yes good questions and do all operators of the NH90 use the same methodology to measure availability (or not)? Eg how do different aviation units measure availability?

And ditto for flight ops costs? According to a former RAN pilot (quoted next) it does seem NZ and Aus measure flight ops costs differently.

He states for NZ availability in 2018 it was 47.5% and in 2023 it was 68.8%.

For Australia he uses the term "operational readiness" and quotes 60.8% for the financial year 2020/21.

He also mentions a NZ flight cost per flight hour of $1,400 (but asks if that is fuel only)? For Australia $30,000 cost per flight hour (2016) but that includes capital costs, through life costs, salaries and logistics. So definitely "oranges" and "apples" (or maybe "fruit" and "meat" might be more appropriate).

See: Antaresmagazine.com issue 9 page 180 (or page 91 of the Adobe viewer).

Publish Online

indd.adobe.com

Interestingly the author also notes that the NZ NH90 and ADF MRH90 may have the same airframes but they have different mission systems (thus making any potential NZ acquisition of ADF MRH90's costly to change ... unless NZ replaced their NH90's with MRH90's, using the NH90 airframes for spares)?

Page 186 (or Adobe viewer page 94).

As a side note, I would not place too much credence in much of the APDR article since there are a number of statements in the article which are unsupported and in a number of cases are contrary to information available from a number of other sources or are vague enough to be both accurate/correct but also misleading. Take for instance the claim of an Army insider describing the Blackhawk as the aviation equivalent of a farm tractor whilst comparing that to the extremely modern NH90... That could be an accurate description, which could also be completely misleading since Army has had S-70A Black Hawk helicopters in service for decades, but the first three of 40 UH-60M Black Hawks were delivered this year. No word that I am aware of on which Black Hawk version the claimed Army insider was talking about, but it does suggest an axe to grind.

Agree, some claims require better context. I also think Volks' comment in the Aust Army thread seems more plausible - that AusGov/Airbus will benefit from supplying spare parts (rather than whole airframes) to world wide operators and to meet demand.

 

[recce.k1]

NZ does need to replace the Seasprites in the next few years and there would be a lot of advantages in consolidating on one airframe type, in trg, log and ease of operations, either the NH-90 TTH/NFH-90 or the UH-60M/MH-60R. You could throw the AW-159 in the mix but the battlefield version is a significant step down in size compared to the NH-90.
One issue with the NFH-90 is fitting it inside the Anzac Hangars, the RAN did do trials with the MRH-90, it did fit but with no room to spare.

Yes very good points. One thing NZ learned from its attempts in the 1960's to consolidate new helo type acquisitions (and no doubt all other nations too) is that Naval maritime requirements don't always align with Army (or Air Force) land/battle support requirements. So RNZN acquired the Westland Wasp (and nearly acquired the Westand Lynx as later replacements eg it was actually selected at one stage ... just prior to Seasprite changing things). So whether it is the MH-60R or AW159 or NFH90 I hope the RNZN gets something fit for purpose and independent of other Services's needs.

 

[Redlands18]

Yes very good points. One thing NZ learned from its attempts in the 1960's to consolidate new helo type acquisitions (and no doubt all other nations too) is that Naval maritime requirements don't always align with Army (or Air Force) land/battle support requirements. So RNZN acquired the Westland Wasp (and nearly acquired the Westand Lynx as later replacements eg it was actually selected at one stage ... just prior to Seasprite changing things). So whether it is the MH-60R or AW159 or NFH90 I hope the RNZN gets something fit for purpose and independent of other Services's needs.

The NZ Seasprites are actually operated by the RNZAF on behalf of the RNZN and while the Navy can advise which Helicopter they prefer, in the end it will be the Air Force which advises the Government on their final choice and they would look at the overall fleet. There are 3 contenders for the Seasprite replacement and all 3 can offer both Maritime and Battlefield helicopters based on the same airframe.

 

[H_K]

Here’s the Official Information Act release on NZ’s NH90s.

https://www.nzdf.mil.nz/assets/Uploads/DocumentLibrary/OIA-2023-4686-NH90-availability-rate.pdf

Availability (2yr daily average): 68%
ie. ~5 out of 8 helicopters

Activity (5yr average): 250 flight hours per aircraft per year

Interestingly the manpower requirements for front line support and intermediate maintenance are also quite low:

- 61 ground personnel to support 7 helicopters on the flight line
- 13 personnel for 600-hour checks (1 helicopter at a time)

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stories/2023-03-new-zealand-the-nh90-on-every-front

All-in-all these are actually good numbers for any military helicopter type… and would imply a reasonable cost of ownership at least in terms of manpower and fixed asset usage. Note that the 600hr check has recently been extended to 900hr, and major overhaul intervals have been extended from 1200hrs to 1800hrs which should reduce the future maintenance burden further.

I suspect other operators would love to see the same performance (even some Super Puma and UH-60 users). Doesn’t say anything about the cost and availability of spare parts (though clearly spares can be found with good planning and budgeting like NZ has done) and can’t necessarily be compared to other NH90 operators with more intense deployed operations, but overall I’d say the RNZAF is definitely doing something right.

 

[Rob c]

I think that making comparisons with other operators of the NH 90's without an in-depth knowledge of of what the actual individual problems and issues that they are having and what steps they have taken to mitigate these issues is pointless. Also using other types as a yard stick, In both cases you run the risk of comparing apples with oranges.
However the the figures provided by H_K are good, I remember in my Skyhawk days in 75 with 12 Skyhawks we had around 100 on the squadron, plus there was team 1 in AMS doing maintenance and team 3 doing repairs.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Dutch are doing a MLU of their NFH fleet in 2028 and IF NZ went the way of the NFH then the Dutch upgrade includes integration of the Mk-54 LWT and Link 22. Upgrade programme Dutch NH90 helicopters (scramble.nl)

That integration would be favourable for any NZ NFH acquisition; that and fleet commonality.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Dutch are doing a MLU of their NFH fleet in 2028 and IF NZ went the way of the NFH then the Dutch upgrade includes integration of the Mk-54 LWT and Link 22. Upgrade programme Dutch NH90 helicopters (scramble.nl)

That integration would be favourable for any NZ NFH acquisition; that and fleet commonality.

TBH any replacement of the SH-2G(I) Seasprites by NFH90's would need to be done during/after the current frigates are replaced. IIRC current plans do not have this expected to occur before ~2035 so the question needs to be asked, "can the Seasprite fleet continue to serve until 2035?"

If the Seasprites are replaced by the NFH90 before this occurs, then the NZDF has effectively gotten out of embarked naval helicopter ops. The OPV's as well as Canterbury all lack hangar magazines, so no realistic ability to have any armed embarked helicopters for things like ASuW or ASW. HMNZS Aotearoa can also embark helicopters but I am unaware of whether or not there is a hangar magazine and given the role of the vessel as a replenishment and sealift vessel, trying to carry out armed helicopter ops would be... different.

As has already been mentioned, Australia did some trials and found that an MRH90 could fit into an ANZAC-class frigate hangar, but only just. Given some of the descriptions provided, it sounded as though the squeeze was tight enough to make deployment effectively impractical.

 

[ngatimozart]

TBH any replacement of the SH-2G(I) Seasprites by NFH90's would need to be done during/after the current frigates are replaced. IIRC current plans do not have this expected to occur before ~2035 so the question needs to be asked, "can the Seasprite fleet continue to serve until 2035?"

If the Seasprites are replaced by the NFH90 before this occurs, then the NZDF has effectively gotten out of embarked naval helicopter ops. The OPV's as well as Canterbury all lack hangar magazines, so no realistic ability to have any armed embarked helicopters for things like ASuW or ASW. HMNZS Aotearoa can also embark helicopters but I am unaware of whether or not there is a hangar magazine and given the role of the vessel as a replenishment and sealift vessel, trying to carry out armed helicopter ops would be... different.

As has already been mentioned, Australia did some trials and found that an MRH90 could fit into an ANZAC-class frigate hangar, but only just. Given some of the descriptions provided, it sounded as though the squeeze was tight enough to make deployment effectively impractical.

Yep. If rumours of an AW159 lease are correct, that would give time for a better analysis of the best platform to fill the capability. Personally, I think that the MH-60R is the best option, unfortunately I don't have a say in the decision.