New Zealand struggles with Seasprite sustainment

[Chris F]

What is the NZDF coming too these days....I just read the value for money report that guest attached here and did 757 word search.....I said a while back that the 757 might have a short career here and that report spells it out...thats not to say they will do anything...but it is suggested and they have approached Air New Zealand.
With the cut and burn approach today that is going on here and abroad I dont give our defence force much of a future beyond that of a basic coast guard service!
It's a shame to see with such a proud history but the writing is on the wall.

Is it possible that the A109 could be configured to a maritime type role to back up the Seasprite?
With these so called 3 extra ones is this a possibility at all???
Sometimes you have to think a little left field to do things with such a tight budget in demanding time.........your thoughts gents??

[Dave Homewood]

The Boeing 757 is designed to be in constant usage in airline service, it seldom gets time to cool down, passengers get off, refuled, new passengers and crew, fly again.

I am told a major issue with the RNZAF's 757's is they don't get used as intended in this way, flying a lot less and sitting on the tarmac a lot more, and therefore this has lead to engine issues.

The proposal that Air new Zealand takes over the running of the two aircraft to a) keep them flying and in use as intended; b) bolster the Air New Zealand fleet; and c) have No. 40 Squadron staff train and fly with Air New Zealand so they get more flying hours and experience, all seem quite feasible. The RNZAF will still retain capability as when they need the aircraft they will be made available by the airline or a substitute from the fleet (ie a 767 or whatever) provided to fulfill the military needs. Sounds like a sound plan if the RNZAF does not currently have the money and abaility to keep the two aircraft flying as is.

[luke6745]

Aug 24, 2011 16:45:20 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

The Boeing 757 is designed to be in constant usage in airline service, it seldom gets time to cool down, passengers get off, refuled, new passengers and crew, fly again.

I am told a major issue with the RNZAF's 757's is they don't get used as intended in this way, flying a lot less and sitting on the tarmac a lot more, and therefore this has lead to engine issues.

The proposal that Air new Zealand takes over the running of the two aircraft to a) keep them flying and in use as intended; b) bolster the Air New Zealand fleet; and c) have No. 40 Squadron staff train and fly with Air New Zealand so they get more flying hours and experience, all seem quite feasible. The RNZAF will still retain capability as when they need the aircraft they will be made available by the airline or a substitute from the fleet (ie a 767 or whatever) provided to fulfill the military needs. Sounds like a sound plan if the RNZAF does not currently have the money and abaility to keep the two aircraft flying as is.

What happens if we need aircraft urgently and they are in London or Los Angeles? I think it's about time that some high ranking officers picked up their sacks say to the government that what it is doing is plain wrong and resign if the government doesn't stop cutting and limiting funding. I'm not suggesting a coup, but what I want is for high ranking officers to take a stand and say that it's wrong (remember when army commanders stood by while the ACF was scrapped?).


Also......


Latest model of the Lynx, the AgustaWestland AW159 Lynx Wildcat.

[Dave Homewood]

What happens if one is needed urgently now and on'e in maintenance and the other is in London? Answer, they cope. In the proposed situation, they'd cope better as Air NZ will likely be able to provide a cover aircraft from their own fleet.

[luke6745]

Aug 24, 2011 18:31:41 GMT 12 phil said:

And how many AirNZ aircraft are modified for pallets? AME? Would AirNZ be happy with their aircraft flying to Antarctica? Or Afghanistan?

Exactly.

[Dave Homewood]

Hey, it ain't my idea. And I think it's better than losing the aircraft and capability all together, isn't it? Which is what some politicians seem to want.

[Tony]

Aug 24, 2011 1:54:28 GMT 12 lesterpk said:

I got $50 that says we buy the ex Aussie ones

I'm with you ;D ;D

Very cheep Aussi Airframes

[Dave Homewood]

They might be cheap but you won't get them for $50 Les. ;D

How's civilian life treating you by the way?

[vs]

I can't imagine what air nz would do with 2 15 year old 757's.

Would a seahawk fit onto the deck of an anzac frigate? I was surprised when they got the sea sprite as it had not been used by the us navy for a while and was only in service with the Egyptians and Poles. I guess they were new build but you don't want to be operating one of the only fleets especially for a complex type.

[Dave Homewood]

Does Air New Zealand not have freight aircraft any more?

[pea032]

Why not DHL? they already operate freight 757s

[vs]

Air nz has not operated a pure freighter since the DC8 freighter left many years ago. The 737 200QC they operated was sold to Airwork around 2001. DHL have a huge fleet of airplanes around the world. Most are operated by other operators on contract. You can't just operate an airliner.......just changing ownership is a huge under taking......you can't just loan an operator an aeroplane.

[flyjoe180]

Aug 24, 2011 11:01:52 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

Aug 24, 2011 10:03:20 GMT 12 flyjoe180 said:

Dave, the only recent example in your list there is the 757.

Which Morrison were you referring to then? I assumed you meant Ian Morrison, CAS in the mid-1960's?

You can't judge anything purchased only recently on longevity, surely?

I did mean CAS mind 60s, I didn't consider the CT4 or the Strikemaster in my initial statement. Longevity no, suitability and reliability, yes, I think I can judge as a tax payer. Hence my further question regarding the naval vessels.

[Dave Homewood]

I would have thought that 1972-1993 for the Strikemaster, 21 years, is a reasonably long period for a jet trainer that was almost obsolete by design when introduced to service.

And the Airtrainers served from 1976 through till the late 1990's - ie some withdrawn 1998, some 1999, and at least one seems to have served till 2001. So up to 25 years of service for the primary trainer seems like a reasonable stint to me. The Tiger Moths only served from 1939-1956, 17 years.

So longevity, pretty much yes in my opinion.

To add to that the four AESL Airtourers also served 23 years in the RNZAF and were only wirthdrawn due to changing circumstances in the service, nothing to do with the aircraft themselves which all continued to fly on.

When you compare with most of the prewar and wartime aircraft plus many others up tioll the 1960's, few of them made it past 10 years of service. So I think post-Morrison selection in terms of longer lifed aircraft hasn't been too bad.

[flyjoe180]

Maybe we're crossing wires Dave, I was meaning the current fleet issues, I agree with the CT4 and Strikemaster sentiments.

[Parrotfish]

Many years ago when the powers that be were looking at which helo to get, I bumped into an acoustic engineer at the RSA where I did volunteer committee work. He was telling me about his son who was involved in looking into the helo question. He said according to his son that they were heavily leaning to the Lynx as it could handle far rougher sea conditions than the Seasprite. The Seasprite's design was considered old and and bit of a pup due to its age and loss of support from the Kaman and non-operation of the production line. Also Westland gave a promise to base a southern hemisphere service centre in NZ if the Lynx was chosen. Interestingly though, he said his son predicted that Seasprite would get the nod because of Australia and feelings of the need to "fit in".

Like I say, it's what I was told by someone with a son involved at the pointy end. What weight people want to put on it is up to you.

Cheers.

[nige]

I've heard the same too Parrotfish on overseas fora that NZ was keen on the Lynx but followed the Australian lead re: the Seasprite choice (except for the Westland service centre bit, didn't know that). The Aussies chose the Seasprite because they were intended for the proposed Australian Offshore Patrol Vessel (which was canned when Malaysia pulled out of the joint-deal) which didn't need an expensive helicopter a la Seahawk etc. (The RAN Seahawk acquisition was hugely expensive - sorry can't recall the cost but it was mind-blowing due to the Seahawk's advanced ASW/ASuW fitout).

web.archive.org/web/20020301143459/http://www.tenix.com.au/Main.asp?ID=424

(Cut and paste link if it isn't fully clickable).

Nice looking OPV, they were what I was hoping the RNZN would acquire when Tenix won the contract to build the NZ Offshore Patrol Vessels, but a different design was used in the end.

I also recall in the early 1980's the RNZN publically said they wanted the Lynx to replace the Wasp, so I suppose that indicates the RNZN had been evaluating/favouring the Lynx for many years/decades prior to the Lynx v Seasprite assessment.

[beagle]

so if they go the way of acquiring the ex aussie ones what would they do.
Modify a few more to the same standards as ours or use then as they were for in aussie service. From memory there is 11, too many for us to have operational but 6-7 maybe.

[Chris F]

Beagle I dont think replacing or adding more airframes to the Seasprite fleet is even close to been considered.
To be fair the powers that be cannot even seem to make a simple decision on replacing the Kingairs let alone anything else.
I think the current Minister is full of hot air.

[flyinkiwi]

Aug 24, 2011 12:42:19 GMT 12 guest said:

www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/defence-review-2009-released-value-for-money-report.pdf

This document asks some major questions and has some recommendations I think are controversial at best. I strongly suggest you read it in it's entirety.

Here's an example:

In the remuneration category, the focus of the VfM Team has been on the withdrawal of the proposed military remuneration increase of $25 million scheduled for in FY 2011/2012, a rationalisation of non-operational allowances, a gradual change from the current superannuation arrangements to Kiwi Saver...

If I was going to sign my name on a dotted line to fight and potentially die for my country, I'd expect my country to look after me appropriately if I fulfill my term of service. Knowing that my retirement plan is wrapped up in Kiwi Saver doesn't exactly fill me with patriotism.