|
|
Post by turboNZ on Feb 22, 2006 10:19:39 GMT 12
Aren't Blackhawks very maintenance intensive ??
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Feb 22, 2006 13:13:20 GMT 12
Yep, apparently Blackhawks are quite labour intensive machines.
But then they're probably no more 'maintenance intensive' than 130 solo mums, 80 sickness beneficiaries and 60 long term unemployed! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by turboNZ on Feb 22, 2006 13:18:01 GMT 12
ha ha ha ;D I love your analogy !!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 22, 2006 22:08:26 GMT 12
Calum, do you happen to know if the RAN Seasprites will carry Mavericks too, like the RNZAF ones do? The Penguin may be overkill, but they look damn pretty! ;D No penguin only. The ADF doesn't have Maverick in the inventory, not even for the AF/A-18 |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 16, 2006 3:44:12 GMT 12
Dollar devaluation places NH90 purchase in question....TV1 new tonight ...with talk of purchaing less or spreading purchases over a longer period to enable social vote buying politics to be enhanced....surprise ...surprise!
|
|
|
|
Post by xr6turbo1 on Jun 18, 2006 21:46:03 GMT 12
I am still annoyed they never signed up for the deal when the US dollar was looking more attractive.
I was buying stuff ouf of the US a lot cheaper than now, everyone knew it wouldnt last forever and it could have saved the government some money or allow them to buy more aircraft. Listening to the politicians almost sounds like they are trying to get out of buying the helicopters and I sure hope thats not the case. Perhaps they were hoping the A4 deal would supply some of the funds?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 18, 2006 22:03:42 GMT 12
As the helicopters are European that probably makes little difference. It's Euros you'd have to be looking at, surely? Why use US dollars for a transaction not involving the US at all? Surely we could cut out the middle man and buy direct?
I doubt we'll be doing too many deals with the USA while the current Labour govt is in power. Look at the recent purchases of vehicles for the army, also from Europe.
Also, would exchange rate that affects us buying cash or making electronic transactions actually be of any affect on a large government purchase like this? How do they pay, do they trundle some of our gold reserve over to the appropriate foreign embassy? Do they stockpile foreign currency at the reserve bank for such things?
Or do they actually have to go through the same exchange rate process that we do, and have to get a foreign money order or whatever?
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Jun 19, 2006 9:46:04 GMT 12
Good point, Dave, as I too have often wondered about the behind the scenes machinations of large Govt purchases of military equipment, etc. I always assumed it is done on pretty much the same terms as any other foreign transaction, but the Govt would no doubt get a better exchange rate. I read an article somewhere that Thailand was looking at trading chicken meat with Sweden as part of a deal to purchase the JAS-39 Gripen to replace the F-5 in RTAF service. I guess bird-flu may have put paid to that idea now though!  |
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 19, 2006 9:48:06 GMT 12
maybe they use Paypal.......
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Jun 19, 2006 9:53:16 GMT 12
Or maybe they leave briefcases filled with used $50 notes in an empty phonebox on some back street in the suburbs late at night?
I shouldn't laugh about things like that, as knowing how Cullen works, this could be close to the truth! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 19, 2006 10:21:50 GMT 12
Even Pacific Wings (formerly New Zealand Wings) magazine is now reporting that the deal for the NH90's is in doubt, so it's not just a usual TV media beat up by the look of things.
Bad news.
I guess we'll see an Iroquois extension programme then. The Hercules extension programme alone is scheduled for completion in the year 2020. How much longer they'll be flying after that I don't know, but it's rather astounding after 41 years of service already, and in the extension programme for another 14 years or so, how long can they fly for?
|
|
|
|
Post by xr6turbo1 on Jun 24, 2006 21:27:39 GMT 12
I hope the deal for the NH 90 isnt in doubt, its about time the Huey was replaced. I do have a soft spot for them but they must be getting pretty tired, it wouldnt surprise me if a Huey life extension is undertaken but new gear for 3 sqn would be great.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jul 1, 2006 0:23:49 GMT 12
My concern with replacing the Huey with the NH-90 is that the NH-90 can't fit in a Herc. Hence the RNZAF loses the ability to pack up and the next day, go to some South Pacific Trouble spot (eg Timor, Fiji the Solomans or PNG).
My plan would be
Buy 10-12 NH-90's
Contract out basic rotary wing flying training to Civy's, the ADF or whoever
Buy 10-121 Light Ultitly Helicopters (LUH). Buy this I mean a aircraft in the EC-145/AB-109/Bell 412/.UH-1Y range. This aircraft would be used to train helicopter aircrew in all facets of helicopter operations plus provide a easily and quickly deployable LUH for operation s like what the RNZAF has undertaken in TImor and the Solomans.
The current Iroquios Airframes are 40 yrs old they must be tired and really need replacement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 1, 2006 10:43:10 GMT 12
If the Iroquois is completely retired I hope they keep one for the Historuc Flight. The RNZAF won't be the same without a wocka wocka - they have served for more than half the RNZAF's existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Jul 1, 2006 11:22:02 GMT 12
Sorry to disagree Calum, but I believe it would be a very short-sighted policy to determine a chopper replacement on the need to fit into the hold of an aircraft designed almost fifty years ago.It would be a dangerous precedent to use that single factor to determine such an important purchase. During the Australia bushfires last year, a number of NZ-based helicopters flew across the ditch by means of converting payload into additional fuel capacity, and if a Bell 205 can do it, then so can an NH90 given the will! I'm not suggesting that as the only solution by any means, but we have to accept that we can't carry helicopters in a C130 any more. We can't carry the NZ Army's new wheeled targets either. Trials carried out at Ohakea indicated a Herc could lift one, but only over a very short distance, so unless war breaks out in the South Island, we're stuffed!
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Jul 1, 2006 11:40:53 GMT 12
Pacific Wings is still "media" Dave, albeit aimed at a more informed consumer. However, not even the media has suggested the NH90 WON'T go through, and Phil Goff has merely indicated an initial funding shortfall of a peanut amount which doesn't change the original procurement; it just spreads the payments. My guess is they will still buy 8-10 but over another year or so. Perhaps we could sell half of those useless Army vehicles...........[he muses hopefully!]
I've worked in Air Staff, [or Disneyland as it is sometimes known], and believe me, any major equipment procurement is a long drawn-out process and complicated beyond human understanding!
You might remember those inshore patrol craft that the RNZN got rid of a few years ago, having had them built in the UK? Well, the company that built them had been doing so for ever, and knew what they were about. They also knew the operating conditions around NZ would require a specific type of boat, as did the Navy; wave heights and all that nautical stuff. The project was submitted through all the Defence Procurement channels, gained Treasury approval, and Tenders placed and accepted, except the project took so long the price exceeded the budget. The solution? Some complete phuqewit in Treasury determined a shorter boat would have to do, so against all professional advice, that's what happened. The result was those boats had severe restrictions placed on them as to the type of sea they could operate in, and thus totally destroyed the reason they were purchased. Before they were sold to a country with calmer waters, {Fiji or somewhere], the Navy suffered an extraordinary number of serious injuries to the crews from being hit by waves which would have been no problem to a boat of the original design length.
I could go on!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 1, 2006 12:17:34 GMT 12
Good points Colin. What is the maximum range of the NH-90? Does anyone know?
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Jul 1, 2006 12:38:30 GMT 12
In fact.....the RNZAF blurb on the NH 90 claims it will fit into a Herc, but with some fairly major dis-assembly.
It is also described in France as "long range" and "having the capability for additional fuel".
I repeat, if a Bell 205 a can fly the ditch, so could an NH90.
We have no real choice about buying them now that the Aussies have increased their order from 12 to 46!! Yes 46.
We must maintain inter-operabilty with Australia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jul 1, 2006 14:57:19 GMT 12
Sorry to disagree Calum, but I believe it would be a very short-sighted policy to determine a chopper replacement on the need to fit into the hold of an aircraft designed almost fifty years ago.It would be a dangerous precedent to use that single factor to determine such an important purchase. During the Australia bushfires last year, a number of NZ-based helicopters flew across the ditch by means of converting payload into additional fuel capacity, and if a Bell 205 can do it, then so can an NH90 given the will! I'm not suggesting that as the only solution by any means, but we have to accept that we can't carry helicopters in a C130 any more. We can't carry the NZ Army's new wheeled targets either. Trials carried out at Ohakea indicated a Herc could lift one, but only over a very short distance, so unless war breaks out in the South Island, we're stuffed! Don't get me wrong Colin. The NH-90 is a good choice for NZ but I still say the RNZAF needs a LUH type helicopter that can be stuffed in a Herc and Deployed. Flying across the ditch is fine, but what about places like Solomans, Fiji Rarotonga etc.... As for fitting a NH-90 in a C-130. I'd love to see that. I'd say the amount a disassembly would be signifcant hence the reassembly would be time consuming. Ferry range for the TTH is a very respectable 1200kms so the places mentioned above may be in range. However long transits in a helicopter aren't fun :-) And they take time as heicopters are slow and burn Airframe hours rapidily What the RNZAF doesn't need is a light helicopter that can only be used as a trainier. The capability IMHO is a waste of money. |
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 10, 2006 17:26:20 GMT 12
In tonights Waikato Times a "news brief" states that approval has been granted for the puchase of the NH90s and sioux replacements. $500 Million has been approved but no details on the numbers or the type of Sioux replacement - I guess now that the money has been approved they get down to the nitty-gritty of negotiating deals.....
|
|
