|
|
Post by Calum on Jul 12, 2006 23:19:58 GMT 12
For the MRV the Sea Sprite ain't much use. The NH-90 will likely embark on those as it's main role is troop lift. The lUH would also be a candidate for that as well. For the OPV, (I haven't seen the specs) the SH-2G could be embarked but as was suggested earlier a LUH with FLIR would be more useful.. Hope the RNZAF guys like going to sea..or perhaps they'll just transfer the people to the Fleet Air Arm and Army Air Core ;D and wind the RNZAF up  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 12, 2006 23:31:16 GMT 12
The Sea Sprite I saw that was broken is the one that was affected by ground resonence in the Gulf. I believe the others are operational.
The Aussies may be having trouble with their's for whatever reasons but I know the Eng Officer of No. 6 Squadron and he says they are excellent aircraft. Ours seem fairly popular and reliable compared with the RAN's ones. Were the RAN ones built by Kaman or by a subsidiary contractor in Australia which is often the case in Aussie defence purchases?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 12, 2006 23:43:40 GMT 12
According to the bit on the NZDF webpage about the new HMNZS Canterbury (the MRV) it says that for deployments it can embark a Seasprite and up to 4 NH90s, plus Army LAVs and 2 landing craft for operations where no harbour facilities exist (which sounds pretty good) - if we only get 8 NH90s, that doesnt leave many at home!
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jul 13, 2006 0:11:12 GMT 12
The Sea Sprite I saw that was broken is the one that was affected by ground resonence in the Gulf. I believe the others are operational. The Aussies may be having trouble with their's for whatever reasons but I know the Eng Officer of No. 6 Squadron and he says they are excellent aircraft. Ours seem fairly popular and reliable compared with the RAN's ones. Were the RAN ones built by Kaman or by a subsidiary contractor in Australia which is often the case in Aussie defence purchases? Aussie ones were built (remanufactured by Kaman). the RNZN got the RAN test unit (AMAFTU) to develop the SHOLS (ship helicopter operating limits) for the Seaprite on the Kiwi ships. AMAFTTU crashed the helicopter on the deck during some heavy weather. From what I've heard it has quite a small SHOL (operating envolope) when operating on a ship. Obviousily this is aconcern considering it's supposed to operate from ships I have heard of other problems/concerns with long term supportabilty of the aircraft and it's components. Kaman is really out of the aircraft design business, their aerospace division makes most of its money making S-70 fuselages for Sikorsky. Their have been many rumours that kaman itself is/was on the verge of going bust. that would be bad for the RNZN, RAN, polish and Egyptians. (just look at the list of operators compared to the Lynx). I have other stories that can't be shared in an open forum unfortunately. The RNZN (and RAN) could have done so much better with the Lynx.....After all that was the RNZN's first choice (from what I heard when working at Westlands) they foolishily changed thier mind after the RNZN chose the SH-2G |
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Jul 18, 2006 12:14:16 GMT 12
I see the Dompost has on its front page that the cost of the NH90 has blown out by $200m. It must have been a slow news day for the paper to put that on the front page because it's not a lot of dosh given the size of the project, and it is not untypical of Defence Procurement to get it wrong. I have never, ever, known a major project to come in on time/on budget. The Opposition claim that the additional cost is down to the inability of politicians to make a decision, which is true, but it is also true of all politicians, not just those in office, so Murray McCully is being just a tad disingenuous. They all have one cardinal rule which, above all else, is never broken, and that is:"Cover thine own Arse". Boiled down, that means never make a decision if you can get someone else to do it while at the same time making it look like you made it. And therein lies the crux of the problem.
Given the funding, the military has the knowledge to best determine the equipment it needs and how it best meets Defence Policy. They spend lots-a-bucks ensuring officers gain that knowledge. There are immediate complications in this simple formula however, because power corrupts, and he who holds the gold has the power. Politicians love that power, and rarely give it away, [unless you're a Maori and want to go to New York to learn Hip Hop dancing, in which case Helen will throw money at you so that you can get fat on American hot dogs insted of the Otara version]. The trouble with the power that politicians hold, is that they don't really understand the military, what it does, and how it does it, so they interfere just because they can. In the middle of all this procurement lies what used to termed on very old maps; "Here be Dragons"; the Treasury.
Treasury know even less about Defence than politicians, but all tax-payers money is their's; not yours or mine, but their's. They are also hugely into "power-broking" which is a bit like an Italian opera with much posturing ang group-hugging, only they do it in expensive hotels so they can get away from the strictures of one of the flashest buildings in Wellington. They all have degrees in Postmodernism, and use buzz-words in order to totally confuse you into thinking they actually know what they're doing. They don't, but they are good at writing reports 700 pages long which boils down to ; "You can't have it, na na nanan na". In the corridors of power, there are dozens of doors held open by Treasury reports used as door stoppers.
There is one other problem of course, and that is the very best and smartest the armed services produce often leave for greener fields [look at the boss of ANZ!], which leaves the field open to "The Law of Swinging Dicks" which, loosely translated, means "the more people you get together in one place for the purpose of achieving co-operative ends, the amount of co-operation achieved is inversely proportional to the ambient level of testosterone"
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 18, 2006 18:38:33 GMT 12
Story here from stuff.co.nz www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3735059a10,00.html Chopper costs take off by $200m 18 July 2006 By VERNON SMALL The Government is facing a $200 million blowout in the cost of new Defence Force helicopters, taking the final bill to more than $750 million. The Cabinet gave the green light last week to negotiate the purchase of up to eight new European-built NH90 helicopters to replace 14 aging Iroquois. Approval was also given to buy six smaller helicopters to replace the Sioux training craft. The Long-Term Development Plan budget provided for $400 million to $561 million to replace both. Sources said the price had risen by at least $200 million, though the final bill "should come in under $1 billion". The blowout follows several embarrassing budget miscalculations of defence equipment purchases, including over-runs in the acquisition of military radios and a fleet of light armoured vehicles. In both cases the final cost was more than treble the amount budgeted. On the basis of contracts signed by other countries' armed forces, the NH90s could cost up to $70 million each and the replacements for the Sioux between $5 million and $10 million each. The fall in the value of the New Zealand dollar since the original estimates were made had helped to push up the cost. Early estimates had not included all the detailed specifications of equipment on the craft, the sources said. The Government was also considering whether to buy spare parts up-front, which would keep the overall cost down but would increase the depreciation amount. The May Budget provided for new capital spending on defence of $305 million, which included the deposit on the helicopters. National defence spokesman Murray McCully said a slow-off-the-mark Cabinet was to blame for the $200 million "major blowout". "Cabinet has failed to make quick decisions over defence spending while the New Zealand rate was favourable," he said. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 18, 2006 18:43:15 GMT 12
Can someone please explain, in simple terms, why the value of the helicopters would depreciate more if you have bought the spares package? I don't understand that statement. I assume they mean the value of them if they were to be on-sold?
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Jul 18, 2006 19:12:13 GMT 12
Well, doesn't this just sound great for the RNZAF! Helen has a convenient excuse to buy even less helicopters now because the budget has allegedly blown out by $200mil.  Maybe if decisions had been made sooner this might not have happened? Dave, I think the depreciation thing is all linked to the fact that the spare parts purchased at the time the helicopters arrive will depreciate by a certain amount each financial year while sitting unused in the storeroom: at least that's my take on the whole mumbo-jumbo of it all. |
|
|
|
Post by xr6turbo1 on Jul 18, 2006 19:25:16 GMT 12
The story that Dave has put up above does indeed make very sorry reading indeed. The quote "Several embarassing budget miscalculations" sums our government up really. I dont want to get political about it but how many excuses must we put up with. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 18, 2006 19:45:50 GMT 12
Seriously, when you consider the value for money the current helicopters have given New Zealand, how many lives they have saved and how many hours they have flown, there should be no question that their replacements will be just as valuable if not more.
Any price increase should be met by the Government and all eight should be bought regardless of extra cost because they WILL earn their keep and return that extra cost in service, probably for the next 40 years. If the Government renegs now because of their own bungling, I will be very angry.
They have to buy the NH90, they have no option now. The Army has told them that they cannot operate with any other type. So it's not just the RNZAF calling the shots, and what the Army wants, Helen gives them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jul 18, 2006 21:54:00 GMT 12
The issue with depreciation is that it a percentage of the value of the total assets written off as an operating expense each year to adjust for decreasing value as the assets age. by buying the spares package now the total assets increase therefore a percentage of that amount is also depreciated annually, increasing the annual costs. That is a valid point, however the cost of downtime needs to be factored in, and beleive me (from CityJet days) there is nothing worse than having insufficient spares on hand! I think they must bite the bullet, spend the extra on spares now, because the most likely period that they will be required is during the initial settle in period, when a number of teething issues are inevitable. They have however missed the boat by being indecisive and the budget is up - we all have to live with that, I have similar issues with the budget on my little homebuilt!  Someone please be decisive and get things underway! |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 18, 2006 22:37:04 GMT 12
I see. I guess that's why they decided not to buy spare parts when they bought the 757's then. Again, more bean counter mumbo jumbo.
The bill continues to rise, the Government sits on it's hands. As to be expected. However that is what they do. And they still pay lots of money to meaningless causes, particulalry this current shower we have in. The Government has just forked out x-amount of undisclosed millions of dollars (literally) to insure the visiting John Constable paintings at Te Papa, according to a TV report. That's not, they're insured for millions, but they paid these millions for the insurance. It may have been cheaper to actually fly all those who wanted to see them over to London...
Nice to know we can visit these paintings, apart from the fact I can't as they're in Wellington and not Cambridge, but I'd rather have the assurance that if I was lost in the bush a helicopter is there to look for me. Mind you, I'm not that stupid enough to get lost in the bush...
Helen Clark likes bush walking and mountain climbing. Where will she be next time she brakes and ankle and is told 'sorry no chopper, they're all clapped out.'
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Jul 19, 2006 0:17:02 GMT 12
If Helen is out tramping and breaks an ankle I suggest she should be treated like the animal she is and shot on the spot to put NZ out of its misery! :-)
Those R22's are looking more likely by the minute!
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Jul 19, 2006 3:01:33 GMT 12
....err.....I've been to the Constable exhibition!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 19, 2006 11:46:56 GMT 12
Good on you too Colin. I'm not slagging anyone who wants to go to see it, I'd go if i could. It's just the priorities, art over defence helicopters, in the big picture of spending our millions of dollars. The art will please a select few for a few weeks. The helicopters will work for us for decades to come and be life savers. Do you see what I mean? Surely there should be some importance put onto this purchase, over other Government expenditure, that's all I'm saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 19, 2006 12:23:49 GMT 12
www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3736195a6160,00.html Copter cost 'a guesstimate' 19 July 2006 By VERNON SMALL Defence Minister Phil Goff has confirmed that the cost of new military helicopters is set to escalate but denies it is a blowout, saying the original figure was only a "guesstimate". The Dominion Post revealed yesterday that the $561 million earmarked in the 2002 long-term defence plan would rise to $750 million, because of extra costs and the falling dollar. Mr Goff said: "There is no blowout. There's an increase because of the cost of produce bought from overseas, because naturally the dollar has devalued." He would not name the final price, but suggested it could be more than $750 million after adding the cost of spare parts, logistics and training. "So it will be a substantial purchase if the negotiation is concluded, but it will be for a quality aircraft and we will pay what the world pays for it, one would imagine." Cabinet gave the green light to Defence last week to negotiate for up to eight NH90 craft to replace the aging Iroquois and six smaller helicopters to replace the Sioux. The $561 million in the long-term development plan was an estimate from 2002, before the NH90 Eurocopter was in production, Mr Goff said. However in March 2005, when former defence minister Mark Burton announced the choice of the NH90, he was still saying it would cost between $400 million and $550 million to replace both the Iroquois and the Sioux. AdvertisementAdvertisementThe reported $70 million price of each NH90 was more than the Government expected to pay, Mr Goff said. The Australian Government last month announced it would buy 34 NH90s. Mr Goff said he expected the helicopters could be bought within the existing long-term defence budget. "It will be reasonably tight. Obviously you always prioritise your expenditure. "But there is no suggestion at this point that we are suggesting more money than what's in the long-term development plan." Nor was he looking to buy fewer craft. "I am sticking to the number we require to meet the demands on the aircraft we hope to purchase."
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Jul 19, 2006 12:57:00 GMT 12
It [Constable] isn't free Dave; it's $10-00, each, but you also have to bear in mind that this government paid for the entry of a talking toilet to some overseas art festival.
However, if you're a socialist, any spending on defence is a waste of money, and as far as Helengrad is concerned, it leaves less for her to throw around buyng votes next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 19, 2006 13:50:48 GMT 12
I guess another reason she has to keep in sweet with the artist crowd is so she can get one of them to repaint her face for billboards at election time, in an attempt to look slight less unattractive.
Talking toilet? What?
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Jul 19, 2006 17:53:35 GMT 12
The "Talking Toilet"
It was the New Zealand entry to the 51st Biennale in Venice, an art exhibition funded to the tune of $500,000 of Helen's, sorry, our money, and described as :
"The taxpayer-backed art entry has been controversial in the past with strong criticism of New Zealand's last exhibit – The Fundamental Practice. The piece, a collection of wire fences, computers and dalek-like moving sheds, was by artist Auckland Merilyn Tweedie who uses the collective name "et al". One of her previous works was described by some as a "portaloo that brayed like a donkey".
The Minister behind this crap? Tizard of Auckland, Helen's bosom buddy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Jul 19, 2006 18:03:33 GMT 12
Judith Tizard - Minister Against Auckland
|
|
Someone please be decisive and get things underway!
