Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Yuma_17_MV-22_6234-1.jpg

Yuma_17_AV-8B_6417-1.jpg

Yuma_17_F-35B_6266-1.jpg

Yuma_17_F-5N_6509-1.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Royal New Zealand Air Force

This is a discussion on Royal New Zealand Air Force within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Rob c I think the question is not what they do (which they do well) but what ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 13 votes, 3.62 average.
Old November 20th, 2016   #5086
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 812
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob c View Post
I think the question is not what they do (which they do well) but what the RNZAF really wants them to do and it spent a lot of money converting them to a combi role which has seldom been used because unless you are flying between commercial freight hubs the equipment is not available to load or unload them. The RFI clearly said that a military component was essential and that other desirable qualities lent strongly towards a military type freighter. It was the lack of flexibility that was the issue that I heard about and in an air force as small as ours, this can be crucial. While reliability makes great press they have a very good record in this regard and all aircraft have some issues from time to time, it is the small size of the fleet that tends to highlight this as there are no backups quickly available.I have done extensive technical time on combat aircraft and it was not unusual to be fixing problems on every second or third aircraft returning from a mission,the B757 does vastly better than this. most were minor but often brought about because of the reduced backups combat aircraft have in comparison to civil aircraft. The recent bad press in Brisbane was caused by a garden variety (In aircraft terms) micro switch failure. In the Dom a couple of weeks ago it was stated by an "Air Force spokesperson" that the 757s did about one third of the hours normally done by their commercial counterparts.
.
The boeings are "seldom" used for freight because that is not their primary role, we have freight transports in the hercules, of which we have more of so why would we use boeings which cost more, do not carry as much and are as you say more difficult to load/unload. Bulk pax transport is the boeings primary role, not freight, we have aircraft for that. The freight they can do is that flexibility you speak of and if it is going to an airport without TALUs, lifts or even basic baggage ramps then it probably should have been a C130 task anyway (even they require a degree of MHE support for palletized freight). Bulk palletized freight is flexible for the boeings as VIP taskings is flexible for C130s ie can be done but why would you. Trying to combine all roles into a "flexible" platform is IMO a recipe for disaster and is akin to navy using frigates for all deployments and army using LAVs for all operations.

Not sure where you think we take the boeings but the majority of their destinations are in fact established airports with adequate infrastructure such as international, regional and military hubs and even then bulk freight is more a bonus not a given, they still have their normal hold as per normal airliners for use for embarked pax. The 757s are combi as in different seating configs, VIP suites, medevac pallets etc for quick changes as well as taking nato pallets but I would not say cargo on the upper deck is their forte or even their main role, merely another feather in their cap able to be utilised when/if required.
RegR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2016   #5087
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Marton NZ
Posts: 481
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RegR View Post
The boeings are "seldom" used for freight because that is not their primary role, we have freight transports in the hercules, of which we have more of so why would we use boeings which cost more, do not carry as much and are as you say more difficult to load/unload. Bulk pax transport is the boeings primary role, not freight, we have aircraft for that. The freight they can do is that flexibility you speak of and if it is going to an airport without TALUs, lifts or even basic baggage ramps then it probably should have been a C130 task anyway (even they require a degree of MHE support for palletized freight). Bulk palletized freight is flexible for the boeings as VIP taskings is flexible for C130s ie can be done but why would you. Trying to combine all roles into a "flexible" platform is IMO a recipe for disaster and is akin to navy using frigates for all deployments and army using LAVs for all operations.

Not sure where you think we take the boeings but the majority of their destinations are in fact established airports with adequate infrastructure such as international, regional and military hubs and even then bulk freight is more a bonus not a given, they still have their normal hold as per normal airliners for use for embarked pax. The 757s are combi as in different seating configs, VIP suites, medevac pallets etc for quick changes as well as taking nato pallets but I would not say cargo on the upper deck is their forte or even their main role, merely another feather in their cap able to be utilised when/if required.
I have no problem with the above, but as I said before, It is not what they do that is important but what the Air Force want them to do that is and that the RFI clearly said that a military component was essential and that the general tone of the RFI was towards a military style freighter as a replacement.
Rob c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2016   #5088
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Marton NZ
Posts: 481
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngatimozart View Post
I just wonder how the helos would cope with the jet blast from the KC390. I remember years ago at Wigram going up in the back seat of an NA AT6D Harvard for a jolly. We were taxying out to the active runway behind a BAC 167 Strikemaster and the pilot got a warning from the tower to be aware of the jet blast. Airbus are having problems refueling helos from their A400M and that's because of the airflow disturbances generated by its turboprops.
The jet blast tends to be more linear and less turbulent than propeller wash ( but more powerful) so is probably easier to avoid and as there are only two engines the space between the pods and the engines is greater so the problem should be less and the hoses do tend to hang low. I one saw a Canberra B(i) 12 flip a Land Rover and throw it about 20 metres so your concerns are valid and the guy in the Land Rover would have had some concerns as well as he wound up with a broken arm.
Rob c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2016   #5089
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Marton NZ
Posts: 481
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novascotiaboy View Post
I have been giving thought to the outsize transport requirements of a strategic airlifter stated by those here as being able to move an NH90. After looking at the height to the top of the rotor hub when folded, 4.2m, even a C17 is unable to move an NH90. Only the An124 and C5 have the internal height to carry the NH90 in a fly away condition.

So with this now a moot point and no viable option existing to move the NH90 without striping the rotor hub the only financially and operationally aircraft available to fill the range and load needs of the Air Force is the KC390.

At a maximum load of 26t, 59500 pounds, it exceeds the load of the Super Hercules by 15000 pounds. It flies faster, farther, and is more versitile due to the AAR capability in its base model.

At an approximate cost of US$100 million per aircraft it is less than the C130 and far less than the A400. Although it is still being developed and tested Embraer is working diligently to get its product to the world market as it sees that it holds the only viable competition to Lockheeds lock on medium tactical transport aircraft.

The talk here has been that C130J isn't enough of an improvement over the current models in service. A400 has too many issues and Kawasaki C2 is a long shot. The middle of the road between the two latter and the Hercules is the KC390 in both price andcapability.

An initial buy of five with options for two or three more to replace the Boeings would offer government time to realize the benefits of the type and whether it can fulfill the Boeings roles. As has been stated here the last few days regarding 737 types and their lack of true cargo movement ability due to the lack of a ramp the KC390 solves the issue.

Now is the time to move on the FAMC issue. The populace is very aware of and greatly appreciative of the NZDF during the recent earthquake. It's time to take advantage of this and push the envelope and get the ball rolling.

As much as I have advocated for this or that platform since I joined DT I realize the financial realities that impact these decisions. The benefits offered by an Embraer / Boeing partnership can not be underestimated. My love affair with the C295 is still strong, I hope it wins Canadas FWSAR contract, but after watching the response to the recent Kaikoura earthquake I realize that the better option is Chinook. Again Boeing is the answer.

Being a small force with limited resources means what gets purchased needs to be as flexible as possible. KC390 and MH47G offer the flexibility both in country and overseas in support of coalition operations and HADR responses.
Agree with most of the above except I think that the Chinook would be a real long shot ( One earthquake does not define the NZ Defence force) and the C2 has formally entered service so may not be as far out of the running for the strategic slot as before,. I actually like the look of them, particularly their range.
Rob c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2016   #5090
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 260
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
Not sure where your figures came from but the C-17 claim, simply isn't true... The rotors need to be removed, the rotor hub does not...
ADMk2 the height I have for the NH90 to the top of the rotor hub is here;
French Caiman | Modern weapons

The C17 dimensions are here;
C-17 Globemaster III dimensions

Somewhere in between these two dimensions is almost a half a metre. Not sure how this round peg fits in a square hole. Unless there is more to it then please share.
Novascotiaboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2016   #5091
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 260
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob c View Post
Agree with most of the above except I think that the Chinook would be a real long shot ( One earthquake does not define the NZ Defence force) and the C2 has formally entered service so may not be as far out of the running for the strategic slot as before,. I actually like the look of them, particularly their range.
Rob C

My rationalization for the MH47 is the pure utility during situations requiring heavy lift over remote or dangerous landscapes. The lack of rotary assets was eveident given the numbers of small choppers involved from civilian entities. Although appreciated is this the best way to provide assistance? Were these helicopter operations coordinated in any way?

The NH 90 is an expensive aircraft with lots of capability but for less cost you can have the biggest and fastest
Novascotiaboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2016   #5092
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Marton NZ
Posts: 481
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novascotiaboy View Post
Rob C

My rationalization for the MH47 is the pure utility during situations requiring heavy lift over remote or dangerous landscapes. The lack of rotary assets was eveident given the numbers of small choppers involved from civilian entities. Although appreciated is this the best way to provide assistance? Were these helicopter operations coordinated in any way?

The NH 90 is an expensive aircraft with lots of capability but for less cost you can have the biggest and fastest
Agree with your logic, however it would be introducing an additional type with all the complications and additional infrastructure that implies and as I have said that one earthquake does not define the defence force. additionally no lives were lost as a result of a lack or resources.
Rob c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2016   #5093
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 3,881
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob c View Post
Agree with most of the above except I think that the Chinook would be a real long shot ( One earthquake does not define the NZ Defence force) and the C2 has formally entered service so may not be as far out of the running for the strategic slot as before,. I actually like the look of them, particularly their range.
When the project work was done for the case to Cabinet to acquire the NH90, the assessment was that 10 NH90 were needed to meet all requirements. However the then government cried poverty, which was rubbish, and only acquired 8 (I've excluded the spares frame in both cases). We are very luck that the quakes happened when a fleet of other military helos were in country at the time. The NH90 is a good helo but we need heavy lift helo capability as well, which the Chooks would meet. The flyaway cost of the NH90 is about NZ$57 million. The Greeks have acquired 10 CH47D Chooks ex US Army for US$150 million. That includes some extra engines as well. If we went down the same path, using those figures the flyaway cost would be around NZ$20 million each. So we could aquire 4 for less than 2 new NH90s. Whilst the Chook Ds are old variants we would be able to use them to learn and gradually upgrade them to F standard as time went by and budgets allowed.

Edit: A new CH47F is around NZ$41 million flyaway.
________________
The Rules - read them. Ignorance of them is not an excuse.
The Introduction thread for new members to tell the rest of us something about you.

Last edited by ngatimozart; November 20th, 2016 at 05:06 PM. Reason: include edit
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2016   #5094
Just a bloke
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,090
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novascotiaboy View Post
ADMk2 the height I have for the NH90 to the top of the rotor hub is here;
French Caiman | Modern weapons

The C17 dimensions are here;
C-17 Globemaster III dimensions

Somewhere in between these two dimensions is almost a half a metre. Not sure how this round peg fits in a square hole. Unless there is more to it then please share.
Did you see the photo I posted? That is an ADF MRH-90 in the hold of a RAAF C-17A. Loads trials have proven they easily accomodate a single MRH-90 and work is being done to fit 2x MRH-90 in a single C-17A.

So given ADF flight trials have proven C-17A can move NH-90 without removal of the rotor hub and the evidence is there to prove it, there is not much point quoting stats off some random websites, IMHO.

According to ADF, the loading requires removal of rotors, horizontal stab, certain antennas lights and a bit of 'duck walking' with respect to the folding tail and movement on and off the aircraft. Substantial disassembly of the aircraft including the rotor hub is clearly not required as the below photos actually show.

A bird within a bird | Navy Daily

Last edited by ADMk2; November 21st, 2016 at 05:26 AM.
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2016   #5095
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 330
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob c View Post
Agree with most of the above except I think that the Chinook would be a real long shot ( One earthquake does not define the NZ Defence force) and the C2 has formally entered service so may not be as far out of the running for the strategic slot as before,. I actually like the look of them, particularly their range.
And yet its not 'one earthquake' of recent days that is the only concern, its the fact this isnt a once in a blue moon occurance, its been over the last 6 yrs.and as pointed out by others, extremley lucky now we have a large navy presence due to RNZN celebrations,

id hate to think the scenario of a 7.8 hitting my city Christchurch and having most of our current NZDF numbers engaged offshore, on exersize, doing HADR in the pacific, mantainance ect, all at once. Agreed, this the time defence heads should be pushing for such gear. We were lucky no major casualties came from this too.
kiwipatriot69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2016   #5096
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 260
Threads:
ADMk2 I stand corrected. I was unaware of this. Somewhere along the way there must be something I am missing. Is the undercarriage lowered in order to reduce height? Are the dimensions offered on multiple sites for the internal dimensions of a C17 all wrong?

Either way truly impressive if they get two inside at once.
Novascotiaboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2016   #5097
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 3,881
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwipatriot69 View Post
And yet its not 'one earthquake' of recent days that is the only concern, its the fact this isnt a once in a blue moon occurance, its been over the last 6 yrs.and as pointed out by others, extremley lucky now we have a large navy presence due to RNZN celebrations,

id hate to think the scenario of a 7.8 hitting my city Christchurch and having most of our current NZDF numbers engaged offshore, on exersize, doing HADR in the pacific, mantainance ect, all at once. Agreed, this the time defence heads should be pushing for such gear. We were lucky no major casualties came from this too.
Jeez no thanks. the 7.1, 6.2 and all the subsequent ones were bad enough.
________________
The Rules - read them. Ignorance of them is not an excuse.
The Introduction thread for new members to tell the rest of us something about you.
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2016   #5098
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Marton NZ
Posts: 481
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwipatriot69 View Post
And yet its not 'one earthquake' of recent days that is the only concern, its the fact this isnt a once in a blue moon occurance, its been over the last 6 yrs.and as pointed out by others, extremley lucky now we have a large navy presence due to RNZN celebrations,

id hate to think the scenario of a 7.8 hitting my city Christchurch and having most of our current NZDF numbers engaged offshore, on exercise, doing HADR in the pacific, mantainance ect, all at once. Agreed, this the time defence heads should be pushing for such gear. We were lucky no major casualties came from this too.
There are a large number of helicopters in nz ( for example squirrels 5 and 6 seat)and while most are relatively small,(some bigger like the AW139 and the Bell 412) if the need was there I think they would be able to contribute significantly. Also there are the rescue helicopters. Out side of Wellington most other urban centres would not incur the the access problems that occurred. In regared to CHCH, while you did not get a 7.8 due to the location and type of earthquake the CHCH buildings received the second highest G forces (2.2G) ever recorded in an urban area due to an earthquake. The Richter scale is a measurement of the total force released, but does not measure the effect in any particular region, the G force measurement does.
Rob c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2016   #5099
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 260
Threads:
Ngati at a fly away cost of NZ$41 million a piece then four could be had for NZ$164 million plus training and support costs. Conservatively speaking a project cost of NZ$250 million should cover the program without the attached long term life cycle costs.

Besides HADR they would be excellent SAR assets and would allow the army to train in country on an aircraft common in coalition operations. These aircraft could best be described as an insurance policy.

Ohakea is the likely geographic central location for basing and its proximity to Linton Camp offers great air mobile synergies.

Hopefully the after action reports and reviews identify the gaps and government sees the political value in the purchase of such valuable aircraft.
Novascotiaboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2016   #5100
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Marton NZ
Posts: 481
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngatimozart View Post
Jeez no thanks. the 7.1, 6.2 and all the subsequent ones were bad enough.
Ngati, as mentioned in my post you received the second highest G forces ever recorded in an urban area, so a different type of 7.8 earthquake may have been a blessing. Richter scales can be unreliable when measuring affect in an area. For instance the 7.1 did far less damage than the 6.2.
Rob c is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:16 PM.