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

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Miramar_14_M1A1_0419a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_1759a.JPG

Nellis_14_2500-1.JPG

Nellis_14_2495-1.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





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 pea032 have a look at the beehive website and you will probably find some of his past ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 8 votes, 4.00 average.
Old June 24th, 2011   #1201
Defense Professional / Analyst
Colonel
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 1,589
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pea032 View Post
have a look at the beehive website and you will probably find some of his past speeches talking about it, or theres a summary at defense-studies.blogspot.com/2010/06/new-zealand-seeks-three-new-military.html

as for the a400 i would think 4-6 is the number going off the requirement for c130js in 2001 being 8. much the same thing with the orions, probably going to be 4 p-8s.

and i agree with mr c, vip is going to go. it doesn't take up that much air time at the moment anyway and having a whole aircraft for just that is never going to happen.
Cool thanks for the link. I had a good read and a ferret around the blog site. Much appreciated.

I agree with Mr C's analysis and I forgot about our share in Air NZ. With regard to the C130J /A400M and P8, from where I sit, I see the C130H upgrades coming online now and the P3-K2 upgrades coming online, in a possibly similar time frame. If I extrapolate that out to the speculated end of their service life, we could be looking at replacing two platforms at the same time, which will be mightily expensive. I'm not an accountant so figuring out how the numbers would look, is way out of my field. So maybe someone with a far better handle on how the numbers work might be able to throw a bit of light on the matter.

Whilst talking about the P8, I note that Boeing have started assembling the first P8-I for India. Boeing Begins Final Assembly of India’s 1st P-8I Aircraft | Navy News at DefenseTalk and with regard to the A400M Airbus is having gearbox issues which is not a good look when it is supposed to be at the Paris Airshow. BBC News - Europe's military transporter eyes exports to recoup costs

Tentatively presuming that the CN235 and the Dash 8 - Q300 or Q400 will be acquired, does anyone know of a possible time frame for these acquisitions? I would be thinking that the NZG would be wanting to have this process completed and fully operational with the RNZAF, well before they start purchasing C130H and P3K-2 replacements.

Last edited by ngatimozart; June 24th, 2011 at 01:24 AM. Reason: typo
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2011   #1202
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 84
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngatimozart View Post

Tentatively presuming that the CN235 and the Dash 8 - Q300 or Q400 will be acquired, does anyone know of a possible time frame for these acquisitions? I would be thinking that the NZG would be wanting to have this process completed and fully operational with the RNZAF, well before they start purchasing C130H and P3K-2 replacements.
I can't find an online copy (other than in other forums sorry!) but a recent interview with Dr Mapp that new single engined advanced trainers were a higher priority that than the maritime surveillance aircraft. The single engined trainers were being looked delivery in the 2013-2015 timeframe IIRC.

He also hinted that new/improved King air models could be in the mix as well as the Q300 or CN235 in both in the maritime surveillance role and training role. I took that to be instead of, as opposed to as well as, Q300's/CN235's...probably a sign that there is not as much money in the kitty for new toys in the near future as there may otherwise have been given the cost of the Christchurch earthquake
htbrst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2011   #1203
Deaf talker?
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,098
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngatimozart View Post
Cool thanks for the link. I had a good read and a ferret around the blog site. Much appreciated.

I agree with Mr C's analysis and I forgot about our share in Air NZ. With regard to the C130J /A400M and P8, from where I sit, I see the C130H upgrades coming online now and the P3-K2 upgrades coming online, in a possibly similar time frame. If I extrapolate that out to the speculated end of their service life, we could be looking at replacing two platforms at the same time, which will be mightily expensive. I'm not an accountant so figuring out how the numbers would look, is way out of my field. So maybe someone with a far better handle on how the numbers work might be able to throw a bit of light on the matter.

Whilst talking about the P8, I note that Boeing have started assembling the first P8-I for India. Boeing Begins Final Assembly of India’s 1st P-8I Aircraft | Navy News at DefenseTalk and with regard to the A400M Airbus is having gearbox issues which is not a good look when it is supposed to be at the Paris Airshow. BBC News - Europe's military transporter eyes exports to recoup costs

Tentatively presuming that the CN235 and the Dash 8 - Q300 or Q400 will be acquired, does anyone know of a possible time frame for these acquisitions? I would be thinking that the NZG would be wanting to have this process completed and fully operational with the RNZAF, well before they start purchasing C130H and P3K-2 replacements.
Unfortunately, it does appear that the C-130H and P-3K2 replacements are going to start occuring at close to, if not the exact time. The only way I can really foresee that not happening, is if either one of the replacement programmes commenced immediately, and/or one of the replacement programmes was delayed.

Given that both aircraft are of similar ages (RNZAF service entry date of mid-1960's), even with SLEP and updates/upgrades, these aircraft are getting more difficult and expensive to maintain. Unfortunately IMO, both the timing and associated operational costs have been compounded by Gov't/NZDF/MoD which has kept on opting to spend a "little" money extending the life of the platform instead of biting the bullet and spending what is needed to actually get a replacement. As has been seen with the C-130H LEP, the RNZAF had lost the use of several C-130H's while the programme was delayed due to problems. This resulted in RNZAF transports being unavailable when Gov't wished to dispatch some to Thailand during the unrest during and after the coup. In addition, the LEP was planned to extend the operational life of the C-130H for ~5 more years, witht the LEP being the "cheaper" option than purchasing new C-130J's... Unfortunately, with the programme delays and over runs the programme cost ballooned to somewhere past $200 or $250 mil. IIRC the cost worked out to ~$50 mil. per upgraded aircraft, vs. a cost of ~US$67 mil. per aircraft for new C-130J Herc II's.

As I understand it, the C-130H's are due for replacement in the ~2016-2018 timeframe, with the P-3K2's due for replacement in the 2018-2020 timeframe. Making matters even worse is that other areas within the NZDF are also going to be due for replacement of major platforms at roughly the same time.

Now, as to the question of how quickly a short to mid-ranged MPA could get into service, that is somewhat difficult to answer, as there are a number of caveats. Having said that, based off the time between contract signing and delivery of capability for Surveillance Australia/Australian Coastwatch, as well as the C-295 MPA delivery, it appears the minimum time for delivery is about 30 months. That clock starts once the contract is actually signed, there is still the times required for the RFI, RFP, RFT etc. al. which all come before platform selection and then contract signing.

I suspect that if the RNZAF does opt for a short to mid-ranged MPA, it would start deliveries before the C-130H and P-3K2 replacements do simply because both of those replacement programmes do not seem to be working on what the replacements will be. Given who the realistic contenders for the replacement are, as well as the build queues which are starting to form, it could very well result in any Kiwi deliveries being pushed even further back.

-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2011   #1204
Defense Professional / Analyst
Colonel
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 1,589
Threads:
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
Having read through some of the recent RNZAF posts, there are some interesting ideas being raised here.

There is a requirement for the RNZAF to adopt a short/mid-ranged transport and MPA. There are several different possible airframes which could provide at least some of this capability. The Q300 and ATR42 both have MPA variants, as for the CN-235 and the C-295. I am not currently of aware of an MPA version of the C-27J, but IMO it would not be terribly difficult to develop one (it might be expensive though...)
Alenia are developing a gunship version most likely for the Italians. I would assume this will be based upon some of the work done on the cancelled AC27J done by Lockheed Martin for the US. So it is possible Alenia has decided to widen the versatility of the aircraft. If we were to purchase the C130J then the C27J would make sense in one aspect because the flight decks are the same. I am basing this on the presumption of MPS availability (see below). But we have discussed the merits of C27J earlier in the forum and IIRC the consensus was that when compared to the C295, it wasn't suitable for RNZAF requirements.

Quote:
Now both the Q300 and ATR are in service with civil aviation in NZ already, so any RNZAF airframe/engine maintenance could be worked out with commercial Kiwi entities if either of these were selected. However, these airframes are commercial prop airliners, which means the shape and arrangement of the aircraft lends itself to passenger transport much more readily than cargo.

Now if an MPA based off a military transport was selected like the CN-235, C-295 or a C-27J-MPA, a common airframe could be used for both transport and MPA roles. Also, depending on which airframe was selected, as well as the airframe fitout and missions system selections, the same aircraft could be re-roled between MPA and airlift depending on mission requirements. To be honest, my preference would be for the RNZAF to acquire such a capability, since that could provide the greatest amount of flexibility.

Realistically, that would put the choice between the CN-235 or C-295, with my preference being the C-295 assuming a Mission System Pallet arrangement was possible. Incidentally, a (AFAIK non-MSP configured) C-295MPA costs ~US$25 mil. purchase per aircraft.
I agree. My preference is the C295 over the CN235 just purely along future proofing lines. The C295 is a stretched version of the CN235 and IMHO gives RNZAF a greater flexibility. pea032 makes the point that the C295 could be bought later after purchasing the CN235, but to me wouldn't it make more fiscal sense to do a C295 purchase at the beginning or a mixture at the same time.

Mission Pallet Systems (MPS): Basically sensors are sensors, and you have the sensor itself, the data logger and then the data interpretation and manipulation are done on a computer. So the fitting of off the shelf sensors probably should not be a great issue. The data logging, computing etc., should be able to be done in palletised modules that slot into the aircraft, with basically straight plug and play - minimal setup. We do it in the marine sciences amongst others. You don't need a fancy sensor so one doesn't have to be developed. Same with the computing and software.

If you look at any P3 etc., the data and C&CS are all computerised work stations. Todays electronics can be built to withstand unfriendly environments. I've mentioned it before on this thread, but back in the day when Safe Air used to fly the B170 Bristol Frighteners, they had a pod that slotted inside the aircraft for carrying pax, when they did the Chatham Islands run. So it can be done and we have the ability and technology to do it here in NZ, especially since Safe Air are involved in the P3-K2 and C130H upgrades. That would be politically acceptable to the NZG of most stripes, especially if the sensors and electronics were European, who don't have the same black box and technology transfer issues that the US has. I am not saying we would have problems with the US over the technology, but we wouldn't have to go through the bureaucratic hoops of getting congressional approval.

Quote:
As for tactical/strategic lift... I agree that a C-17 purchase from NZ is unlikely. However, I also seriously doubt that there would be an A400M purchase either, or if Gov't committed to doing so, that I would have to wonder if those in Government making such a decision should themselves be 'committed'.

While I have brought these points up previously (and likely in this thread too) there are several problems I have with the RNZAF purchasing 4-6 A400M transports. On a cost basis alone, such a purchase would IMO be out of reach for the NZDF, without a massive injection of funding from Government. Funding that if it came in, could be better utilized in other areas within the NZDF aside from just air lift. At present the RNZAF operates ~5 C-130H Hercules, with the most recent addition approaching (passed?) 39 years service. The others have somewhere in the realm of 42 years service. Due to increased taskings, as well as allowing for additional aircraft maintenance needs, the projection is that the RNZAF should have ~8 C-130 to meet air lift requirements. Now, based off pricing estimates from within the last ~2 years for Germany, the A400M costs ~135 mil. - 150 mil. € per aircraft. What that means is that each A400M costs somewhere from just under, to just over, what 3 C-130J Hercules II's cost. Or put another way, The RNZAF could choose to purchase (funding allowing...) either 4-6 A400M transports, or between 12-18 C-130J transports. In case people were wondering, yes, the price estimates I have for the A400M, at the current rate of exchange, put the A400M cost somewhere between ~US$15 mil. less than a C-17, up to ~US$13 mil. more than a C-17.

IMO the A400M has basically priced itself out of consideration, before even examining other factors like availability for delivery, support and through-life costs, aircraft availability for ops, etc.
I agree the A400M is way out of consideration because of the price. On price alone we would have greater chance of getting Treasury to approve purchase of 4 x C17s . My own preference is for the C130J and just maybe (a very dubious just maybe) the A400M could be looked at down the track, once all the technical issues have been sorted out and it is in service with some other air forces. Also after the price has come down by quite a margin. EADS want to sell 500 units - well good luck to them.

Quote:
As for any sort of replacement for the B757's... I do not consider that as something outside the realm of possibility. Politicos being politicos, they may well see to their 'needs' in terms of comfort, prestige, convenience etc first. Having said that, the RNZAF operating a civilian airliner for airlift is not IMO automatically an inefficient or bad idea depending on the caveats. If the aircraft was predominantly utilized for long-ranged lift of troops and material, and/or the aircraft functioned as a MRTT, that would be reasonably acceptable IMO. However, if the function of the aircraft was to provide for VIP transport, State visits, or just normal passenger (troop) lift, then the capability would IMO be overly expensive and inefficient. The NZG already has a large stake in the national carrier Air New Zealand, if/when NZDF personnel are needed to be transported via aircraft en masse over long distances, the NZG could (should?) just charter the flights from Air New Zealand as needed.

The same applies for VIP transport and State visits, but even more so. IMO the PM or Governor General of NZ does not need a dedicated VIP aircraft to transport them on State visits or across NZ. When such a visit is being made, and an entourage is needed for the visit, a chartered airline should provide the level of lift required. A case in point for doing things in this fashion is HM, Queen Elizabeth. When she is traveling on State visits, she is flown in a chartered British Airways aircraft. The RAF does not maintain a Royal Airplane.

-Cheers
I still like the idea of a B757 replacement and I thought along the lines of the B737-800, but two choices come to mind. Let us assume that the P3-K2 replacement is the P8. This aircraft will be built to full military specs and given that we have now are installing ISR capability into P3s with the P3-K2 upgrade we would also assume that any NZ buy of the P8 is going to include the ISR capability.

My argument for the B757 replacement has been that it is used as a troop transport, medivac, used in disaster relief etc., taking pax to Antarctica and moving polis around is only very little of its work as well as anything else that crops up. The reason the B757 doesn't fly into Kabul is because it does not meet ISAF Theatre requirements i.e., no self protection for SAM and non armouring of cockpit.

When buying the P8 my suggestion is to purchase two addition P8 airframes but fitted out the same as the B757 except with the military protections etc., that come with stock standard with the P8. I still think we need that versatility and capability the B757 gives at the moment, especially if we are going to purchase the C130J.

Another aircraft could be the KC30 MRTT, that the RAAF are in the process of inducting into service. In a way this would actually be a better buy and more practical than my above suggestion. First,it is already an existing aircraft and just starting operation. Secondly, we have our own tanker assets for C130 and P8 (if we get them). Question, would it be difficult and expensive to instal in flight refuelling systems in CN235 / C295, A109, NH90 & Seasprite? Think about it, more operational versatility. Thirdly, we have all the reasons I listed for the B757 replacement. Fourthly, This puts another two tanker assets in ANZAC hands, so it provides greater interoperability and operational capacity both for the RAAF and the RNZAF. Of course this would extend to the USN /USAF and other allies when they are in the region.

Some more thoughts for the pot.

Ka kite ano.
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2011   #1205
Super Moderator
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 657
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngatimozart View Post
Alenia are developing a gunship version most likely for the Italians. I would assume this will be based upon some of the work done on the cancelled AC27J done by Lockheed Martin for the US. So it is possible Alenia has decided to widen the versatility of the aircraft. If we were to purchase the C130J then the C27J would make sense in one aspect because the flight decks are the same. I am basing this on the presumption of MPS availability (see below). But we have discussed the merits of C27J earlier in the forum and IIRC the consensus was that when compared to the C295, it wasn't suitable for RNZAF requirements.


I agree. My preference is the C295 over the CN235 just purely along future proofing lines. The C295 is a stretched version of the CN235 and IMHO gives RNZAF a greater flexibility. pea032 makes the point that the C295 could be bought later after purchasing the CN235, but to me wouldn't it make more fiscal sense to do a C295 purchase at the beginning or a mixture at the same time.

Mission Pallet Systems (MPS): Basically sensors are sensors, and you have the sensor itself, the data logger and then the data interpretation and manipulation are done on a computer. So the fitting of off the shelf sensors probably should not be a great issue. The data logging, computing etc., should be able to be done in palletised modules that slot into the aircraft, with basically straight plug and play - minimal setup. We do it in the marine sciences amongst others. You don't need a fancy sensor so one doesn't have to be developed. Same with the computing and software.

If you look at any P3 etc., the data and C&CS are all computerised work stations. Todays electronics can be built to withstand unfriendly environments. I've mentioned it before on this thread, but back in the day when Safe Air used to fly the B170 Bristol Frighteners, they had a pod that slotted inside the aircraft for carrying pax, when they did the Chatham Islands run. So it can be done and we have the ability and technology to do it here in NZ, especially since Safe Air are involved in the P3-K2 and C130H upgrades. That would be politically acceptable to the NZG of most stripes, especially if the sensors and electronics were European, who don't have the same black box and technology transfer issues that the US has. I am not saying we would have problems with the US over the technology, but we wouldn't have to go through the bureaucratic hoops of getting congressional approval.


I agree the A400M is way out of consideration because of the price. On price alone we would have greater chance of getting Treasury to approve purchase of 4 x C17s . My own preference is for the C130J and just maybe (a very dubious just maybe) the A400M could be looked at down the track, once all the technical issues have been sorted out and it is in service with some other air forces. Also after the price has come down by quite a margin. EADS want to sell 500 units - well good luck to them.


I still like the idea of a B757 replacement and I thought along the lines of the B737-800, but two choices come to mind. Let us assume that the P3-K2 replacement is the P8. This aircraft will be built to full military specs and given that we have now are installing ISR capability into P3s with the P3-K2 upgrade we would also assume that any NZ buy of the P8 is going to include the ISR capability.

My argument for the B757 replacement has been that it is used as a troop transport, medivac, used in disaster relief etc., taking pax to Antarctica and moving polis around is only very little of its work as well as anything else that crops up. The reason the B757 doesn't fly into Kabul is because it does not meet ISAF Theatre requirements i.e., no self protection for SAM and non armouring of cockpit.

When buying the P8 my suggestion is to purchase two addition P8 airframes but fitted out the same as the B757 except with the military protections etc., that come with stock standard with the P8. I still think we need that versatility and capability the B757 gives at the moment, especially if we are going to purchase the C130J.

Another aircraft could be the KC30 MRTT, that the RAAF are in the process of inducting into service. In a way this would actually be a better buy and more practical than my above suggestion. First,it is already an existing aircraft and just starting operation. Secondly, we have our own tanker assets for C130 and P8 (if we get them). Question, would it be difficult and expensive to instal in flight refuelling systems in CN235 / C295, A109, NH90 & Seasprite? Think about it, more operational versatility. Thirdly, we have all the reasons I listed for the B757 replacement. Fourthly, This puts another two tanker assets in ANZAC hands, so it provides greater interoperability and operational capacity both for the RAAF and the RNZAF. Of course this would extend to the USN /USAF and other allies when they are in the region.

Some more thoughts for the pot.

Ka kite ano.
I agree with pretty much everything you've said. The C295 does offer NZ the greatest flexiabilty. It's the low risk way of deploying the capability compared to the C27, something I think will be politically appealing given the C130 and P2K2 refits. While the B757 have been useful, operationally 6 C130J would be better for the NZDF with a single 737 for VIP / Cas-evac work.

On another note the MB-339C are back up for sale
Lucasnz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2011   #1206
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 827
Threads:
The Wings over NZ site has an interesting Aerospace Daily & Defense report detailing what may be the Govt's latest thinking (and a few of us here lurk there by the looks of things). See rnzaf.proboards.com & Possible RNZAF King Air replacement thread.

* Advanced single-engine type being considered: 6-7x Hawker Beechcraft T-6 Texan II, Pilatus PC-9 or the Korea Aerospace Industries KT-1 (higher priority: delivery planned for 2013-14).

* Advanced twin-engine trainer/light-coastal MPA: no final decisions yet but Hawker-Beechcraft King Air 350 mentioned (3-5 aircraft). (Although it appears to me that this capability is being re-assessed and the time frame to purchase appears to have been extended from what was signalled in DWP (meaning that other options could come into play for better or worse closer to decision making time etc))?

* Mention of NZ seeking agreement with Aus to gain set-hours on C-17 (I believe this is the first time NZ defmin has publically mentioned this).

* Mention of C-130 & P-3 possibly flying longer due to recent delays in upgrade programmes.

The report mentions the current fiscal situation (post-earthquake). I suspect NZG (post Defence White paper release last year) has had to reconsider earlier thoughts of CN-235's or Q300's in favour of the cheaper B350 as a possibility. (I suspect this is simply not a good period for fuller funded defence acquisitions as signalled in DWP but perhaps once the budget balances out post 2014-15 then Govt may be better placed to purchase types that Defence may actually prefer i.e. of future type puchases not these current ones I mean).

Still a B350 if chosen, is better than what we have now. Would they be suitable for Pacific ops as originally intended (or NZ coastal only now)? If not, then it looks like the multi-engine trainer/coastal has been downgraded in favour of spending more on the single engine trainer etc - simply a by-product of the change in economic circumstances post DWP 2010 i.e 2011 Feb & June earthquakes?

As for short-medium transport - no real mention so maybe that will be postponed to post 2015 when maybe CN-235/295/C-27J's could be more affordable or maybe this broad air-transport area is being re-assessed (eg the whole gambit including 757 etc)? Wonder if C-17 progresses as a reality whether 757 is withdrawn to free up funding for access to C-17, meaning that international VIP functions could move to Air NZ etc?

Edit: I wonder if RNZAF air-transport (& pilot training) could look like mirroring RAAF in the next few years:

* C-130H >> C-130J (2020 or post 2020)?
* C-27J (post 2015) i.e. not CN-235/Q-300 (if C-27 chosen as RAAF part-Caribou replacement)?
* C-17 access (sell 757's)?

Advanced pilot training:
* T-6 or PC-9
* King Air 350

Long range ISR/MPA (2025 or post 2025):
* P-8
* UAV

Last edited by recce.k1; June 24th, 2011 at 07:53 AM.
recce.k1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2011   #1207
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 410
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pea032 View Post
have a look at the beehive website and you will probably find some of his past speeches talking about it, or theres a summary at defense-studies.blogspot.com/2010/06/new-zealand-seeks-three-new-military.html

as for the a400 i would think 4-6 is the number going off the requirement for c130js in 2001 being 8. much the same thing with the orions, probably going to be 4 p-8s.

and i agree with mr c, vip is going to go. it dosnt take up that much air time at the moment anyway and having a whole aircraft for just that is never going to happen.
The 757s are not just for VIP transport, in fact that is only a small part of their hours, although the troops AND FREIGHT it moves to Timor, Afghan(AO), global exs etc or maybe the civilians they move after earthquakes and to Antarctic memorials could also be considered very important.

Yes they are more expensive to operate but they also offer another form of strategic lift and provide the RNZAF with another option. I personally would prefer to be transported to and from my 6 month deployment in comfort and speed then lumber half way round the world in the back of an H and if you can tick off another use such as VIP within its hours then bonus. AME, civilian evac/transport, SATS, freight, troop lift could be done with Hercs but sometimes comfort, speed and yes, image, cannot be overlooked as advantages.

I too agree A400 may be too expensive(and unproven) and the numbers able to be aqquired too light to warrent their purchase. The C130J is ready and working and we could aqquire sufficient numbers to be useful and just stick with what we do now for heavy lift ie civi lease or work a deal with RAAF for C17 use and plug the J numbers they lost. Another option could be maybe AirNZ purchase a couple of heavy lifters with RNZAF a major(and priority) user to help offset costs, and get into the bulk cargo side of the buisness. We could stick with 5 C130J-30s as they would provide the extra space we required in the 8 Hs proposed just not solve the oversize problem, but hey we can't solve every deficiancy our DF has and how often are our Hercs full to overflow anyway?

Not too sure why people want the 295 over the 235, is it just because its bigger? The 235 is still alot bigger then the King airs but surely would cost less so what real gains are there?

The C130 and P3k replacement timeframe is alittle close and would be a financial bullet when the time comes so I would rather see the Herc replaced earlier(ie start process nowish) and let the P8 develop and debug therefore spreading the costs more, although if AF wants A400 then they are still in a similar situation. If they replace both fleets at around the same time now then in 50-100 years we wil have the same major cost problem and who knows what the future will look like.

Sorry just read some of the latest posts and good points brought up/answered but oh well, my two fingers are just too slow
RegR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2011   #1208
Defense Professional / Analyst
Colonel
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 1,589
Threads:
This is the article from the Wings Over NZ Forum which they have copied from Aviation Week.
Quote:
New Zealand To Buy Military Trainers

6 June 2011
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
(c) 2011 McGraw-Hill, Inc.
New Zealand will be enhancing its fixed-wing training capability with two new types of aircraft, and is hoping one of them can be used for light maritime surveillance.

The country had earlier been looking at light transport aircraft, such as the EADS CASA CN-235, thinking it would take on the light maritime surveillance role. But New Zealand’s defense minister, Wayne Mapp, tells Aviation Week on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore that trainers are a higher priority.

New Zealand has Pacific Aerospace CT-4Es as its basic trainers. But once trainees finish basic training, they need to fly a more advanced single-engine aircraft, Mapp says. He says the types the country is likely to consider for the advanced trainer are the Hawker Beechcraft T-6 Texan II, Pilatus PC-9 and the Korea Aerospace Industries KT-1. It plans to order 6-7 aircraft to be delivered in 2013-14, he says.

Small Civil Aircraft

Mapp says that for multi-engine training, New Zealand has been using the Hawker Beechcraft B200. But this is a small civil aircraft, so there are certain things this trainer is unable to do when compared to military trainers, he says. Mapp says New Zealand has been considering buying 3-5 Beech 350s to replace the B200s, but he stresses no final decision has been made. Mapp says New Zealand wants the new twin-engine trainer to be used for other tasks as well, such as navigation training, VIP transport and light maritime surveillance. “A number of nations use Beech 350s for a range of roles,” he adds. He says it would be more cost-effective for New Zealand to use its multi-engine trainers for maritime surveillance rather than larger aircraft such as the CN-235. Mapp also says another factor working against the CN-235 is that defense partner Australia has no CN-235s.

In a separate development, New Zealand wants to have a formal agreement with Australia whereby New Zealand gets a set number of hours each year on one of the Royal Australian Air Force C-17s, Mapp says.

New Zealand also has a longer-term requirement to replace its Lockheed C-130s and P-3s. New Zealand’s C-130s are some of the oldest operating today. The government has stated on numerous occasions that the C-130s will be replaced by 2020 and the P-3s by 2025. But Mapp says the country “could get a few more years out of the aircraft” because upgrades were delayed considerably.

Nine NH90s On Order

Regarding helicopters, New Zealand reportedly has nine NH Industries NH90s on order. Mapp says the first two will be delivered to New Zealand later this year. It also ordered five AgustaWestland AW109s, four of which have been delivered. The AW109s replace Bell 47 Siouxs, which are to be phased out within 12 months, Mapp says. The NH90s replace Bell UH-1s, which will be phased out in 2013, he says.

New Zealand has experienced two devastating earthquakes in the past year, and the resulting financial costs have pushed the government’s budget into a large deficit. The government has forecast that the budget will only return to surplus in fiscal 2014-15.

“With the financial situation being more persistent and long-lasting, we’re having to take a more rigorous [approach], and are looking to deliver the white paper [objectives] in a more fiscally constrained way,” Mapp says. He says the ministry will be scrutinizing more than just the up-front cost of each acquisition, but also the life-cycle cost.

New Zealand Defense Force Lt. Col. James Dryburgh told delegates at a conference in Singapore on May 24 that if defense contractors can demonstrate that new equipment will save money over existing equipment, then the procurement has a better chance of being approved.
Source: Wings Over NZ Aviation Forum, Topic: Possible RNZAF King Air replacement? Accessed 24/06/2011.

This is the link to the Hawker Beechcraft Military & Special Mission web page Hawker Beechcraft: Military and Special Mission: Home It covers both the AT6 and the Beechcraft 350ER in a maritime role.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegR View Post
The 757s are not just for VIP transport, in fact that is only a small part of their hours, although the troops AND FREIGHT it moves to Timor, Afghan(AO), global exs etc or maybe the civilians they move after earthquakes and to Antarctic memorials could also be considered very important.

Yes they are more expensive to operate but they also offer another form of strategic lift and provide the RNZAF with another option. I personally would prefer to be transported to and from my 6 month deployment in comfort and speed then lumber half way round the world in the back of an H and if you can tick off another use such as VIP within its hours then bonus. AME, civilian evac/transport, SATS, freight, troop lift could be done with Hercs but sometimes comfort, speed and yes, image, cannot be overlooked as advantages.
I agree and that is why I argue for a replacement along similar lines like the KC30 or B737-800. I too have done travel time in the back end of the C130, Andover, Bristol Frightener and venerable DC3, so I know that long haul is best done in some semblance of comfort.

Quote:
The C130 and P3k replacement timeframe is alittle close and would be a financial bullet when the time comes so I would rather see the Herc replaced earlier(ie start process nowish) and let the P8 develop and debug therefore spreading the costs more, although if AF wants A400 then they are still in a similar situation. If they replace both fleets at around the same time now then in 50-100 years we wil have the same major cost problem and who knows what the future will look like.

Sorry just read some of the latest posts and good points brought up/answered but oh well, my two fingers are just too slow
I too would prefer a split in between two programs for exactly the same reasons. Unfortunately our polis are focused on Christchurch and a general election at the moment. Personally I really do not see a major obstacle for the NZG to start procurement process for the C130H replacement now. It is not as if they have to hand over cash now and by starting a procurement and replacement project now they are saving money and time.

Everybody goes on about the Christchurch disasters negative economic impact, but when you look at the cost breakdowns, the vast majority of the cost is going to be borne by insurers and re-insurers, so NZG exposure is not going to be high. Yes the disasters have a high short term negative economic impact, but in the medium to long term that will be turned around. We in NZ are going to have to start being like Australia and take a long term view on defence acquisitions. Not this "she'll be right" attitude and short sighted, narrow minded penny pinching that our polis have historically inflicted and are inflicting upon NZDF. It has cost NZ Inc., far more money than it has ever saved, by buying second hand kit e.g., Andovers or HMNZS Southland* instead of being more fiscally prudent by investing in new kit.

*The hull had holes in it and more concrete than a lot of buildings - in 1991 a young sailor wire brushing rust off inside of hull put brush through hull.

Last edited by ngatimozart; June 24th, 2011 at 07:39 AM. Reason: typos & clarification
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2011   #1209
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Auckland NZ
Posts: 484
Threads:
B200 vs B350

Mapp says that for multi-engine training, New Zealand has been using the Hawker Beechcraft B200. But this is a small civil aircraft, so there are certain things this trainer is unable to do when compared to military trainers, he says. Mapp says New Zealand has been considering buying 3-5 Beech 350s to replace the B200s, but he stresses no final decision has been made. Mapp says New Zealand wants the new twin-engine trainer to be used for other tasks as well, such as navigation training, VIP transport and light maritime surveillance. “A number of nations use Beech 350s for a range of roles,” he adds. He says it would be more cost-effective for New Zealand to use its multi-engine trainers for maritime surveillance rather than larger aircraft such as the CN-235. Mapp also says another factor working against the CN-235 is that defense partner Australia has no CN-235s.

If the B200 is that unsuitable then why would the B350 not be? Other than being slightly larger it doesn't offer much different!
Gibbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2011   #1210
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 827
Threads:
Glad you raised that Gibbo (I wondered too).

Perhaps B350 performance is superior to B200 to compensate (I vaguely recall some discussion on the merits of the B350 performance in one of the Aus threads here a year or two ago, I think).

Or perhaps its the attraction to the "bean counters" of the dual role B350 (training/coastal MPA) over a fully out-fitted out or modular CN-235/295, Q-300, ATR-42 etc, that conveniently overlooks/over-rules the issue for advanced pilot training (multi-engine)?

Speculation: I suspect the RNZAF would be keen to operate the 350ER (rather than lose or have this coastal MPA function outsourced to a commercial provider) so maybe RNZAF will "happily" take on B350 (350ER) for the dual-roles (despite preferring something else a la CN-235/295, which also would have provided extra troop and freight lift, which the 350ER can't really provide etc?

Hence my other speculation above that RNZAF could get 350ER soon and wait a few years for the C-27J/CN-295 or whatever RAAF chooses for the Caribou replacement, which appears to be a C-27J/Chook mix at the moment)?

Or then again I think we here may have had questions previously over whether a CN-235/295 transporter/MPA would be overkill for advanced multi-engine training, so perhaps it's back to basics for Govt: sort out single and multi-engine training (with limited MPA) first, then decent short/medium transport/MPA later in the decade as the fiscal situation improves?
recce.k1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2011   #1211
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 410
Threads:
Agreed Ngati, I sure do hope the days of buying second hand are long gone regardless of financial position, the long term results(or lack of) are not worth the short term cost savings.

Interesting on the govt turn around on AC types ie CN235 type now downsized to a slightly larger King Air, surely its a cost thing as we have now relegated light transport role to the back burners again meaning the Hercs and 757s are to get no releif and put the pressure back on their tired frames, P3 help on the way though so at least something.

The Aus 350s do have bigger engines and slighty largercabin/wings than our 200s so I assume better performance but not that much more lift so really the only thing we gain is the MPA role. Not sold on the selling point of commonality with Aus for this particular type(vs 235) as its civilian maintained and not sure why we would cross train/combine use these anyway as they are mainly NZ based and the Aussies do not operate MPA 350s.

Would surely have to be at least 5 as thats what we have now minus the added MPA role.

If we were to aqquire another type for lift at a later date would surely create a bigger logistics/maintanence/support tail and therefore cost base. I would rather see overkill on multi engine training and cover all bases rather then a limited type that only solves a few issues especially since we are covering the advanced training seperately somewhat(good news by the way).

I suppose again costs have reared their ugly head both capital and operating but does'nt true multi-role outweigh this in the long term? Would be good to see figures on 350ER v CN235 to compare
RegR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2011   #1212
Super Moderator
Lieutenant Colonel
MrConservative's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Behind a Desk
Posts: 1,099
Threads:
Am I suprised that old Wayno has changed his mind on what to do. The guy cannot make a decision - rumour from my old North Shore sources is that his wife made the decision to standdown from politics this year for him.

Well he got himself to half a decsion on something at least if this week we can trust what he has said this time. The 350ER can do MEPT and Coastwatch so that at least some boxes ticked plus VIP fluff of course. And iirc it does have some plug and play packages that are available. With the P32K's slotted to last until mid next decade (2024-2026) then thats MPA at both levels sorted, some 4-5 years after the C130 replacement. (BTW going on to a Q300 or CN235 with sim-time after the Advanced Pilot Curriculum in a high performance trainer along the lines of a PC-9M is not that much of an issue - in the old days one went from Blunties straight on to Andovers)

However this still leaves Airlift to be sorted? Buying time on a RAAF C-17 - that must only be a short-med term arrangement out to 2020 whilst the B757's burn money by the hour at C-17 rates and C-130H's are still with us. It is an arrangement which politically is not a sustainable long term as strategic transport solution for the life of this DWP - it is simply a policy of papering over the cracks through expediency and it has to be acceptable to the time donors and aircraft owners. Not just now but also whatever political make-up exists between both countries. Again an idea that falls short.

So what Mapp is now trying to communicate is that he and his successor will continue the muddling through until events force a decision. Strategic Transport accounts for currently 25% of 40Sqds current taskings I would suggest that over the next 20 years that ratio will increase.

I would caution against comparing costing structures ín the contractual sense when comparing C-17s compared with A-400M's. Contracts are costed in different ways and vary in whole of life loadings and whether support packages are integrated or undertaken by an additional separate agreement. Yes the A400M is expensive an expensive aircraft, but when calculated over a 15 year lifecycle something which the British did in their analysis of the the J, the 17 and A400M, the A400M did not end up as being cost-prohibitive in light of its capability delivered. Like the JSF there is a lot of anti A400M stuff floated around much of it generated by PR firms alligned with vested interests. Like the JSF it is a sophisticated aircraft.

The RNZAF airlift dilema was described to me as being due to our geographical situation and atypical deployment:

We need to carry light tactical loads medium distances yet at the same time lift both medium tactical and light strategic loads strategic distances. It is a unique set of circumstances.

I think the souring of the CN235/Q300 plans must need to be put into the context of the Caribou replacement. The C-27J therefore raises an interesting point. It can do much of what the current tasking of the C-130H's can do viz a viz the C-130J. This means means that an aircraft with an IOC into RNZAF service circa 2020 that can do the rest which leaves .... the A400M and not the C-130J-30 because only one platform can carry that tactical load strategic distances. That is the vital issue. If the C-130J-30 was introduced we would still require an aircraft which would solve the strategic airlift requirements that will increase as they have done already over the last 25 years over the next 25 years. The C-130J is a solution that may have been aprropriate in 2002. But is it really the solution post 2022 and beyond? Only if NZ bought and funded the 6th C-17 of an Anzac fleet would I counternance it - even then would the growth in stratlift needs for the NZDF on a long term basis be at least a gauranteed by a single airframe.

Of course if Lockheed may over the decade decide to conjure up a fatter stretched Super J with longer legs then fine - but looking at the lay of the land now and in the future, the timeframes, whole of life and operational costs, and being able to deliver the actual tasking capability we need, all within the middle pathway budget range then there is no alternative - other than bringing on significant aspects of policy failure by removing strategic airlift capability from the NZDF equation.

Last edited by MrConservative; June 24th, 2011 at 03:08 PM. Reason: extra points
MrConservative is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2011   #1213
Just a bloke
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,539
Threads:
Interesting that RNZAF is considering the T-6 Texan II. I wonder if new builds (T-6C Texan II standard) or second hand models are being considered?

The AT-6 Texan II could offer a very effective method of achieving a JTAC training capability and limited CAS and air intercept capability alongside the advanced trainer role...

I understand that RAAF is looking at just such an arrangement under it's advanced trainer replacement scheme as it too needs an aircraft to train JTAC's and develop it's new 4 Sqn capability...

RAAF was apparently very impressed with the T-6C Texan II that toured around Australia after Avalon back in March...
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2011   #1214
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 410
Threads:
I am also not impressed with Mapps suggestion the C130 and P3s lives be extended due to the delays, the ACs age is not on hold and they are not miraculously getting younger. They are already the oldest Hs in the world so are we going for some other historic record, they should try driving around in the oldest BMWs in the world then if thats the case.

As it is the dates are set at @ 2020, that is still along way away and going off the long lead in process it takes just to introduce new platforms into DF Im not even sure some of us will be around to see anything eventuate.

If the delays are too great cut the upgrades at say the last 2 of each type and do an initial order of new build AC and begin a staggered approach to replacement, ease into the operation, capabilities and costs in a more timely approach. Alittle inconveinient as is probably the case with the new helos and still having to operate the legacy systems(so a 5 type fleet v a 3) for a period but hey if everything was meant to fly forever then no one would need new AC but alas everything gets old and tired and faults just cannot be remedied as easily no matter how many bandages you put on.
RegR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2011   #1215
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Auckland NZ
Posts: 484
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
Interesting that RNZAF is considering the T-6 Texan II. I wonder if new builds (T-6C Texan II standard) or second hand models are being considered?

The AT-6 Texan II could offer a very effective method of achieving a JTAC training capability and limited CAS and air intercept capability alongside the advanced trainer role...

I understand that RAAF is looking at just such an arrangement under it's advanced trainer replacement scheme as it too needs an aircraft to train JTAC's and develop it's new 4 Sqn capability...

RAAF was apparently very impressed with the T-6C Texan II that toured around Australia after Avalon back in March...
USAF use PC-9M in Germany for JTAC training (think they're civvy owned contractor providing & maintaining the airframes) - so yes they would be good for that. Obviously the JTAC guys would then need to polish off training with fast jets.

But I doubt there's a market for 2nd hand T-6C Texan II yet - they're a VERY new a/c type.
Gibbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:41 AM.