NZDF - Now and the Future.

[KH-12]

I'm sure there is a requirement for Heavy-lift lease operations in the Asia-Pacific area as well, The An124 is not an infrequent visitor to NZ. I can see similar time delays if the MRV is conducting a patrol in the Southern Ocean and the call goes out for a deployment (hold-on guys we are chasing patagonian tooth-fish poachers !)

Looks like some new build AN-124's will be available as they are planning to restart the production line.

 

[Markus40]

Re: AN124

I think the RNZAFs dream of AN124s in our fleet, will turn its nose at this option based on the fact that the airlift will need to be able to use shortened runways and fly into rough terrain. The Airforce itself will want its Aircraft to fly into other airports and shortened airbases around the pacific, and to put it simply the AN124 will not be able to operate out of places like Blenheim. Its used primarily for heavy lift into point to point operations.

The AN 124 is not in production as its an old aircraft and its extremely doubtful under Russias uncertain political situation, NZ would consider investing money like this.

I'm sure there is a requirement for Heavy-lift lease operations in the Asia-Pacific area as well, The An124 is not an infrequent visitor to NZ. I can see similar time delays if the MRV is conducting a patrol in the Southern Ocean and the call goes out for a deployment (hold-on guys we are chasing patagonian tooth-fish poachers !)

Looks like some new build AN-124's will be available as they are planning to restart the production line.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think the RNZAFs dream of AN124s in our fleet, will turn its nose at this option based on the fact that the airlift will need to be able to use shortened runways and fly into rough terrain. The Airforce itself will want its Aircraft to fly into other airports and shortened airbases around the pacific, and to put it simply the AN124 will not be able to operate out of places like Blenheim. Its used primarily for heavy lift into point to point operations.

The AN 124 is not in production as its an old aircraft and its extremely doubtful under Russias uncertain political situation, NZ would consider investing money like this.

couple of things.

• antonov is ukrainian - so no need to worry about the russians unless they decide to take back the Ukraine
• the 124's are back in production, ANT developed a digital upgrade package a little while back and I think they have 8 new orders to date.
• the above are new builds, they're not zeroed frames AFAIK.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I think the RNZAFs dream of AN124s in our fleet, will turn its nose at this option based on the fact that the airlift will need to be able to use shortened runways and fly into rough terrain. The Airforce itself will want its Aircraft to fly into other airports and shortened airbases around the pacific, and to put it simply the AN124 will not be able to operate out of places like Blenheim. Its used primarily for heavy lift into point to point operations.

The AN 124 is not in production as its an old aircraft and its extremely doubtful under Russias uncertain political situation, NZ would consider investing money like this.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick.

We are talking (I hope) about leasing time on a AN124, as the Europeans do. Essentially a commercial contract that states how many hours per month flight time the NZDF can use. Not crewed by RNZAF personnel.

In a ET like situation it would deploy into the nearest available field (BTW the AN124 has VERY good rough field performance for its size) and would be deployed in theatre by available assets.

 

[Markus40]

Re: The AN124.

Leasing or buying an AN124 is total over kill and unrealistic. NZ needs, go way further than just leasing a giant aircraft than the AN124. If they were needed then obviously Australia would have done it, and as well have shifted its military hardware into places like the ET, using it. The AN124 is not an option despite its deep reach and good payload. Especially when we need to use the aircraft on un paved runways in the South Pacific.

If its true that the AN124 is being brought back on production line from what im led to believe then are there any stats you can share that validate this?

The "stick" is now in your court.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick.

We are talking (I hope) about leasing time on a AN124, as the Europeans do. Essentially a commercial contract that states how many hours per month flight time the NZDF can use.

In a ET like situation it would deploy into the nearest available field (BTW the AN124 has VERY good rough field performance for its size) and would be deployed in theatre by available assets.

 

[Markus40]

Antonov have their Production facilities in Russia and the Ukraine.

couple of things.

• antonov is ukrainian - so no need to worry about the russians unless they decide to take back the Ukraine
• the 124's are back in production, ANT developed a digital upgrade package a little while back and I think they have 8 new orders to date.
• the above are new builds, they're not zeroed frames AFAIK.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Leasing or buying an AN124 is total over kill and unrealistic. NZ needs, go way further than just leasing a giant aircraft than the AN124. If they were needed then obviously Australia would have done it, and as well have shifted its military hardware into places like the ET, using it. The AN124 is not an option despite its deep reach and good payload. Especially when we need to use the aircraft on un paved runways in the South Pacific.

If its true that the AN124 is being brought back on production line from what im led to believe then are there any stats you can share that validate this?

The "stick" is now in your court.

I am not sure you are getting this. A company has say 4 AN124s, say, for the sake of argument, each one gives 1000 hrs a year in flight time, so 4000 hrs a year. Company based in Europe.

A country then says okay I am having an exercise/deployment in June coming back in August I need 100 hrs of flight time. So you pay the company for 100hrs of flight time. There are other variation of this, e.g. you can book time per year and on sell/trade it etc...

Does not replace existing assets. The NZDF has used this in the past and will no doubt use it again.

Where it falls apart is in the event of an emergency like Tsunami, ET etc..because you can't always have it available (someone else may be using it)

Hence some nations have looked at buying the airlift assets in a civilian config and leasing them to commercial interests, booking their time for regular military lifts, but with emergency clauses in the contracts that say we will use them in case of a disaster, war, emergency deployment etc and reimburse for lost earnings. Or they are just buying their own Strategic Lifters.

For something similar look at what the RAF is doing with its AAR.

FYI the ADF did use the AN124 (or II-76) for the initial deployment to ET in '99, and for all I know may be using it again.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Antonov have their Production facilities in Russia and the Ukraine.

Thats true, but they are solely and wholly a Ukrainian Company.

Try telling a Ukrainian that their company is Russian and I'd suggest that you'd end up with a bar fight on your hands.

The Russian facilities were set up as a commercial requirement, not as an ownership necessity.

 

[gf0012-aust]

FYI the ADF did use the AN124 (or II-76) for the initial deployment to ET in '99,

ON current issues, the reason for going with C-17's was also because of the issues of:

• immediacy of access during a lease - ie you buy hours but there is no guarantee of the slots being avail if and when you need it
• some concerns by ADF passengers about the "safety" of the ride
• some obvious logistics advantages
• some obvious strategic/tactical lift advantages

and for all I know may be using it again.

Nope, not sure if the current lease with Volga-Dnpr is active, but it won't be renewed for a long duration contract. The expectation is that the C-17s will be here in time.

 

[Markus40]

Dont worry i have been to Russia and i know what they are like! However according to the information i think you might be wrong.

The latest version the An-124-100M, has been developed by Aviastar. Aviastar (the current AN124 makers) are based in Russia, not the Ukraine.

Thats true, but they are solely and wholly a Ukrainian Company.

Try telling a Ukrainian that their company is Russian and I'd suggest that you'd end up with a bar fight on your hands.

The Russian facilities were set up as a commercial requirement, not as an ownership necessity.

 

[Whiskyjack]

ON current issues, the reason for going with C-17's was also because of the issues of:

• immediacy of access during a lease - ie you buy hours but there is no guarantee of the slots being avail if and when you need it
• some concerns by ADF passengers about the "safety" of the ride
• some obvious logistics advantages
• some obvious strategic/tactical lift advantages

Nope, not sure if the current lease with Volga-Dnpr is active, but it won't be renewed for a long duration contract. The expectation is that the C-17s will be here in time.

Pretty much what I thought, The RAF went down the same road a few years ago and it sounds like the Canadians will follow. Although I believe the EU (Nato?) has a new contract with a AN124 operator.

 

[Sea Toby]

All of this speculation about acquiring C-17s or A-400s isn't going to happen, the current government chose to upgrade their 5 C-130s instead. The completion date for the upgrade is around 2010, with the aircraft expected to last another 10-15 years. Therefore, the C-130s should last until 2020-2025. Any new transport aircraft won't show up on the defence forces long term development plan until 2015 at the earliest.

The MRV will be commissioned early next year. It can move 250 troops, its equipment, plus 4 Hueys and supply the force for a month. A typical company's equipment would be 16 LAVs, 14 LOVs, 7 Unimogs, 2 ambulances, 2 flat bed trucks, 7 LOV trailers, 2 rough terrain forklifts, and 4-four wheel drive vehicles, in addition to up to 33 containers.

It appears the government wishes the MRV to do patrol duties for 100 days during the summer months in the southern ocean. Considering the ship can sustain a top speed of 19 knots, if the ship were 1900 nautical miles away it would take 100 hours (a bit more than 4 days) to sail back to New Zealand to load this company. And from what I have seen this week, I doubt whether the army would be ready to load in 4 days.

More than likely it will take the ship twice as long to reach East Timor. But it appears the MRV can get all of the force and its equipment there with one trip. Yes, C-130s and Boeing 757s can get the troops and some equipment there quicker.

Yes, acquiring one or two C-17s would upgrade New Zealand's airlift capabilities considerably. Since the current government chose to eliminate its air combat force to save on operational expenses for fighters that were never used, maybe the current government could spend those funds on C-17s that would be used. Highly unlikely.

Frankly, the MRV would be nice to have presently, as would the one of the Boeing 757 and one of the C-130s, which are being upgraded currently.

As far as the replacement for the P-3 Orions, the P-3 line is closed. If the Americans choose the new up to date P-3 Orion over the P-8, a Boeing 737 make, New Zealand could purchase either. Like the C-130s, many worldwide are being upgraded to last longer.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The latest version the An-124-100M, has been developed by Aviastar. Aviastar (the current AN124 makers) are based in Russia, not the Ukraine.

I think you'll find that the co-production is a political move more than a development issues.

ie, Antonov certainly regard it as a joint development as the primary mods and development are done by Antonov. - the russians also weren't too keen on being held hostage to "offshore" production of a critical asset, so made co-production an issue. So aircraft are built at Kyiv State Aviation Plant AVIANT and Ulianovsk JSC AVIASTAR-SP.

Zaporozhye IVCHENKO-PROGRESS Engine Design Bureau in Ukraine are responsible for the bulk of the non UK/US engine mods.

In real terms, Russia has a construction kit involvement and some financial development costs for their own versions. The Euro leased models are intended to use UK/US/French avionics and will be built in Ukraine.

Things might have changed, but the above was current info this year up to very recently. If there is a change then it means the Russians have sought a change to the existing 2004 to 2020 contract.

 

[Markus40]

Because of NZs remoteness we need to address our own logistic and supply issues in the long term. I do understand the now and again leasing option, but to think of purchasing this aircraft as the overall bases for our long term Airlift and logistics issues is not taking these responsibilities seriously. For the humanitarian efforts and disaster relief we need something smaller and more versatile. We cant have both types operating. For the smaller regions and airstrips the AN124 wont be able to fly into them because the runway cant deal with an aircraft this size for a start. We cant even fly a 747 into wellington!!

Thats my opinion, as well as if we had included a refueling option in the L3 in getting our men and equipment to Darwin would be a way lot better than what we have now. However thats not going to happen unfortunatly and it now seems for the moment that we will be relying on our sea lift to do this job.

If we could get our hands on some II-76s would be more in line with NZs needs.

I am not sure you are getting this. A company has say 4 AN124s, say, for the sake of argument, each one gives 1000 hrs a year in flight time, so 4000 hrs a year. Company based in Europe.

A country then says okay I am having an exercise/deployment in June coming back in August I need 100 hrs of flight time. So you pay the company for 100hrs of flight time. There are other variation of this, e.g. you can book time per year and on sell/trade it etc...

Does not replace existing assets. The NZDF has used this in the past and will no doubt use it again.

Where it falls apart is in the event of an emergency like Tsunami, ET etc..because you can't always have it available (someone else may be using it)

Hence some nations have looked at buying the airlift assets in a civilian config and leasing them to commercial interests, booking their time for regular military lifts, but with emergency clauses in the contracts that say we will use them in case of a disaster, war, emergency deployment etc and reimburse for lost earnings. Or they are just buying their own Strategic Lifters.

For something similar look at what the RAF is doing with its AAR.

FYI the ADF did use the AN124 (or II-76) for the initial deployment to ET in '99, and for all I know may be using it again.

 

[Markus40]

The latest is the new version of the AN124 is to be produced in both Kiev and Russia. The aircraft will have a new avionics suite supplied by Honeywell of the USA and Aviapribor and Leninets of Russia. Contract is between 2004-2020.

I think you'll find that the co-production is a political move more than a development issues.

ie, Antonov certainly regard it as a joint development as the primary mods and development are done by Antonov. - the russians also weren't too keen on being held hostage to "offshore" production of a critical asset, so made co-production an issue. So aircraft are built at Kyiv State Aviation Plant AVIANT and Ulianovsk JSC AVIASTAR-SP.

Zaporozhye IVCHENKO-PROGRESS Engine Design Bureau in Ukraine are responsible for the bulk of the non UK/US engine mods.

In real terms, Russia has a construction kit involvement and some financial development costs for their own versions. The Euro leased models are intended to use UK/US/French avionics and will be built in Ukraine.

Things might have changed, but the above was current info this year up to very recently. If there is a change then it means the Russians have sought a change to the existing 2004 to 2020 contract.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Because of NZs remoteness we need to address our own logistic and supply issues in the long term. I do understand the now and again leasing option, but to think of purchasing this aircraft as the overall bases for our long term Airlift and logistics issues is not taking these responsibilities seriously. For the humanitarian efforts and disaster relief we need something smaller and more versatile. We cant have both types operating. For the smaller regions and airstrips the AN124 wont be able to fly into them because the runway cant deal with an aircraft this size for a start. We cant even fly a 747 into wellington!!

Thats my opinion, as well as if we had included a refueling option in the L3 in getting our men and equipment to Darwin would be a way lot better than what we have now. However thats not going to happen unfortunatly and it now seems for the moment that we will be relying on our sea lift to do this job.

If we could get our hands on some II-76s would be more in line with NZs needs.

I agree leasing time off a company would not be ideal for a ET like emergency, where it comes into its own is a deployment like Afghanistan where regular flights are made. Does not have to be a AN124, could be a IL76 of a future commercial variant of the C-17.


Realistically a adding a in-flight refuelling option the Hs is not gong to increase lift they can provide without buying considerably more assets. Time wise a stop off of 3-4 hrs to refuel is not going to break the bank.

We have to face it that when it comes to deploying the Mech element of the army, the most NZ will ever be able to do (with the C-130) is a gradual deployment of 4 LAVs (stripped to minimum weight 14-15t), with the stripped parts part of other sorties, so say six sorties to deploy 4 LAVs. Does not include the logistics for them either.

The main deployment will always be by sea. Even the US military deploys the vast majority of equipment by sea.

Adding the A400 post 2015 will give much more lift, but it is still far more economical to deploy by sea.

 

[KH-12]

I understand the An-124 can operate out of 2500m airfields of which there are plenty in the world (including the South Pacific, inc East Timor) obviously not at max AUW, you always have the option of shuttling with C130's to smaller strips as required. I wonder how often our C130's actually operate off non-sealed surfaces on operations anyway(other than in the odd exercise)

Blenheim could have a decent strip too if they got rid of some vineyards

 

[Markus40]

With the refueling option (air to air) this will not increase lift but will increase range for the infantry and their equipment.

If they need to get their LAVs up to Darwin then like you i dont see why that should be a problem. I certainly do agree that having a A400M or similar will give the RNZAF a much greater ability of getting mechanised units to the front line quickly, but the refueling option still should have been examined for the C130Hs. I would suggest that having 2-4 LAVs with their 25mm in the front line with our infantry is better than having none at all.

E

I agree leasing time off a company would not be ideal for a ET like emergency, where it comes into its own is a deployment like Afghanistan where regular flights are made. Does not have to be a AN124, could be a IL76 of a future commercial variant of the C-17.


Realistically a adding a in-flight refuelling option the Hs is not gong to increase lift they can provide without buying considerably more assets. Time wise a stop off of 3-4 hrs to refuel is not going to break the bank.

We have to face it that when it comes to deploying the Mech element of the army, the most NZ will ever be able to do (with the C-130) is a gradual deployment of 4 LAVs (stripped to minimum weight 14-15t), with the stripped parts part of other sorties, so say six sorties to deploy 4 LAVs. Does not include the logistics for them either.

The main deployment will always be by sea. Even the US military deploys the vast majority of equipment by sea.

Adding the A400 post 2015 will give much more lift, but it is still far more economical to deploy by sea.

 

[Whiskyjack]

With the refueling option (air to air) this will not increase lift but will increase range for the infantry and their equipment.

If they need to get their LAVs up to Darwin then like you i dont see why that should be a problem. I certainly do agree that having a A400M or similar will give the RNZAF a much greater ability of getting mechanised units to the front line quickly, but the refueling option still should have been examined for the C130Hs. I would suggest that having 2-4 LAVs with their 25mm in the front line with our infantry is better than having none at all.

E

Then it is far better to have five stored in Darwin, with equipment to support a infantry company. 1 757, troops there in under 8hrs, deployed within 24-48hrs depending on level of emergency.

Also allows C-130s to just fly into Darwin in least time and sortie from Darwin to the north. instead of chugging to NZ, AAR is really not an option for that kind of mission, it uses assets that will be needed else where. Would like to see probes installed tho, always a good option for long SAR missions etc.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

With the refueling option (air to air) this will not increase lift but will increase range for the infantry and their equipment.

If they need to get their LAVs up to Darwin then like you i dont see why that should be a problem. I certainly do agree that having a A400M or similar will give the RNZAF a much greater ability of getting mechanised units to the front line quickly, but the refueling option still should have been examined for the C130Hs. I would suggest that having 2-4 LAVs with their 25mm in the front line with our infantry is better than having none at all.

E

Markus regardless of the weight of cargo the aircraft still has a maximum load it can't exceed. If you get your C-130 in to the air with a heavy load, you can't keep adding extra fuel (which = extra weight) while it is in the air once it has reached a certain level (max gross weight). Likewise a C-130 converted to aerial refuelling duties can't carry a maximum cargo weight of fuel very far, because of both maximum gross weight and maximum take off weight.