Royal New Zealand Air Force

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Going by memory it's about 170 - 180 and I think maybe 35 tonne depending upon range. The thing about the B757 or B767 as freighters is that they need equipment for loading / unloading at each end and they are restricted to fields with sealed runways (stand fast Pegasus Field, McMurdo Sound).
AND

yeah, I think about that much too. The old B727 was 122 from memory full pax.
I think the main reason they are letting the B757 go is the load/unload with needing GSE plus range.
The B757 can take 11 pallets in full cargo which is 5 more than the C130.
Maybe another mod like the older globemasters with the underbelly hoist could be a go.
Not quite correct in terms of numbers. While the MTOW might support up to 35 tonnes of cargo, the aircraft itself could not. The B757 can carry a total of ~11 pallets, but due to limited floor strength, each pallet cannot be more than ~1,000kg.

While a B757 can airlift more pallets than a C-130 could, the actual weight airlifted it comparable. The other issue with using any civilian airliner for air freight, is that the appropriate cargo handling kit is required for both the point of departure, as well as arrival. A military airlifter with a rear ramp does not have such issues.

Now I do not wish to sound like a broken record, but I want to point something out (again, I have already done so 2-3 other times in this thread...) regarding the cost and "utility" of the B757 in RNZAF service. From memory, the max seating capacity in passenger airlift role is ~183. How often does the NZ Gov't need to fly ~183 people to a destination, that it could not arrange to fly that many people there using Air NZ, or some other commercial service? I ask because having run the numbers, the cost to fly 183 people from NZ to the US using the B757's costs about as much having that many people fly Business Class from NZ to the US using Air NZ, or about $5,000 per seat, assuming full capacity. If only a few people are being sent somewhere, then the cost per seat climbs even higher. Pretty much the only time doing so would make sense to me is if commercial seating to the destination is not available when needed, or if it was available but at a higher price.

The capabilities present in the RNZAF B757's is for the most part just reproducing capabilities Air NZ has, but without the benefits or efficiencies of scale that Air NZ can have. That sort of makes the whole of Gov't use argument somewhat flat for me.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
AND



Not quite correct in terms of numbers. While the MTOW might support up to 35 tonnes of cargo, the aircraft itself could not. The B757 can carry a total of ~11 pallets, but due to limited floor strength, each pallet cannot be more than ~1,000kg
.
Is that for the standard pax variant or the freighter variant? The RNZAF B757s are B752 Combis so they have the strengthened floors going by memory.
While a B757 can airlift more pallets than a C-130 could, the actual weight airlifted it comparable. The other issue with using any civilian airliner for air freight, is that the appropriate cargo handling kit is required for both the point of departure, as well as arrival. A military airlifter with a rear ramp does not have such issues.

Now I do not wish to sound like a broken record, but I want to point something out (again, I have already done so 2-3 other times in this thread...) regarding the cost and "utility" of the B757 in RNZAF service. From memory, the max seating capacity in passenger airlift role is ~183. How often does the NZ Gov't need to fly ~183 people to a destination, that it could not arrange to fly that many people there using Air NZ, or some other commercial service? I ask because having run the numbers, the cost to fly 183 people from NZ to the US using the B757's costs about as much having that many people fly Business Class from NZ to the US using Air NZ, or about $5,000 per seat, assuming full capacity. If only a few people are being sent somewhere, then the cost per seat climbs even higher. Pretty much the only time doing so would make sense to me is if commercial seating to the destination is not available when needed, or if it was available but at a higher price.

The capabilities present in the RNZAF B757's is for the most part just reproducing capabilities Air NZ has, but without the benefits or efficiencies of scale that Air NZ can have. That sort of makes the whole of Gov't use argument somewhat flat for me.
However, Air NZ may not necessarily be willing to fly into all areas that the RNZAF will. Crew safety, insurance and all that. Whilst I admit in this case I am playing devils advocate, it is something that has to be taken into account at the present point in time. 40 Sqn, RNZAF, pilots have been seconded to Air NZ as pilots in order to keep them current on pax jets. I don't know if this practice is still occurring. One of the reasons that the C17s were specifically looked at was because the govt has been concerned about the costs of charters.
 
Last edited:

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
With respect to C-17's and deployed NH-90's.

It would still beat sealift via the CY in getting a replacement NH-90 into theatre if one became u/s and the degradation of mission effectiveness whilst the replacement came by ship weeks possibly months later.

Remember how things went pear shaped following a SH-2G going u/s in the Gulf years back and the degradation of mission capability that resulted. Lessons learnt.

Having the rotary assets available in the first 24 hours of a major HADR event such as in the Philippines in 2013 was vital.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Any new capability should exceed the one it's replacing by a goodly margin. The C130J is limited by it's internal cargo hull size and it's weight lifting capacity. So it cannot carry large awkward loads that are either to large to fit inside the fuselage and / or exceed it's max lifting capacity of approximately 20 tonnes. In NZs case the NH90s are to large to fit in and the NZLAVs are to heavy. Hence that is a handicap for that aircraft. In the case of the A400, the NH90 will fill but the rotors have to be removed. One NZLAV and maybe it's crew can be carried.
Agree that the next gen airlifter should have increased capabilty than present aircraft.

But in saying that C130J should not be ruled out on that alone, if for instance you can purchase 6-8 C130J over 4-5 A400M long term you might just be better of with C130J as number's will dictate operations as the smaller fleet of A400M might not cover the task at hand for various reason's, yes you do reduce the lift capacity overall but you have more airframes to deploy and sustain over a period of time.

You also keep the capabilty to transport NH90 or NZLAV via C130 just not as efficiently than A400 or C17 but the capabilty is still there.

Plans to replace Defence Force's 'rusting' Hercules fleet fails to get lift off | National | Stuff.co.nz

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/NH90FAQ31July.doc

And if you do decide that the stratigic capabilty of 757 should be replaced an MRTT can fill a variety of roles within RNZAF and one aspect of that is to provide an inflight refueling service to C130J via the boom for which a receptacle can be fitted in production of new C130J aircraft.

Photos – First Boom Refueling of a C-130 - Flightstory - Aviation Blog, News & Stories


One should not discount the C130J yes it has it's limitations but so does having an aircraft in service but not enough to cover all tasking.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Agree that the next gen airlifter should have increased capabilty than present aircraft.

But in saying that C130J should not be ruled out on that alone, if for instance you can purchase 6-8 C130J over 4-5 A400M long term you might just be better of with C130J as number's will dictate operations as the smaller fleet of A400M might not cover the task at hand for various reason's, yes you do reduce the lift capacity overall but you have more airframes to deploy and sustain over a period of time.

You also keep the capabilty to transport NH90 or NZLAV via C130 just not as efficiently than A400 or C17 but the capabilty is still there.

Plans to replace Defence Force's 'rusting' Hercules fleet fails to get lift off | National | Stuff.co.nz

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/NH90FAQ31July.doc

And if you do decide that the stratigic capabilty of 757 should be replaced an MRTT can fill a variety of roles within RNZAF and one aspect of that is to provide an inflight refueling service to C130J via the boom for which a receptacle can be fitted in production of new C130J aircraft.

Photos – First Boom Refueling of a C-130 - Flightstory - Aviation Blog, News & Stories


One should not discount the C130J yes it has it's limitations but so does having an aircraft in service but not enough to cover all tasking.
You miss the point of all the previous discussions in that the C130 airframe is limited in its physical dimensions plus it's lift capabilities and no longer meets the requirements of NZDF. We don't have the luxury of accepting platform limitations when other more capable platforms are available. The B757 / C130 combination is not optimal and that has been acknowledged. We can't afford not to do better - we have no choice, we have to have better capabilities than the existing ones. I agree numbers are an issue however the project must be looked at as a whole and not just focus on one part.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
You miss the point of all the previous discussions
No I have not missed the point on a larger aircraft and its greater lift capacity,
A 4x A400(148000kg) will achieve a great lift than the 5x C130H(102000kg) with double the range at 20000kg payload
C130J =1x NH90 or 1x NZLAV
A400M=1x NH90 or 2x NZLAV


no longer meets the requirements of NZDF.
I'll be quite happy if you can point me to an official source out lining the requirements/capability for the next gen airlifter

We don't have the luxury of accepting platform limitations when other more capable platforms are available.
Agree 110%


We can't afford not to do better - we have no choice,
unless they give a budget to do it properly you may have no choice but to accept a capability shortfall


we have to have better capabilities than the existing ones. I agree numbers are an issue however the project must be looked at as a whole and not just focus on one part.
look at Project Protector when you had to get X amount of ships for Y budget I suspect you will be between a rock and a hard place to get the larger aircraft in numbers that are useful, NZDF are pretty adept at making a round peg fit a square hole


http://militaryaircraft-airbusds.com/aircraft/a400m/a400mabout.aspx
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
.
Is that for the standard pax variant or the freighter variant? The RNZAF B757s are B752 Combis so they have the strengthened floors going by memory.

However, Air NZ may not necessarily be willing to fly into all areas that the RNZAF will. Crew safety, insurance and all that. Whilst I admit in this case I am playing devils advocate, it is something that has to be taken into account at the present point in time. 40 Sqn, RNZAF, pilots have been seconded to Air NZ as pilots in order to keep them current on pax jets. I don't know if this practice is still occurring. One of the reasons that the C17s were specifically looked at was because the govt has been concerned about the costs of charters.
IIRC the RNZAF B757's were standard pax variant, which following the purchase were modified with a freight door, but not to full Combi standard, so that floor strength is still an issue.

As for the RNZAF being willing (and sometimes able) to fly into areas that Air NZ cannot, no doubt about that. Unfort the RNZAF has largely been operating the B757's the way Air NZ would operate civilian airliners, at least in part because the B757's have not been fitted with a comprehensive self-defence suite and therefore could not operate safely into some theatres. The other issue is just how often the NZ Gov't needs that many personnel flown into/out of an airport?

Given the sharply limited resources that the NZDF is being provided with, it would seem logical that the RNZAF focus on providing forms of airlift which are not being replicated by other available Kiwi organizations/companies. Out-sized cargo, airdrop, long-range palletized air freight, etc. these are all specialties which a military needs and utilizes, but has little presence in the civilian or commercial world. Right now, the B757's can take basically the same weight cargo as the C-130 (though the weight has to be distributed more and very limited large-sized load capacity) further and faster, but also at much greater cost. Such a capability has value for the NZDF, but IMO there would be better "value for money" using a different combination of platforms and means to accomplish the current roles.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
No I have not missed the point on a larger aircraft and its greater lift capacity,
A 4x A400(148000kg) will achieve a great lift than the 5x C130H(102000kg) with double the range at 20000kg payload
C130J =1x NH90 or 1x NZLAV
A400M=1x NH90 or 2x NZLAV
Depending on the configuration of the NZLAV, the size and weight might exceed the cargo capacity of a C-130J. Per the NZ Army info on the NZLAV, it has a weight of 19 - 21 metric tonne GVW depending on configuration.

Per the USAF C-130 factsheet, the max Normal load for a C-130J is actually 15,422 kilograms, while the Max Allowable load is 19,090 kilograms. The "stretched" C-130J-30 has a higher lift capacity, but even then, the Max Allowable load is just under 20,000 kg. We will not even take about the sort of range penalty this causes.

Justifying a C-130J purchase because they can airlift NZLAV just does not fly, IMO. Use a larger aircraft which can more easily carry them, and fly a useful distance. Use a C-130J (or something smaller) to carry smaller loads of supplies instead.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
As there are no C-17s available and only Western aircraft are to be considered, the A400M and C-130J are the only likely candidates. (KC-390 maybe depending on timeframe). Does NZ require AAR for the NH-90s? If so, the C-130J would be required as the A400M won't have this anytime soon if ever.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
As there are no C-17s available and only Western aircraft are to be considered, the A400M and C-130J are the only likely candidates. (KC-390 maybe depending on timeframe). Does NZ require AAR for the NH-90s? If so, the C-130J would be required as the A400M won't have this anytime soon if ever.
At present, the RNZAF has no AAR capability of any sort. While I think it would be a worthwhile capability to have since it could allow the NZDF to increase the logistical footprint of partner nations... It would require funding and time to acquire and stand up such a capability.

Also I am not sure if the NH-90's in RNZAF service are even plumbed for aerial refueling.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Going by memory it's about 170 - 180 and I think maybe 35 tonne depending upon range. The thing about the B757 or B767 as freighters is that they need equipment for loading / unloading at each end and they are restricted to fields with sealed runways (stand fast Pegasus Field, McMurdo Sound).
The thing is the vast majority of airfeilds we work from are established and actually have the required GSE (or a version of) and even the hercs to a degree require GSE anyway unless you are going to hand unload AC pallets in which case the point is probably then moot. Bar an actual combat zone or a severely destructive natural event airports are usually priority to get up and running rather quickly in any event or there is at least a serviceble one nearby.

The 757s have served most of our deployments, exs, ops and civil affairs, minus directly into Bamiyan but again how many of our missions are into contested/insecure airspace? Solomons, Timor etc, I can safely say I spent around the same time in the boeing types vs the C130s in my time both here and overeseas and since there are 2 boeings and 5 hercs that is saying something about the nature of NZDF taskings ie the majority are not into rough, austere and ill equipped strips and short of WWIII I can't see this changing too much (for NZ anyway). What we train for and what actually happens can be alot less tac move and abit more admin move in nature for a large proportion of the time at least but as always train hard fight easy for those times when it is required. Once the initial freight intensive set up is complete rotations are then mainly pax and less cargo for the remainder of the op until RTNZ (for major deployments at least).

Don't get me wrong the boeings cannot and will not do what the hercs do in our military and one is more pax centric and the other freight centric however realistically for the NZDF their value should also not be underestimated or written off just yet, especially in just an attempt to cut 'costs' as there is more to worth than purely the financial aspect.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Justifying a C-130J purchase because they can airlift NZLAV just does not fly, IMO. Use a larger aircraft which can more easily carry them, and fly a useful distance. Use a C-130J (or something smaller) to carry smaller loads of supplies instead.

Sorry I am not trying to justify buy C130J because it can lift a NZLAV, more of don't rule it out as we have seen in the past that NZ has good intensions but the budget( cant remember the costs of the aircraft but from memory i think the A400M was just under double the C130J but not 100% sure)does not got the distance to cover all needs. Is it better to have a few aircraft that can carry more over a long distance but being flog to within an inch of their lives or a less capabile aircraft that can be bought in numbers and be able to sustain an airbridge with a level of redundancy within it, that's the only point I am trying to make.

As for NZLAV fitting into a C130J it is the similer case to weather our Abrams can be transport by LCM1-E various peice of kit are removed from the vechile then attached once it has arrived at its destination, all a bit moot any way how often does NZ move the NZLAV by air. The last move of 3 NZLAV th Afghanistan was via 747F
 

t68

Well-Known Member
If buy chance the US do make available early examples of C17 and you do get 3 and presuming that the earlier comments of flight hours are true that they have used up 13500 out of 30000 flight hours and if the estimated flight hours for NZ is 1000 per year or approx 83 days per year at 12 flying time per aircraft, that gives RNZAF approx 16.5 years out of C17 before refurbishment
 

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
What about buying the type of Russian airlifters the Nh90 were delivered in, Antonov 124? as the have a similar capability to the C17, and lot cheaper?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
What about buying the type of Russian airlifters the Nh90 were delivered in, Antonov 124? as the have a similar capability to the C17, and lot cheaper?
No. The AN124 Ruslan has capacity of around 100 tonnes from memory and none are for sale. The current airframes are high in flight hours. Antonov are investigating a new variant with western avionics and engines or western avionics and Ukrainian engines. Even if some were available we couldn't justify the expense of acquisition and sustainment. To much aircraft for our needs.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
No I have not missed the point on a larger aircraft and its greater lift capacity,
A 4x A400(148000kg) will achieve a great lift than the 5x C130H(102000kg) with double the range at 20000kg payload
C130J =1x NH90 or 1x NZLAV
A400M=1x NH90 or 2x NZLAV
You cannot physically fit a NH90 into a C130.
I'll be quite happy if you can point me to an official source out lining the requirements/capability for the next gen airlifter
If you read back through this thread you will see where it has been discussed about the C130 limitations and the reasons why with probable sources there.
look at Project Protector when you had to get X amount of ships for Y budget I suspect you will be between a rock and a hard place to get the larger aircraft in numbers that are useful, NZDF are pretty adept at making a round peg fit a square hole
Project Protector was instituted by a different govt with a different security and defence outlook and philosophy.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Sorry I am not trying to justify buy C130J because it can lift a NZLAV, more of don't rule it out as we have seen in the past that NZ has good intensions but the budget( cant remember the costs of the aircraft but from memory i think the A400M was just under double the C130J but not 100% sure)does not got the distance to cover all needs. Is it better to have a few aircraft that can carry more over a long distance but being flog to within an inch of their lives or a less capabile aircraft that can be bought in numbers and be able to sustain an airbridge with a level of redundancy within it, that's the only point I am trying to make.

As for NZLAV fitting into a C130J it is the similer case to weather our Abrams can be transport by LCM1-E various peice of kit are removed from the vechile then attached once it has arrived at its destination, all a bit moot any way how often does NZ move the NZLAV by air. The last move of 3 NZLAV th Afghanistan was via 747F
Yes and cost a fortune. The current transport aircraft limitations are proving limiting to NZDF ability to deploy some capabilities effectively and quickly. This whole project is also about the future, not just the present because the new platforms will be in service for 40 plus years and that's the point. The C130 may have a future with the NZDF but if it does it will be only as a tactical second tier lifter, not the main platform. Also the C130 is near the end of its tenure with the USAF already funding a project to find its replacement. The KC390 is of similar size to the C130.

Returning to your question about how often the NZLAV is moved by air, that is really not the issue, but having the ability to move your tactically important equipment by air is a requirement and NZDF categorise the NZLAV and the NH90 as tactically important equipment.
 

Gracie1234

Active Member
The future air lifter will be in service for say 50 years. When looking at the options we need to plan for what the NZDF will look like over that time frame. A case in point is the NZLAV will be upgraded and that means its weight will be about 25t, could be more. That eliminates any C130 variant in my mind.
I am thinking that we will end up with a heavy(C17, A400m) and light option(C295).
Heavy needs to be able to lift our largest equipment to where we need it and light option will be people and pallets only.
If we can convince the US to release some C17 then that is still a possibility, in the meantime i am sure Airbus will be presenting its range of products. Maybe some more adds in the paper.
 
Top