Royal New Zealand Air Force

[t68]

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.

.

If you can get funding for A400M on a one for one or better basis and keep operational funding in place win-win, but if your funding only covers a reduced buy and flight hours (1000 hrs)remain the same per aircraft, is that still a win?

 

[ngatimozart]

If you can get funding for A400M on a one for one or better basis and keep operational funding in place win-win, but if your funding only covers a reduced buy and flight hours (1000 hrs)remain the same per aircraft, is that still a win?

Well a one for one basis would be ideal, but even four would be passable considering they were told a few years back that they would need eight C130s to carry out their current taskings. Remember that it has to be a two tier replacement, a strategic lifter and a tactical lifter.

 

[t68]

Well a one for one basis would be ideal, but even four would be passable considering they were told a few years back that they would need eight C130s to carry out their current taskings. Remember that it has to be a two tier replacement, a strategic lifter and a tactical lifter.

Yes that's correct but there is the worry that they will see A400 M as your Tactical and stratigic lift for which it technically is and not replace your COTS 757 which has no defensive aids from memory, also there is no certantly of a battlefield lifter

 

[RegR]

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.

Agree, the future airlifter needs to be future proofed and the C130 is at it's limit already in terms of growth, as you say barely lifts a current NZLAV any usable distance (LAV6.0 would be a good idea of potential upgrade, weights etc) and is a no go for NH90, arguably our 2 priority short notice heavy lift considerations and as Ngati has said even though a rarity still a vital enabler when it is required therefore up there on the task to do check list.

I think now A400 is our best bet but still has issues (technical and ironically availability timeframe) but can still lift NZLAV and NH90 and is in between the C130 and C17 so not limited for those rare tasks and also not overkill for those daily tasks, somewhat a usable median. We would still need a smaller C295 type to take up the slack from the inevitable downsized fleet and to also cover those smaller loads already identified to be inefficient for even current C130. We have abit of time thanks to the SLEP but considering how long these projects take from planning to operational readiness we should be seriously laying some groundwork now.

Time to commit some serious funding and bite the bullet especially since the MPAs and ANZACs are following close behind and requiring just as much consideration.

 

[t68]

You cannot physically fit a NH90 into a C130.

I'll quote a goverment source,

Is the NH90 compatible with other Defence Equipment?
The NH90 can carry up to 12 fully equipped soldiers or up to 19 lightly equipped passengers and lift an Army Light Operational Vehicle. Up to four NH90S will be able to be transported aboard the new Navy, Multi Role Vessel. The NH90 can be deployed by C130 Hercules aircraft, or self-deploy to Australia and most of the Pacific Islands. *

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/NH90FAQ31July.doc
If they are wrong I guess you can always ask the Beehive to adjust the infomation accordingly

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.

I keep an active eye on this thread, but I have to see someone with a source on RNZAf requirments for the future airlifter only heresy and opinions. I will also say I havnt said anyone is wrong just to keep an open mind when shaking the money tree for equipment

Project Protector was instituted by a different govt with a different security and defence outlook and philosophy.

And this come back to the above when it comes to the money tree, if defence can get buy with a cheaper piece of equipment and you can't shake the money tree enough guess what they are going to do

 

[ngatimozart]

I'll quote a goverment source,
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/NH90FAQ31July.doc
If they are wrong I guess you can always ask the Beehive to adjust the infomation accordingly

There are far more authorative sources than that easily found, so I suggest you find them. You have been around here long enough to know better than to present fluff like that.

I keep an active eye on this thread, but I have to see someone with a source on RNZAf requirments for the future airlifter only heresy and opinions. I will also say I havnt said anyone is wrong just to keep an open mind when shaking the money tree for equipment

Well then why haven't you followed up on plentiful references and resources that have been linked to in the thread?

And this come back to the above when it comes to the money tree, if defence can get buy with a cheaper piece of equipment and you can't shake the money tree enough guess what they are going to do

Again most, if not all, of the answers are in the thread or the other kiwi threads with references and links to resources somewhere along the way. It's not up to us to do your research for you and again you have been around here long enough to know better. If I and others have found the time to find and read the appropriate references then their is no reason why you can't. You are getting close to trolling and I don't have the time nor inclination to attempt to continually attempt to reeducate you.

 

[swerve]

If Kawasaki sorts out the problems with the C-2, that could be an alternative.

 

[Todjaeger]

I keep an active eye on this thread, but I have to see someone with a source on RNZAf requirments for the future airlifter only heresy and opinions. I will also say I havnt said anyone is wrong just to keep an open mind when shaking the money tree for equipment

I think you meant hearsay, not heresy. Quite a difference in meaning between the two.

As for someone here having a source on the RNZAF airlift requirements... Until the review of the Future Air Mobility project is released (which was supposed to be sometime in 2015, which is almost over...) then it is largely a matter of opinion and guesswork.

There are a few things which are known however. One being that the current air transport fleet has in recent years proven not up to meeting tasks assigned to the NZDF by Gov't, upon occasion. Another is that at least some of the future airlift has to have strategic range while transporting a useful load. Something that the USAF and RAAF (and I forget but suspect the RNZAF as well) have learned is that most loads being airlifted are 'tactical' loads, being smaller in size and weight than a fully loaded C-130. With that in mind, not every airlifter in NZ service needs to be large and with a heavy lift capacity, otherwise many, perhaps even most missions, would be flown by large and largely empty aircraft, resulting in cost inefficiencies for many airlift missions.

Part of what the FAM review was to accomplish, was determine what sort of range and load numbers the RNZAF needed for various missions, and how often those missions occurred.

IMO the RNZAF needs to adopt either a three tier, or four tier system for future fixed wing air transport. The lowest tier would be small multi-engine aircraft for liaison and personnel movement, but could also be used for MEPT and some local MPS (a la Beech King Air 350 or similar aircraft). Moving up from there would be the tactical airlift component, which could be either a single tier, or two tiers, depending on whether or not having both light and medium tactical airlift was deemed worthwhile. This tier (or these tiers) could be filled by aircraft like the CN-235, C-27J, C-295, or even C-130J. It would depend on the number of aircraft needed, their respective costs (both acquisition, as well as maintenance and operations) as well as the cargo size/weight and airlift distance requirements. The 'top' tier if you will, would be the strategic and heavy lift aircraft, which IMO should be something in the A400M or C-17 class. It could potentially be another commercial airliner of course, but I believe doing so (again) would be a mistake, given the potential service needs and aircraft limitations, plus the potential availability as needed to have chartered commercial aviation cover some common airlift needs.

 

[John Fedup]

A high risk alternative for strategic/heavy lift could be a "westernized" AN-124 assuming Antonov finds a partner to help develop this new version.

 

[ngatimozart]

If Kawasaki sorts out the problems with the C-2, that could be an alternative.

In the short term I doubt it because this govt has become risk adverse in it's defence procurement in that it prefers equipment to be mature and in service. I also feel that unless the Japanese can effect substantial export orders with it, in NZ service it would be an orphan aircraft. However, having said that, with a 37 tonne payload it could be a cheaper option to the A400 if Kawasaki were to sort the issues out and market it aggressively.

 

[t68]

Having looked deeper into the NH90 lift saga, it is indeed a capability requirement for RNZAF for NH90 to be transportable by C130 as illustrated by the major projects report of 2011document*

"Quickly deployable by either C-130 Hercules or self deploying to Australia or the South Pacific"

"The initial focus will be on self-ferry, HMNZS Canterbury, allied strategic airlift (eg ADF C- 17), civil airlift charter eg Antonov. To date, the Antonov is the only aircraft cleared for airlifting the NH90."

Then I decided to look into ADF requirement for MRH under the*Mission requirements in the Operational Concept Document and came across this,

"Must be transportable in a Hercules C-130 transport aircraft"

And the accompanying comment

"*C-130 transportation would require significant disassembly that is likely to require Deeper Maintenance support."

So the end result is yes NH90 can be transport via C130 but with the availability of larger assets which reduce the amount of disassembly it's more prudent to lift via the larger aircraft.

 

[MrConservative]

If Kawasaki sorts out the problems with the C-2, that could be an alternative.

There are a number of problems including the whole project being cash starved, but this was one which was explained to me earlier this year.

Because the C-2 was originally destined for a domestic Japanese customer, the JASDF, it was not designed from the outset when the design stage began in 2001 with a view to attracting exports sales in mind. This is a looming issue, as the aircraft will need strict US or EU airworthiness certification to attract potential international military buyers in the west.

The costly task of retrospectively gaining this necessary airworthiness certification is an expensive hurdle that drives up the true procurement cost of the aircraft to a point where it may be very costly. This is due to the considerable amount of unique components that have been integrated into the design that will need further testing.

 

[swerve]

A high risk alternative for strategic/heavy lift could be a "westernized" AN-124 assuming Antonov finds a partner to help develop this new version.

First, it'd have to be developed & tested. Then there'd need to be other customers - & significant ones - because there's no chance that NZ would buy it unless there was a good user base.

At least 10 years before it could be a possibility worth looking at, even if it kicks off now. And then there's the small matter of it almost certainly being too big for the RNZAF.

 

[MrConservative]

IMO the RNZAF needs to adopt either a three tier, or four tier system for future fixed wing air transport. The lowest tier would be small multi-engine aircraft for liaison and personnel movement, but could also be used for MEPT and some local MPS (a la Beech King Air 350 or similar aircraft). Moving up from there would be the tactical airlift component, which could be either a single tier, or two tiers, depending on whether or not having both light and medium tactical airlift was deemed worthwhile. This tier (or these tiers) could be filled by aircraft like the CN-235, C-27J, C-295, or even C-130J. It would depend on the number of aircraft needed, their respective costs (both acquisition, as well as maintenance and operations) as well as the cargo size/weight and airlift distance requirements. The 'top' tier if you will, would be the strategic and heavy lift aircraft, which IMO should be something in the A400M or C-17 class. It could potentially be another commercial airliner of course, but I believe doing so (again) would be a mistake, given the potential service needs and aircraft limitations, plus the potential availability as needed to have chartered commercial aviation cover some common airlift needs.

My take on the tiered approach over the next decade +

The last whitetail supplemented with an ex reserve stock C-17A in good nick that has been through Blocks 13-17 upgrades maybe would be a very good start. Four C-130J's to follow in the medium role and later on a number of the impressive MV-22 which we will hopefully be in the design/construction stages of MRASS to replace the CY that we can deploy them on. The MV-22 makes a lot of sense in the NZ context IMO. It is a 21st century solution. Of course we would need a MRASS for it to really unleash its full potential.

 

[KiwiRob]

A high risk alternative for strategic/heavy lift could be a "westernized" AN-124 assuming Antonov finds a partner to help develop this new version.

How is that going to happen, United Aircraft Corporation own half the IP and Russian companies also produce a lot of the components, the AN-124 is a dead duck, Ukraine won't be able to build them and I doubt UAC could either.

 

[John Fedup]

How is that going to happen, United Aircraft Corporation own half the IP and Russian companies also produce a lot of the components, the AN-124 is a dead duck, Ukraine won't be able to build them and I doubt UAC could either.

It is because of the Russian components that Antonov needs to source Western companies for potential sourcing and partnering. Their relationship with Russia is pretty much a deadend now.

 

[John Fedup]

First, it'd have to be developed & tested. Then there'd need to be other customers - & significant ones - because there's no chance that NZ would buy it unless there was a good user base.

At least 10 years before it could be a possibility worth looking at, even if it kicks off now. And then there's the small matter of it almost certainly being too big for the RNZAF.

Considering how often AN-124s have been leased by the West, I think there is a potential for new users assuming a partner could be found to help out with the development. Your 10 year timeframe is likely. As for being too big, I guess that depends on the price. Could a westernized AN-124 be produced for the same price or fairly close to that of the last C-17 produced? If so, it would be an interesting option for some but probably not NZ due to its more immediate need.

 

[Cadredave]

Considering how often AN-124s have been leased by the West, I think there is a potential for new users assuming a partner could be found to help out with the development. Your 10 year timeframe is likely. As for being too big, I guess that depends on the price. Could a westernized AN-124 be produced for the same price or fairly close to that of the last C-17 produced? If so, it would be an interesting option for some but probably not NZ due to its more immediate need.

NZDF is far to conservative to go for an option like the AN-124, NZDF would tap into another countries order to even consider this aircraft ie RAF, RAAF, or RCAF plus the purchase price is not the deal breaker its the 40+ years of support can they even guarantee that Logistical back up?. Its a capable aircraft no doubt just not for RNZAF imo.

CD

 

[t68]

I think you meant hearsay, not heresy. Quite a difference in meaning between the two.

As for someone here having a source on the RNZAF airlift requirements... Until the review of the Future Air Mobility project is released (which was supposed to be sometime in 2015, which is almost over...) then it is largely a matter of opinion and guesswork.

There are a few things which are known however. One being that the current air transport fleet has in recent years proven not up to meeting tasks assigned to the NZDF by Gov't, upon occasion. Another is that at least some of the future airlift has to have strategic range while transporting a useful load. Something that the USAF and RAAF (and I forget but suspect the RNZAF as well) have learned is that most loads being airlifted are 'tactical' loads, being smaller in size and weight than a fully loaded C-130. With that in mind, not every airlifter in NZ service needs to be large and with a heavy lift capacity, otherwise many, perhaps even most missions, would be flown by large and largely empty aircraft, resulting in cost inefficiencies for many airlift missions.

Part of what the FAM review was to accomplish, was determine what sort of range and load numbers the RNZAF needed for various missions, and how often those missions occurred.

IMO the RNZAF needs to adopt either a three tier, or four tier system for future fixed wing air transport. The lowest tier would be small multi-engine aircraft for liaison and personnel movement, but could also be used for MEPT and some local MPS (a la Beech King Air 350 or similar aircraft). Moving up from there would be the tactical airlift component, which could be either a single tier, or two tiers, depending on whether or not having both light and medium tactical airlift was deemed worthwhile. This tier (or these tiers) could be filled by aircraft like the CN-235, C-27J, C-295, or even C-130J. It would depend on the number of aircraft needed, their respective costs (both acquisition, as well as maintenance and operations) as well as the cargo size/weight and airlift distance requirements. The 'top' tier if you will, would be the strategic and heavy lift aircraft, which IMO should be something in the A400M or C-17 class. It could potentially be another commercial airliner of course, but I believe doing so (again) would be a mistake, given the potential service needs and aircraft limitations, plus the potential availability as needed to have chartered commercial aviation cover some common airlift needs.

Thanks tod very well articulated and presented, i just guess I am not very well able to express my thought very well in this forum, but unfortunatly some like to talk down at other like they are the school principle and they are scoulding a naughty school boy

 

[ngatimozart]

Considering how often AN-124s have been leased by the West, I think there is a potential for new users assuming a partner could be found to help out with the development. Your 10 year timeframe is likely. As for being too big, I guess that depends on the price. Could a westernized AN-124 be produced for the same price or fairly close to that of the last C-17 produced? If so, it would be an interesting option for some but probably not NZ due to its more immediate need.

CD states quite correctly the current govt view and I'd add that it's the size more than anything else. It would be difficult to justify the need for an aircraft that can lift 100 - 150 tonnes and require significant modifications to an existing RNZAF base, in support services and infrastructure including significant runway extensions and reconstruction compared to the C17 lifting 77 tonnes, requiring only limited infrastructure modifications. We just don't have the CONOPS to support a requirement for an aircraft the size of the AN124.