I think that the selection of the tactical replacement will define what the strategic replacement will be and we should know this in a 18 month time frame, plus or minus. While I agree with you that both the A400 and the C2 will cover this role completely, however the price of the KC390 is very compelling. If this is the case and they go down that road, I think they will need to go for the C2/A400 in the place of the KC46. While the P8 does look the front runner for the FASC,I found that when reading the FASC criteria you recently posted Mr C that the P1 also fitted this criteria as written, very well so price could be a factor here as well. The question maybe and I will emphasize the maybe, is that does the airforce want the extra's that the P8 brings if it costs more or they cannot make good use of them because of our armed forces size and level and numbers of equipment's that can communicate with the P8's systems.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
Jeez come on for gawds sake. This is getting monotonous. We have posted enough links and material regarding the P8 and it's capabilities for even a blind man with no hearing or tactile sense to understand. The P8 and the KHI P1 are different animals and at the end of the day it is what the NZG want and they have stated that the airborne surveillance capability is a national strategic asset. The NZG have already signaled the way they are going with Boeing getting the P3K2 underwater systems contract to install their underwater systems into the aircraft and that my son is very similar to that installed in the P8. Times have changed in NZ defence acquisitions especially over the last two or three years with completely new methodologies, theories, systems, processes and a greater understanding by the pollies, Treasury and Defence about defence procurement from project initiation through to disposal of platforms at the end of their service life. There has been a revolution in military affairs since the mid 1990s and it has changed many aspects of how defence forces deploy and use the platforms and capabilities that they have. You need to understand that because that because it now informs everything from strategy through to acquisition.
The KC-390 is going to have to offer more than being the just the cheapest if it is going to have to meet the set RFI requirements or it will not survive the cut following the detailed business case stage and be one of the preferred solutions. It will have to meet all of the options. Frankly, why would they bother with a mixed fleet as you suggested if indeed the C2 and the A400M can do both tactical and strategic airlift roles and meet the RFI specs. A single fleet would likely be more cost effective in those circumstances.
And that is all it is a maybe. It is not what the airforce wants but what the government wants via the DWP and delivered via the DCP that matters. And of course there is also the possibility that they may have an unmanned solution considered as indicated on page 52 of the DCP.
I've been shying away from any discussion about the FAMC & FASC as it's just getting all too hard!:shudder
Can I for a second look away from which platforms meet what requirements and look at the requirements themselves? How do others interpret the FAMC requirements?
I'm working on the assumption that we should read 'essential' capabilities as just that, whereas 'desirable' ones will be more likely than not trade-able points of difference - quite possibly in many cases even 'fitted for but without' - that will merely help swing the final decision(s). The latter point being that I don't think we should assume we'll get AAR; enhanced payload/range (NH90); nor even Antartic Ops with no point of no return - none of these are classed as 'essentials' for either FAMC component given the lists summarised in recent posts.
It's merely a gut feel but with the mandate already set at 'like for like' it sounds to me like pollies have already set boundaries around what to ask for, pity it also likely means having a larger fleet has been kiboshed (probably c'os they've been told to be grateful for a new tanker that can do some aspects of the Antartic Ops).
Wondering if the broad description 'Antartic Ops' (being only 'desirable' for either FAMC component according to the list above) even sets a requirement of having no point of no return? Or it watered down to the ability to now simply reach the ice!?!
The FAMC strategic component appears to only need to be an airliner type to meet essential req's....
Don;t even get me started on FASC.:wah
The plan is apparently to get a new lease on KingAirs later this year but numbers and whether it's going to be rollover of existing a/c or newer (B350 etc) t.b.c.Agree but the B350 will be more than 4 because of the AWOT (Air Warfare Officer / Operator) Training role and MarSurv (a.k.a., SeaSpy
As has been pointed out this is to be a 7 year contract (ie: to late 2024) with the a/c having the ability to host some form of sensors - one assumes for MarSurv/SAR taskings (on top of already known training req's).
Light bulb moment!?!....smells to me suspiciously like a plan to look at a KingAir replacement with MarSurv/SAR capability at the time the P3's pension out... perhaps the first real indication that a smaller manned type is their longer term thinking for that 'lighter' aspect of current P3 Ops... ie: no drones = 2 tier fleet.
It almost seems like the P8 has been turned into the sacred cow never to be questioned or looked at with any thing but rose tinted glasses. It is only a piece of technology, a very good piece of technology yes, but not a god. The other point I would make is that I made it very clear TWICE with the word MAYBE and asked the question could we properly use the Technology, a question that as far as I know has not been answered.
. While a lot of people seem to think that the RMA is unique it is not, there have been RMA's all through history whenever there has been a jump in technology. Why do you think there was such bloodshed in the first world war. Because of an RMA. The coming together of Technologies at the same time. The modern artillery, machine guns, mechanical transport, and aircraft and until the leaders knew how operate in the new environment there was slaughter you can track these evens throughout history, the change now is that it has been given a name.
The counterpoint is that a number of the requirements are listed on both the strategic and tactical components of the RFI means that through the FAMC they want as many of these capabilities one way or the other on the selected platform(s) possibly all.I've been shying away from any discussion about the FAMC & FASC as it's just getting all too hard!:shudder
Can I for a second look away from which platforms meet what requirements and look at the requirements themselves? How do others interpret the FAMC requirements?
I'm working on the assumption that we should read 'essential' capabilities as just that, whereas 'desirable' ones will be more likely than not trade-able points of difference - quite possibly in many cases even 'fitted for but without' - that will merely help swing the final decision(s). The latter point being that I don't think we should assume we'll get AAR; enhanced payload/range (NH90); nor even Antartic Ops with no point of no return - none of these are classed as 'essentials' for either FAMC component given the lists summarised in recent posts.
It's merely a gut feel but with the mandate already set at 'like for like' it sounds to me like pollies have already set boundaries around what to ask for, pity it also likely means having a larger fleet has been kiboshed (probably c'os they've been told to be grateful for a new tanker that can do some aspects of the Antartic Ops).
Wondering if the broad description 'Antartic Ops' (being only 'desirable' for either FAMC component according to the list above) even sets a requirement of having no point of no return? Or it watered down to the ability to now simply reach the ice!?!
The FAMC strategic component appears to only need to be an airliner type to meet essential req's....
Don;t even get me started on FASC.:wah
Sorry Rob but NG is only giving things perspective and correcting inaccuracies or wrong assumptions. All his commentary has been factually based and drawn upon referenced material such as the RFI and DWP or DCP. Sure the P-8A can be questioned just like all other platforms. However NG is correct in his judgement over the many points that he has made on this topic that the P-8 answers far more questions than raises them within NZ, its future requirements, its ConOps, its defence partnerships and its capabilities - and lastly the real politique at a G2G level.
Last edited:
Yep fair point. Certainly requires a fine line to be walked to try & extract as many 'desirables' as possible in the final fleet mix, hopefully the project team is up to that particular challenge!
The project will dictate one of the RNZAF's core capabilities for the next 3-4 decades, but it seems the mandate for 'like for like' already puts blinkers on the project. I'd have hoped for a fleet of 9-10 aircraft to suggest a real appreciation for having learnt the lessons of the past (ie: u/s 40 SQN a/c all too often).
The extra frames would allow RNZAF to then pick up the pace a little eg: 2 tactical a/c on overeas exercises etc, but also more importantly lower hours & stress on frames which will start to tell mid-late life.
I think that the current mandate has been made in the light of the 2014 DMRR which of course hasn't taken into account the $20 billion of CAPEX gained in the 2016 Budget. The next DMRR is due next year (2018) and that should show a more substantial pathway with the new CAPEX monies. The ACTC (Air Crew Training Capability) is only for 7 years from this year so that ties in with the FAMC IOC and FASC possible IOC. Until the next DWP, DCP, the FAMC and FASC RFTs are released we don't really know what they are thinking, so we can only surmise.
Whilst I've jumped on Rob c for repeating tired arguments ad nauseum, I haven't discounted the possibility of the KHI C2 and / or P1 being bolters. At the present point in time logic and rational argument, based upon known data, suggest that the P8 and the A400M are the front runners.
Last edited:
I agree. It should be really 6 tacticals and 3 strategic as the changing strategic situation is going to warrant it. Hopefully that may be addressed at some post 2020 mid point rebalancing and a further one of each would be picked up within the next decade. There has been a history of 2nd round pick ups e.g P-3B, C-130H, UH-1, SH-2G, A-4G, even the Wasp got more airframes eventually. Of course ordering 2 + 5 with options on each may be a lesson learnt.
What needs to be appreciated about the P-8A is that its a “fifth-generation” participant as it networks into the architecture that distributes engagement options across a distributed force. In someways the benefit of the P-8 is not just at a platform centric level - it is essentially an entre into a deeper and more secure capability through “cross-domain solutions” alongside the ADF whom we work with and will continue to work with.
Last edited:
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
MrC I have come to realize that your inside knowledge of the process is very strong and that you receive information that the rest of us do not but I truly hope that your inclination towards the A400 isn't correct. This aircraft seems to be still too immature. Maybe in time it will be what was intended of it but in the short term it still doesn't work right by many accounts. If a larger aircraft than the C130 meets more of the boxes in the requirements then the C2 is the better choice with its mature systems and support from major established suppliers of components and technology, ie Boeing, General Electric and Honeywell.
With its very strong ties to Boeing would not a P8, C2 and KC46 mix be more likely over the Euro A400 and its separate technology line?
With its very strong ties to Boeing would not a P8, C2 and KC46 mix be more likely over the Euro A400 and its separate technology line?
Very well put Mr C in a concise way, While I may not fully agree with your selections I do agree that the FAMC requirements would need to be achieved one way or another.
Sorry I went a little over the top there and you are right in saying that the P8 answers far more questions than raises them in regard to NZ. I think that it would be an excellent buy for the RNZAF. But that in it self has niggled at the back of my mind and raised the question, why if the RNZAF and the Pollies wanted all that the P8 brings to the table, did they not ask for it in the RFI. If they wanted it, it should have been in the RFI to allow all manufacturers to present a viable option. Or is my thinking here just getting a little too complex?
I'll add an Oz perspective here as it is relevant to this particular discussion
one of the things that small militaries consider is bang for buck - we never ever in recent times just look at the acquisition of the platform in isolation.
in the case of the P8, it is not only a singularly impressive platform, but like most things that happens when we deal with the americans (and I'm not suggesting that this is the actual case) we get an extraordinary amount of extra support from the US services involved - way beyond the normal FMS acquisition process. In Australias case we've seen this with C17 and the P8. The USN and USAF provide leverage and support beyond the congressional hurdles that can exist
outside of USAF and USN support (and USN support in this case) the US military provide strong support with other capabilities that are associated with the artifact but don't necessarily come with that artifact (am being deliberately oblique here)
in a lot of cases they are support elements that other contenders have no capacity to meet. sure they may have a technically competitive platform but it may well be an orphan at the broader capability view
the other thing is that one needs to consider P8 as being a whole lot more than whats touted as reqs in the govt specs. It is in a lot of ways, a passenger jet looking plane that is also a flying bearer. The only other aircraft that can compete with it in this role are literally the JSF and USAF/USN AEW-ISR artifacts
one of the things that small militaries consider is bang for buck - we never ever in recent times just look at the acquisition of the platform in isolation.
in the case of the P8, it is not only a singularly impressive platform, but like most things that happens when we deal with the americans (and I'm not suggesting that this is the actual case) we get an extraordinary amount of extra support from the US services involved - way beyond the normal FMS acquisition process. In Australias case we've seen this with C17 and the P8. The USN and USAF provide leverage and support beyond the congressional hurdles that can exist
outside of USAF and USN support (and USN support in this case) the US military provide strong support with other capabilities that are associated with the artifact but don't necessarily come with that artifact (am being deliberately oblique here)
in a lot of cases they are support elements that other contenders have no capacity to meet. sure they may have a technically competitive platform but it may well be an orphan at the broader capability view
the other thing is that one needs to consider P8 as being a whole lot more than whats touted as reqs in the govt specs. It is in a lot of ways, a passenger jet looking plane that is also a flying bearer. The only other aircraft that can compete with it in this role are literally the JSF and USAF/USN AEW-ISR artifacts
Firstly, I would park notions of having inside knowledge because that is not the case Nova. Knowledge yes, but not inside knowledge. There is clear distinction.
Both the C-2 and the A400M are maturing platforms, and frankly I am happy that they are both being considered up to this point. Both have developmental pathways to complete until they are considered able to get to the IOC stage of the RNZAF.
For example there were de-lamination issues with the C-2 surrounding it using KMS6115 a composite material enabling the manufacture of honeycomb sandwich parts such as the horizontal/vertical tails, flaps, engine nacelle, landing gear door, cargo and winglets without using an adhesive. I know that not because of inside knowledge I just happened to see a testing demonstration by engineers at Gifu University who were helping to solve it as part of business outreach day.
Like the A400M the C-2 has a lot of very new stuff as well as COTS stuff. But, its hiccups do not hit the media anything like the gremlins with the A400M - much like the JSF and P-8A in that it has its 'paid' detractors - but hey that is part of the PR game. I like the C-2 and I would guess that I would be one of the very few who post here who have actually seen it fly, seen it up close, know people who work for suppliers. Heart for what it matters would like to see it happen, but at this stage my head tell me that unless KHI hook up with an established US industry player like what Embraer has done with Boeing then it is more difficult for them. It is really the support side that has to be proven and be stable over the next 30 years.
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
I think that comes down to the programs themselves, wheras the A400M is multi- national it has a lot of fingers in the pie, whereas the C2 is a national program of a sole source supply from the beginning and with a change of circumstance it is now being marketed international with the Japanese the only vested interest In the aircraft.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
When one looks at the KHI website the relationship exists with both Boeing And Embraer. I understand the need for a wider relationship and would assume that the Japanese understand the benefits that a support partnership with the likes of Boeing would offer. Given the very strong ties that exist between US companies and KHI I believe that that alone makes a C2 purchase more viable than a purchase from Airbus.
A look at allied experience with Euro military equipment shows a trend that should not be overlooked. The Tiger in Australia. ERYX and ADATS missile systems along with Iveco trucks here in Canada. How many countries used Transalls or Atlantics? Time and again American systems have offered longevity due to support from the US military establishment. Although I am a fan of many Euro systems such as C295W, Canadian engines, an A400 purchase by NZ would not provide the cost value that I believe would come from a C2 or KC390 purchase.
Similar to Canada's recent concern for its arctic area I am skeptical of the need to justify capabilities of military aircraft with a view to Antarctica support. Going back to Gibbo's comments regarding the essential capabilities of the next transport aircraft the 50% increase in payload that the KC390 offers over the existing legacy Hercules would be a huge capability increase on a one for one basis.
With respect to the potential for more than four B200 replacements I also hope that more are acquired to allow greater capacity. Time will tell.
A look at allied experience with Euro military equipment shows a trend that should not be overlooked. The Tiger in Australia. ERYX and ADATS missile systems along with Iveco trucks here in Canada. How many countries used Transalls or Atlantics? Time and again American systems have offered longevity due to support from the US military establishment. Although I am a fan of many Euro systems such as C295W, Canadian engines, an A400 purchase by NZ would not provide the cost value that I believe would come from a C2 or KC390 purchase.
Similar to Canada's recent concern for its arctic area I am skeptical of the need to justify capabilities of military aircraft with a view to Antarctica support. Going back to Gibbo's comments regarding the essential capabilities of the next transport aircraft the 50% increase in payload that the KC390 offers over the existing legacy Hercules would be a huge capability increase on a one for one basis.
With respect to the potential for more than four B200 replacements I also hope that more are acquired to allow greater capacity. Time will tell.
Rob two reasons. They have issued an RFI so they can gain an understanding from industry about what is available, what capabilities it has, costs etc. From the responses they will then drill down and refine their requirements for a RFT. Prior to a RFT being issued the MOD and NZDF build a business case which they then present to Cabinet for approval to issue a RFT. Of course Treasury has its input into the approval process.
The second reason is that whilst they can go down the path of a single source procurement it can leave the MOD, NZDF and the NZG open to accusations of favouritism, or political interference in the acquisition process and other sorts of accusations from political foes. Plus they could be taken to court by other primes because they weren't allowed to compete for the lucrative contract. So all sorts of issues. Mr C is much more of an authority than I on the political side of this.