Royal New Zealand Air Force

[t68]

With so few airframes RNZAF has to be risk adverse, the initial teething problems with the NH-90 fleet will impact some of these decisions. Also logistics play its part as well until KC-390 is firmly entrenched within a preferred 5 eyes nation or supported within NATO I cant see them taking the risked when there is a proven option available.

 

[MrConservative]

The use of RPAS for surveillance is a different story because they are not carrying offensive weapons and if they are sold to the public as being used for long term surveillance of the fisheries, maritime conservation areas, maritime traffic and HADR use, then there shouldn't be any major political backlash apart from the usual left wing suspects.

Concerning the MQ-4C Triton, whilst it would, imho, be the ideal candidate, costs will have a significant part to play. However there is the economic side of the equation that whilst the acquisition cost is high, its whole term of life costs could be significantly lower than using a manned platform to undertake the same role. Also it has significant endurance. Eventually the NZG will go down the path of a long endurance maritime RPAS, but when or what with is open to conjecture.

GA-ASI's Sea Guardian has been in the mix as an eventual component for FASC. P-8 operator India have it on their pathway and are now under Trump are able to get access to MCTR Category 1 equipment.

U.S. Offers GA-ASI Sea Guardian UAS to India

The U.S. Navy has since been developing cooperative concepts of operations (CONOPS) between the Triton and its Boeing P-8 maritime patrol aircraft (MPA). India has also acquired the P-8, and the Sea Guardian UAS will be similarly complementary to that fleet, an Indian naval official told AIN.

 

[MrConservative]

With so few airframes RNZAF has to be risk adverse, the initial teething problems with the NH-90 fleet will impact some of these decisions. Also logistics play its part as well until KC-390 is firmly entrenched within a preferred 5 eyes nation or supported within NATO I cant see them taking the risked when there is a proven option available.

I agree. I have never seriously considered the KC-390 for the RNZAF nor have I heard any great enthusiasm other than from the public relations industry. It offers nothing that the C-130J offers and lacks the adaptability of the C-130J for more money. The J has got to the point whereby a whole range of capability options can be picked and mixed for each customer - the KC-390 is years away from being able to offer that. And lets be blunt here - I can never see them holding a candle to the R&D might and innovation of the US giants nor being able to have the direct level of interoperability with US/FYVES/NATO partners. Take SABIR for example - a new capability not offered or ever unlikely to be offered by anyone else for quite some time.

The only thing stopping the C-130J for the tactical component of FAMC is the fact that it cannot fly an NH-90 in it other than in pieces. In the FAMC that was only ever a desirable and not an essential. Other than non achieving that one benchmark the J SOF ticks more boxes. I look at the C-130J SOF and it seems as if it was tailored by LM for the NZDF after reading both the FASC and the FAMC. Here is another clue - it would have been former CAS and NZDF Washington Head AVM Linnott reading the RFI docs for LM here in NZ - because that is his job and why LM engaged him. Thus a bit more institutional horse power within Defence than a public relations company hawking wares.

Furthermore it is highly likely that Boeing and the Brazilian government will ring-fence Embraer defence division out of the Boeing deal. Boeing are after the commercial side of the business. So there is no advantage on that front.

 

[Rob c]

I agree. I have never seriously considered the KC-390 for the RNZAF nor have I heard any great enthusiasm other than from the public relations industry. It offers nothing that the C-130J offers and lacks the adaptability of the C-130J for more money. The J has got to the point whereby a whole range of capability options can be picked and mixed for each customer - the KC-390 is years away from being able to offer that. And lets be blunt here - I can never see them holding a candle to the R&D might and innovation of the US giants nor being able to have the direct level of interoperability with US/FYVES/NATO partners. Take SABIR for example - a new capability not offered or ever unlikely to be offered by anyone else for quite some time.

The only thing stopping the C-130J for the tactical component of FAMC is the fact that it cannot fly an NH-90 in it other than in pieces. In the FAMC that was only ever a desirable and not an essential. Other than non achieving that one benchmark the J SOF ticks more boxes. I look at the C-130J SOF and it seems as if it was tailored by LM for the NZDF after reading both the FASC and the FAMC. Here is another clue - it would have been former CAS and NZDF Washington Head AVM Linnott reading the RFI docs for LM here in NZ - because that is his job and why LM engaged him. Thus a bit more institutional horse power within Defence than a public relations company hawking wares.

Furthermore it is highly likely that Boeing and the Brazilian government will ring-fence Embraer defence division out of the Boeing deal. Boeing are after the commercial side of the business. So there is no advantage on that front.

While I like the C2 overall I don't think the KC 390 is out of it by a long shot. The 30% improvement in payload and a large improvement in range payload over the C 130 ( It can carry a LAV over twice as far) are significant. It is also blessed with modern control systems (fly by wire ) which will make it easy to up date in the future . While the C130 J SOF does do a lot of additional things, these are not asked for and it has an archaic control system which will be difficult to update in the future. Based on year by year figures that I could find the C 130 J appears to be more expensive than the KC 390. I have not yet found any reference to congressional approval being asked for, for the purchase of the C 130 and this is getting to be very late in the process. It should be remembered that Embraer is the worlds third biggest aircraft manufacturer and has a very good reputation. While I would like to see the KHI C 2 getting the contract followed by the A 400, overall cost could see the KC 390 get the nod.

 

[ngatimozart]

While I like the C2 overall I don't think the KC 390 is out of it by a long shot. The 30% improvement in payload and a large improvement in range payload over the C 130 ( It can carry a LAV over twice as far) are significant. It is also blessed with modern control systems (fly by wire ) which will make it easy to up date in the future . While the C130 J SOF does do a lot of additional things, these are not asked for and it has an archaic control system which will be difficult to update in the future. Based on year by year figures that I could find the C 130 J appears to be more expensive than the KC 390. I have not yet found any reference to congressional approval being asked for, for the purchase of the C 130 and this is getting to be very late in the process. It should be remembered that Embraer is the worlds third biggest aircraft manufacturer and has a very good reputation. While I would like to see the KHI C 2 getting the contract followed by the A 400, overall cost could see the KC 390 get the nod.

I agree about the time constraints regarding the C-130H(NZ) replacement. I don't think that the previous govt had it progressed to Cabinet level because Cabinet would have to approve any DSCA request. I would hazard the guess that the delay was for political reasons rather than procedural reasons in the MOD. They'd had plenty of time to process and submit any DCSA request. They had a habit of delaying defence procurements for purely political reasons. Whether or not this new govt will take affirmative action on this will be a wait and see option on our part.

What I think would be the ideal solution would be a 4 tier FAMC solution with the 4th tier being the KingAirs, 3rd KC-390 / C-130J, 2nd tier C-2 / A400 and the first tier being B767 multirole aircraft similar to the current B757 configuration. I think that such a mix has a greater chance under this govt than under the previous govt. The B757, NH 90, and A109 capabilities were acquired by the Clark Labour govt. So even Clark was not adverse to updating NZDF air mobility. However the C-130J acquisition with the RAAF being denied was a purely political stance by Clark because of her anti-American and anti-Australian prejudices, especially in the first term of that govt.

The current PM is a Clark acolyte, as is the Finance minister, so this govt may follow a similar defence line to the Clark govt of 1999 - 2008. That's why I am not discounting a KC-390 acquisition. This is why I no longer think that the C-130J or A400 are shoe ins.

 

[Gibbo]

I agree about the time constraints regarding the C-130H(NZ) replacement. I don't think that the previous govt had it progressed to Cabinet level because Cabinet would have to approve any DSCA request. I would hazard the guess that the delay was for political reasons rather than procedural reasons in the MOD. They'd had plenty of time to process and submit any DCSA request. They had a habit of delaying defence procurements for purely political reasons. Whether or not this new govt will take affirmative action on this will be a wait and see option on our part.

What I think would be the ideal solution would be a 4 tier FAMC solution with the 4th tier being the KingAirs, 3rd KC-390 / C-130J, 2nd tier C-2 / A400 and the first tier being B767 multirole aircraft similar to the current B757 configuration. I think that such a mix has a greater chance under this govt than under the previous govt. The B757, NH 90, and A109 capabilities were acquired by the Clark Labour govt. So even Clark was not adverse to updating NZDF air mobility. However the C-130J acquisition with the RAAF being denied was a purely political stance by Clark because of her anti-American and anti-Australian prejudices, especially in the first term of that govt.

The current PM is a Clark acolyte, as is the Finance minister, so this govt may follow a similar defence line to the Clark govt of 1999 - 2008. That's why I am not discounting a KC-390 acquisition. This is why I longer think that the C-130J or A400 are shoe ins.

Yes and in a personal conversation with Wayne Mapp at the time (he was then opposition defence spokesman) he was quite unimpressed with the NH-90 as a choice, most likely purely for political reasons as anything else tho! Her govt was prepared to spend $$$ but not on high-end war fighting equipment - think Project Protector for Navy as well. The situation now of course is quite different with NZ First pulling the defence strings but (largerly) Labour the purse strings!

More recently Labour had shown support for a C17 purchase.... but the cost freaked out Govt as their key plank was surpluses!

Another point to think about too is Ron Mark had (pre-election) shown interest in an Andover sized transport - my thinking has moved on & I think we should now focus on a C130/KC390 size only for the tactical FAMC component. My crystal ball is a little cloudy at the mo!

 

[MrConservative]

I don't think that the previous govt had it progressed to Cabinet level because Cabinet would have to approve any DSCA request. I would hazard the guess that the delay was for political reasons rather than procedural reasons in the MOD. They'd had plenty of time to process and submit any DCSA request. They had a habit of delaying defence procurements for purely political reasons. Whether or not this new govt will take affirmative action on this will be a wait and see option on our part.

I cannot remember the statute off hand - if in the Finance Act or Fiscal Responsibility Act or indeed if it is in the Cabinet manual but there are restraints on new government spending decisions during any pre-election period.

 

[MrConservative]

While the C130 J SOF does do a lot of additional things, these are not asked for

Quite a lot of the 130J-130SOF (remember the J-SOF is a tailored options package for the customer) capabilities and are in fact listed in the FAMC desirables. One of the key aspects of the FAMC and FASC was to demonstrate synergies with each other.

and it has an archaic control system which will be difficult to update in the future.

Wow thats a big call!

US Air Mobility Command and the continuing list of other international customers would disagree. LM were test bedding FBW 25 years ago on Herc's and Starlifters and gave the first FBW in the F-16 years ago. I understand there are some very sound reasons why they have not chosen not to apply their research. They have listened to their war-fighting customers for 60 years.

Based on year by year figures that I could find the C 130 J appears to be more expensive than the KC 390.

The one off MDE cost is not the problem. It is the WoL cost with support and training. Go to page 2 below and look at the numbers in the FY ODO ODO 2017 box. That provides a baseline MDE replacement cost of a new built C-130J. A USD$73m invoice from the manufacturer.

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2017/C-130J-USAF-PROC-FY2017.pdf

 

[Rob c]

Quite a lot of the 130J-130SOF (remember the J-SOF is a tailored options package for the customer) capabilities and are in fact listed in the FAMC desirables. One of the key aspects of the FAMC and FASC was to demonstrate synergies with each other.


Wow thats a big call!

US Air Mobility Command and the continuing list of other international customers would disagree. LM were test bedding FBW 25 years ago on Herc's and Starlifters and gave the first FBW in the F-16 years ago. I understand there are some very sound reasons why they have not chosen not to apply their research. They have listened to their war-fighting customers for 60 years.
The main reason for not giving the C 130 fly by wire or light would most likely be cost as it would involve an almost complete redesign of the aircraft. While it is possible to fit elements of such a system into an existing aircraft for test purposes that is a far cry from a fully functional operational aircraft fitment Which would require huge amounts of design time, computer programming and flight testing of all perimeters to achieve.


The one off MDE cost is not the problem. It is the WoL cost with support and training. Go to page 2 below and look at the numbers in the FY ODO ODO 2017 box. That provides a baseline MDE replacement cost of a new built C-130J. A USD$73m invoice from the manufacturer.

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2017/C-130J-USAF-PROC-FY2017.pdf

IMHO the aircraft selected has to first of all stack up as the best option as a transport aircraft for the money.

In respect of synergies the P 1 and the C 2 aren't to bad.

The reason that they will be difficult to up date is that there will be almost no other aircraft flying with mechanical/hydraulic systems when it comes time to update them, possibly around 2040, ( given the time we keep aircraft) and the central role modern automatic flight controls (complicated auto pilots) have in the control of modern aircraft.
The limited market for this type of update for mechanical/hydraulic will either make it very expensive or unavailable.

Agree that the USAF price would be cheaper, but overseas customers seem to pay more , however it is difficult to extract the aircraft cost from the program costs in these cases.
I would have thought that had the RNZAF been that interested in the C 130 that a request for congressional approval would have been submitted about the same time that the P 8 was requested.

 

[t68]

Hi Mr C

The list of acronyms and abbreviations are getting harder and harder to remember as they keep change and my early onset of craft(cant remember a fu@king thing) disease, what's FBW/ODO & MDE?

thanks in advance

 

[t68]

I remember reading in the C130 replacement that it was a desirable option for AAR, A400 seems to be making someheadway in regartds to the capability with refuelling 6 Spanish F18's

A400M refuels six F-18 fighters in one flight

 

[MrConservative]

Hi Mr C

The list of acronyms and abbreviations are getting harder and harder to remember as they keep change and my early onset of craft(cant remember a fu@king thing) disease, what's FBW/ODO & MDE?

thanks in advance

Fly by wire, other defence order and main defence equipment.

 

[MrConservative]

Agree that the USAF price would be cheaper, but overseas customers seem to pay more , however it is difficult to extract the aircraft cost from the program costs in these cases.
I would have thought that had the RNZAF been that interested in the C 130 that a request for congressional approval would have been submitted about the same time that the P 8 was requested.

The invoiced MDE cost of the aircraft is the same to all customers. These are at heart still commercial transactions and are governed by trade and arbitration laws. Lockheed is a publicly listed company and not part of the US government. For example Australia paid the same MDE price for its P-8s, Growlers, C-17's, F-35's as the DoD. Generally though, the sheer economies of scale of the US military to absorb, support and operate new defence equipment means it seems cheaper. Prices jump around year by year due to production lots. Why some countries seem to pay more is that they re buying huge commercial support, infrastructure and training packages to operate the aircraft over time.

Right now until FY 2020/21 there is sweet spot for the C-130J family due to 15-16 airframes a year being built for the US services, plus a number of of new foreign operators and existing operators going back for more. The production lot ordered late 2015 totalled 78 airframes over 4 years still with production capacity to increase that from new orders. LM has the plant capacity to knock out up to 24 new C-130J's a year - with foreign orders they are at around 19. There supplier lead times and sub-contractor lines are open. Between now and until the lot closes a new order can hook into those strong production conditions and the buyer can get a good deal. With that big production lot order in Dec 2015 there is not the line closure panic as there is with respect to the P-8A.

One of the big advantages of the C-130J family is the existing training, institutional knowledge and infrastructure that is already in place within the RNZAF. Around 60% of the upgraded C-130H(NZ) relates directly to the J according to Graeme Lintott recently in DefSec Media.

They will in other words be looking at not what things cost but where there are synergies that they can save.

 

[Rob c]

The invoiced MDE cost of the aircraft is the same to all customers. These are at heart still commercial transactions and are governed by trade and arbitration laws. Lockheed is a publicly listed company and not part of the US government. For example Australia paid the same MDE price for its P-8s, Growlers, C-17's, F-35's as the DoD. Generally though, the sheer economies of scale of the US military to absorb, support and operate new defence equipment means it seems cheaper. Prices jump around year by year due to production lots. Why some countries seem to pay more is that they re buying huge commercial support, infrastructure and training packages to operate the aircraft over time.

Right now until FY 2020/21 there is sweet spot for the C-130J family due to 15-16 airframes a year being built for the US services, plus a number of of new foreign operators and existing operators going back for more. The production lot ordered late 2015 totalled 78 airframes over 4 years still with production capacity to increase that from new orders. LM has the plant capacity to knock out up to 24 new C-130J's a year - with foreign orders they are at around 19. There supplier lead times and sub-contractor lines are open. Between now and until the lot closes a new order can hook into those strong production conditions and the buyer can get a good deal. With that big production lot order in Dec 2015 there is not the line closure panic as there is with respect to the P-8A.

One of the big advantages of the C-130J family is the existing training, institutional knowledge and infrastructure that is already in place within the RNZAF. Around 60% of the upgraded C-130H(NZ) relates directly to the J according to Graeme Lintott recently in DefSec Media.

They will in other words be looking at not what things cost but where there are synergies that they can save.

Agreed, but the question of why has there been no attempt at congressional approval still exists.. I would think that the performance as a transport aircraft would take precedence over synergies if there is a marked gap in performance.

 

[MrConservative]

Agreed, but the question of why has there been no attempt at congressional approval still exists.. I would think that the performance as a transport aircraft would take precedence over synergies if there is a marked gap in performance.

Because there has really been no hurry to be honest. If cabinet signs off on a consideration of proposal to buy C-130J's only then Congress must be formally notified within 15 calendar days before the authorization to proceed with the sale.

Yep. Proven performance as a tactical military transport in operational combat conditions and proven performance with respect to global support. No time for budget risk and experimentation.

 

[KiwiRob]

IMHO the aircraft selected has to first of all stack up as the best option as a transport aircraft for the money.

In respect of synergies the P 1 and the C 2 aren't to bad.

The reason that they will be difficult to up date is that there will be almost no other aircraft flying with mechanical/hydraulic systems when it comes time to update them, possibly around 2040, ( given the time we keep aircraft) and the central role modern automatic flight controls (complicated auto pilots) have in the control of modern aircraft.
The limited market for this type of update for mechanical/hydraulic will either make it very expensive or unavailable.

The Kawasaki P1 has bleeding edge flight control systems it's not hydralic, or even fly by wire, it's fly by light, it uses fibre optics. The C2 is fly by wire.

 

[recce.k1]

Agreed, but the question of why has there been no attempt at congressional approval still exists.. I would think that the performance as a transport aircraft would take precedence over synergies if there is a marked gap in performance.

APDR June 2017 offers some clues (pages 50-51):

https://venturaapdr.partica.online/apdr/apdr-june-2017/flipbook/

APDR speculates on page 50 (re: P-8A FMS approval 28/04/2017): "Most likely this request was to get a price point to help the project team developing its Initial Business Case for Cabinet submission".

Article then goes on (page 51) to describe the "Acquistion decisions - process and timetable". "NZ MOD capital aquisitions follow a three stage approval process with the Government".

Stage 1 - Indicative Business Case (IBC) "is presented to provide Cabinet with an early indication of the preferred way forward for high value and/or high risk investment proposals and provides the senior responsible officer with early certainty".

The article goes to say that the FASC Indicative Business Case went to cabinet in 2016 (which to me suggests the P-8A is/was the "preferred way forward" under the previous Goverment), and that the FAMC Indicative Business Case "will go to Cabinet possibly mid-2017", which I think has been discussed here by Mr C recently that because of the 2017 election last September meant that Cabinet rules (?) may have prevented the previous Goverment from progressing this until after the election outcome?

The article then talks about the Stage 2 Detailed Business Case and the Stage 3 Implementation Business Case which at the time of the June 2017 APDR article "both FAMC and FASC projects are not at this stage yet" for both.

If we look at the latest Summer 2017/18 Line of Defence magazine that was highlighted here a few days ago there are some interesting interviews with the previous Govt Defmin Mark Mitchell and the new Govt Defmin Ron Mark (presumably these interviews were conducted last Nov or Dec etc).

http://defsecmedia.co.nz/data/documents/LoD-2017-Summer-Web.pdf

Mark Mitchell (pages 20-21): "They’ve got some big decisions coming up. They've got the P-8s in March and they've got the Frigate Systems Upgrades and the heavy lift capability, which need to happen. There's a big program of investment coming up in terms of replacing equipment, upgrading equipment and investing into defence property and personnel". (I presume by heavy lift capability he is referring to the FAMC project).

Mark Mitchell then goes on to say "There are papers that should have been in front of Cabinet as a priority in the first month. The P-8 Poseidon should be in front of Cabinet right now for final approval and sign-off".

Ron Mark (pages 16-17) gives us some clues as to the new Government's thinking, some highlights:

LoD: Will the Government look to continue to implement the commitments/projects outlined in the 2016 NZ Defence White Paper and Defence Capability Plan, or is tweaking likely?

RM: As you will be aware, the new Coalition Government is working through its priorities, including those for Defence. The Labour-New Zealand First Coalition Agreement indicated a re-examination of the Defence procurement programme within the context of the 2016 Defence Capability Plan budget.

Officials are preparing to commence the review in early 2018. The terms of reference for the forthcoming review and the timeline for its completion have not yet been specified. Officials are now developing options for the conduct of the review.

Defence has well-developed processes and mechanisms to undertake such a review. The Defence Midpoint Rebalancing Review and the Defence White Paper undertook extensive assessments of capability investment options. The mechanisms employed in those reviews will enable the consideration of policy priorities, capability investment areas, and funding parameters if that is directed by Government.

I am committed to ensuring the Defence Force has the capabilities it needs to protect and advance New Zealand’s security interests. The Defence Force and New Zealand in general face the same challenges across a range of global issues as our security partners.

We will continue to invest in the equipment and capabilities needed to ensure the effectiveness of the Defence Force, to maximise the safety of our deployed men and women, and to ensure interoperability with the defence forces we work alongside overseas.

Possibly some delays then due to a review. Not good but typical when a change of Government occurs. Has the language from the new Govt changed? Originally they said the $20b CapEx was safe, is there some spin or not really?

Well at least Ron Mark acknowledges some crucial points (as per last two highlighted paras) and all I can say is at least NZF holds some key cabinet positions in the new Government (eg Defence, Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister) to push things along!

Again we Kiwis are about to see once again whether NZF will (or won't) hold true to their policy commitments and talk ...

 

[Rob c]

The above posts are very enlightening. The review process will give the C 130 a leg up if RM has anything to do with it as in previous interviews he has shown a strong preference for it.
Regarding NZ first, I would not hold my breath, it would depend on Winston's priorities.

 

[John Fedup]

I wonder if any of the tactical lift options would still be under consideration had the A400M been a raving success? More capacity and greater range allowing a semi-strategic lift capability seem an ideal single aircraft solution. Too bad the program hasn’t progressed as envisioned. I think the A400M will improve over time but at this it point it poses too much risk for NZ.

 

[MrConservative]

I wonder if any of the tactical lift options would still be under consideration had the A400M been a raving success? More capacity and greater range allowing a semi-strategic lift capability seem an ideal single aircraft solution. Too bad the program hasn’t progressed as envisioned. I think the A400M will improve over time but at this it point it poses too much risk for NZ.

The costs got out of control. It is not just the cost of the airframes it is the start up costs for anyone taking on the type. One of the reasons why the Germans could not offload any.

This aircraft should have been an export success. It would have had a market segment all to its self - a 4 prop large tactical lifter with strategic lift crossover. But at Eur168m (NZD$280m) for the aircraft it does not stack up vfm when a C-130J and others are substantially less. One wonders if they had worked with RR to develop something from the AE2100 rather than re-invent the wheel. Be slightly less ambitious in pushing the tech envelope, with more COTS / MOTS integration with a more simplified logistics footprint. Taken the Japanese parts-bin approach (Even then the Japanese found the use of composites really problematic for a while) and not re-invent the wheel.

The product may in the end deliver - but it will never be the commercial success it could have been. Shame really. On paper if had all the right boxes ticked.