Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Royal New Zealand Air Force

Discussion in 'Air Force & Aviation' started by Lucasnz, Jul 17, 2006.

Share This Page

  1. MrConservative

    MrConservative Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,558
    Likes Received:
    660
    Location:
    Behind a Desk
    That is a very valid point in our context. Of course one of the work arounds of the ownership and sustainment tail in the context of a 3rd type is the model the RNZAF uses for the KA350's in that it is in service under a lease agreement, thus removing the complications of ownership and support from the Air Force with the contractual obligations under the onus of the lessor.

    Such things are conditional, for example such an arrangement would preclude such a platform ever being being deployed long term in ChpVII combat operations. However, the tasking orientation of a 3rd type in how I see it is that such a capability would be used for the myriad of MAOT and HADR roles where the usage of a $60m - high hourly cost rate like the NH90 is overkill and freeing them up in their annual hours allocation for their prime military role.
     
  2. Novascotiaboy

    Novascotiaboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2016
    Messages:
    625
    Likes Received:
    97
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Agreed MrC. Same can be said for the Makos. Leave them home and use them domestically. Deploy the A/LUHs in support of operations. Agreed the lift capacity isn’t great, 1000 kg compared to 1500 kg for a Huey, but it’s worth something over nothing.

    I agree the addition of another type would be beneficial but is it a reality. I don’t think so. Especially under this government.

    As Ngati says even a couple more NH90 would go along way.
     
  3. MrConservative

    MrConservative Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,558
    Likes Received:
    660
    Location:
    Behind a Desk
    Just a fact clarification: The modern Huey II has 2200kg internal and 2250kg underslung a big improvement over the old Huey's.

    Is it a reality? Don't know, but it should be and that is why I am raising it. Wayne Mapp 10 years ago when DefMin was looking at buying three more vanilla AW109E Powers in a pure training role and using the T/LUH's in the LUH role because it would get us to the ability to deploy at least 2 LUH's in support of HADR operations overseas and still enable training to continue (Something that is not possible and that is not at all ideal). It is obvious that enthusiasm for that option has faded with later ministers - because though it is incredibly fast and mobile for a helicopter, really good for transporting people - it is weak in the LUH airlift side of the equation.

    But a couple of things have emerged over the last 10 years since the LUH/NH90 arrived. The growing access requirement for HVL special operations and the inefficiency of using a $20000 pfh MUH platform for low end non military MAOT tasks (that are enshrined in the Defence Act as an aid to civil power and part of the existence remit of the NZDF generally) - when a $2000 pfh option could do the same.

    A couple of NH-90's are a nice to have but 2 more is a $120m CapEx cost not including the support and sustainment costs of increasing the fleet by 20%. It still will not stop expensive aircraft doing inexpensive jobs expensively and is in itself the most expensive way to add rotary capability.

    The way to do this is to keep the Mako T/LUH's in their current training role. Focus the NH90 principally on its military role in support of NZ Army operations. If there is any money to be spent on the NH90 fleet the best money spent would be to upgrade them to MTTH standard which essentially is retro-fitting folding rotors, fitting of floatation devices and uprated wheeled undercarriage as that would enable greater context with the amphibious operations approach of JATF 35.

    Then find the best solution in terms of cost (OpEx/CapEx), ease of introduction into service and capability for the two areas in which their is a HVL gap:

    1. A reasonably cheap general purpose utility helicopter that is a well known and established entity in NZ skies that bridges the current capability gap and tasking mismatches allowing the NH90 and AW109 to specialise on their prime military roles of combat support and training, thus enabling a focus on MAOT and HADR taskings within New Zealand and the option to deploy when appropriate or necessary via fixed wing tactical transport to the Pacific Islands.

    2. A special operations focused light utility helicopter in support of NZSAS requirements that is able to deploy in support of NZSAS operations both domestically and when appropriate or necessary globally.

    The point I hammer home is that there is a way to avoid the full and undesirable implications of "another type."
     
  4. Novascotiaboy

    Novascotiaboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2016
    Messages:
    625
    Likes Received:
    97
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Boeing Insitu is providing six Scan Eagle RPAS to Lebanon for US$11 million.

    If not mistaken this was trialed by NZDF at some point in the recent past. Sure wish that some information would be released soon as its now the end of the first week of April .
     
    ngatimozart likes this.
  5. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,211
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    Location:
    In the rum store
    To place the current state of the RNZAF in perspective, this is an article from the Otago Daily Times dated 30th November 1950.

    SERIOUS STATE OF RNZAF - No First-line Aircraft And Few Trained Men


    "What does New Zealand possess in the way of modern fighting aircraft and trained operational personnel? The answer, in the light of the present-day international position, is disturbing. There are no first line aircraft and very few fully-trained men. Nor is there any immediate prospect of that position being changed."


    That is the opening paragraph of the article and what is true then is today and the same can extend to transport aircraft and naval rotary wing, as well as the paucity of numbers of aircraft per capability set across the RNZAF and naval aviation.
     
    Whiplash34 likes this.
  6. Whiplash34

    Whiplash34 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    20
    Location:
    New Zealand

    I saw this posted up on WONZ. Talk about history repeating....or maybe it’s - the more things change, the more things stay the same...not sure.

    On another note, I caught up with a mate who works at Whenuapai (not flying...on the maintenance side of the hangar...so to speak). It sounds like they are gearing up for C130J’s....as the replacement for the H models. He believes this is on the back of a number of things, including but not limited to - ease of transition (C130 to C130), partners operate them (RAAF and USAF), political appearances (read as strengthens 5Eyes relationship)....and cost.

    He does not know what the strategic lift capability replacement will ultimately be but he was VERY keen on the Kawasaki C2 and its capability.

    Another interesting tidbit was that there is a MAJOR (in capitals, bold and underlined) shortage of props for C130H’s and the P3’s. This is potentially going to be a problem in the next few years....
     
    ngatimozart likes this.
  7. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,211
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    Location:
    In the rum store
    I saw it there to and went and found the article, hence my posting the original article here with my comments regrading the similarities. The Vampires apparently were second hand along with the Canberra's were replaced by the Skyhawks.

    The C-130J would make the most sense and Ron is a real Herc lover. The strategic component is not so urgent.
     
  8. Whiplash34

    Whiplash34 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    20
    Location:
    New Zealand

    Rgr. I also liked the paragraph about the Mustangs, “....and presuming that they were rocket equipped, would make excellent aircraft for coastal patrol and defence work in New Zealand.” That would be a sight for sure!!!
     
  9. MrConservative

    MrConservative Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,558
    Likes Received:
    660
    Location:
    Behind a Desk
    The ease of transition with 55 years of institutional knowledge is a significant aspect as is whole of life costs. Both in terms of the training and sustainment. Their is significant parts commonality between the current upgraded C-130H(NZ) and the C-130J which gives it a huge advantage.

    The opportunity to buy into an existing US Forces production block allocation for the C-130J holds down acquisition costs to make it cheaper. Also the sheer flexibility of certified additional capability options the C-130J customer can request from A2A, to EW, to SAR, to ISR - no other tactical transport comes close.
     
    OPSSG and Whiplash34 like this.
  10. 40 deg south

    40 deg south Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    95

    C130J was always the low-risk option, although it leaves us with the same limitations we have now (including inability to go to McMurdo and return without landing, or to shift a NH90 to the Pacific). I doubt anyone will be surprised if that is the path we go down.

    Martin Agüera (@AgueraMartin) | Twitter

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3jYdPiWkAEcM6a.jpg

    Looking at (to my mind) the only other serious contender, Airbus appear to be working the inability to refuel helicopters because of the wake turbulence of the A400M. One of the links above should show trials in progress (touches wood and bows to the Twitter gods).
     
    RegR likes this.
  11. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,211
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    Location:
    In the rum store
    Don't forget the C-130H(NZ) replacement is only the tactical airlift component of the FAMC, not the strategic lift. The strategic lift comprises McMurdo, NH90, LAV airlifting etc., and is the B757 replacement that does not require a decision for another three / four years. This is clearly stated in the RFI and was always the case. People are getting confused and hung up between the two components on here and other places. As it is, the Hercules replacement is running behind the original timetable, because according to the RFI, the first replacement aircraft was wanted in NZ by the end of February 2020, with the remainder delivered by end of February 2023.

    In NZ's case the A400M is to large a platform for tactical lift, but it would meet the requirements for strategic lift, as would the KHI C-2. Yes the RAF, Armee de l'Air and the Luftwaffe probably will use the A400M in both a strategic and tactical role, but they are far bigger forces than we are and have different CONOPS.
     
  12. Rob c

    Rob c Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    109
    Location:
    Marton NZ
    Yes Ron is a c130J lover and I think that the J is a very good short term option, but as we tend to keep defence equipment for a very long time, Long after originally planned I think it is a poor long term solution. it is likely that the RAAF will be getting rid of theirs 10 or at the best 15 years after we get ours, the increase in performance and capability is not startling and most of the mechanical systems, controls hydraulics etc are very old school. If we had got them in the early 2000's it would have been great but I am of the opinion that they are too little to late. Hell even the RAF is getting rid of theirs and look like having none by 2025. Just because the J will be easy to assimilate should not be used as an excuse as the easy option is seldom the best option. I do however expect that the C130J will be chosen, but would expect that long after I have fallen off my perch that people will curse that decision.
     
    Xthenaki likes this.
  13. swerve

    swerve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,943
    Likes Received:
    66
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    The RAF's currently planning to keep C-130J-30s flying until after 2030. Last year there was an RFI for C-130J centre wing box replacements which exactly matched the fleet the RAF is supposed to be keeping, after disposals. Not really worth doing if they'll all be gone by 2025, I think.
     
    OPSSG and ngatimozart like this.
  14. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,211
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    Location:
    In the rum store
    I think that you will find that the USAF will still be flying large numbers of C-130Js in 20 years time. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest, to find that the -130J is being superseded by the -130K(X) or L(X). The USAF has been floating wistful ideas about a C-130 replacement but nothing concrete has emerged and they have more important priorities at the moment.
     
  15. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,364
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    NSW

    The original timeline for replacement was to begin from 2024, there was talk of a "FAT" C130 or a smaller C17 but have no idea what Lockheed/Boeing have done in that department
     
  16. Redlands18

    Redlands18 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    656
    Likes Received:
    137
    Location:
    qld
    Won’t be the C-130K, that’s what the RAF used for there original Herc’s. There is actually not a lot of Letters left, maybe should be called the C-130Z.
     
  17. Rob c

    Rob c Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    109
    Location:
    Marton NZ
    20 years, we are likely to want to keep ours for 40 - 50 years from 2024 if past experience is anything to go by. Perhaps the poms might have some cheap standard C130 j's we could lease/buy for a short term filler, say 10 years.
     
  18. MrConservative

    MrConservative Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,558
    Likes Received:
    660
    Location:
    Behind a Desk
    The latest C-130 variants currently being ordered by US Dept of Defence and others will serve well beyond 2050. It will be the first military aircraft type to see constant service for a century. On August 23, 2054 there will be dozens still flying.

    The reality is that it will be another 20 years before the US Dept of Defence has a replacement in service for the C-130. They are as relevant today in 2019 as they were in 1969 and will provide the same simple air lift attributes of operational utility, simplicity, and ruggedness for the RNZAF, the USAF and many other services in 2049. Willis Hawkins was a genius!
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2019
    Cadredave likes this.
  19. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,211
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    Location:
    In the rum store
    1954 or 2054? You may find that the B-52 first flew 15/4/1952 and entered service in 1955. The C130 first flew, as you state 23/8/1954, but entered service in 1956. Current USAF plans are for the B-52 to fly operationally until around 2050, so the BUFF may yet beat the Herc to that prize. Apparently the current BUFF H's have sound airframes and good sheet metal, having spent most of their service life on the ground on alert, resulting in them having many thousands of airframe hours each left.
    Why would we want to touch pommy C-130s? The poms will have flown them into the ground and sand, so by the time we got them they'd be well and truly foxtroted, worn and torn. Would be a complete waste of money, time and effort.
     
    Cadredave likes this.
  20. MrConservative

    MrConservative Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,558
    Likes Received:
    660
    Location:
    Behind a Desk
    Ahhh a typo well spotted. Yes 2054. I will go back and edit it.
     
    ngatimozart likes this.