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:
    2,555
    Likes Received:
    654
    Location:
    Behind a Desk
    That is good news. The plan under the former President was to phase out all the BUFF's by 2040. It makes sense as most only have around 20000 hours on their airframes. The C-5 is another from that era, though a decade or so younger, that will be another super veteran. The M model upgrade and re-engining with the CF-6 solved the huge $$$$ issue of reliability and running costs.
     
    ngatimozart and Cadredave like this.
  2. swerve

    swerve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,943
    Likes Received:
    66
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    Original? There was a project to replace the C-130 in the 1970s. Two jets were built to compete for it, but it was cancelled. Advanced Medium STOL Transport - Wikipedia

    A smaller C-17 - that's funny. The C-17 is a bigger YC-15 - one of the AMST contenders. Full circle!
     
    Cadredave, ngatimozart and John Fedup like this.
  3. Rob c

    Rob c Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    Marton NZ
    My other problem with the C130J is that it is the lowest performer of the candidates in terms of payload range and transit speed and to me these are very important considerations. Payload range is important as the better it is the more you can carry to a set destination, therefore the fewer flights required meaning your aircraft is available to do more elsewhere and the lower the overall cost per operation. The higher transit speed also has the same effect of taking less time to do a task therefore giving you surplus time to carry out other tasks. this means that the other candidates will simply be able to do a lot more in the same time frame. this economy in time should translate into an economy in operations and additional availability to do tasks.
     
  4. Novascotiaboy

    Novascotiaboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2016
    Messages:
    625
    Likes Received:
    97
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    As has been pointed out we have to remember what the role of the "Tactical" replacement truly is. As has been stated the movement of the outsize equipment is meant to be undertaken by the B757 replacement. With this in mind the best tactical transport in history is the mighty Hercules. Compared to the current H models a mixed fleet of lengthened J30s and SOF short versions would be a vast improvement over the existing fleet. The 50 plus years of institutional knowledge is valuable. Its interoperable with allies and commanders know it will get their crews home. Its trusted and reliable.

    To me the challenge that thw RNZAF has is lack of numbers across all types and this limits the organization in what it can do. Many months ago I suggested an all rear ramp fleet consisting of strategis and tactical aircraft so their were options for all loads and distances. Having only a hammer in the tool box doesnt fix all problens. The cost of owning and flying a mixed fleet is the cost of doing business. We all know that money isnt the issue .Its the fact that this is a military expenditure. Plain and simple.

    The need is there to justify a fleet larger than the current five. Eight was the number 20 years ago. Eight gives redundancy. Allows for the inevitable unplanned for events.

    Unfortunately, as shown by the recent events in Christchurch, it takes dramatic events to illict change. Will it take the loss of an aircraft and its precious crew to move this project along? I truly hope not. But what will dear Jacinda do in the face of a nation grieving the loss of its service men and women all because hers and previous governments failed to replace aircraft long after their best before date. Regardless of how good thw maintainers are these are 50 plus year old aircraft. They are the same vintage as me and I know that not everything I have works like it used too. Havent had the mid life upgrade but have had the mid life crisis .

    At this point I dont care what gets bought. Something has to be done sooner rather than later. Its only money and the role of government is not to save it but to provide for the nation. These are not gold plated high end attack aircraft but vitally important national assetts.
     
    recce.k1 and ngatimozart like this.
  5. Cadredave

    Cadredave Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    748
    Likes Received:
    30
    Already been done Kawasaki C-2 flying and in service
     
    Whiplash34 and ngatimozart like this.
  6. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    1,020
    Location:
    In the rum store
    In NZ terms it's a tactical transport not requiring to fly from here to the black stump and back with a LAV and 100 grunts in the back. We don't do that, whereas other larger militaries may and do. Of all the contenders, it is the best suited and offers the best VfM in that role. If it was offered in the strategic role it would be about as useful as an electric coat hanger as far as NZ was concerned. It may have the range, but it sure makes for an expensive pallet of baked beans. The other important consideration, especially in the NZ context is numbers. For tactical aircraft with the required range and payload, for every A400M / KHI C-2, we can acquire approximately 2.5 C-130Js meaning greater coverage with 5 / 6 + 2 / 3 than just 4 / 5 all up.
     
    recce.k1 and Whiplash34 like this.
  7. Rob c

    Rob c Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    Marton NZ
    The age of the aircraft is not in my opinion a significant factor. What kills aircraft is their fatigue life and how advanced this is. The systems and engines etc can and are reconditioned to an as new standard as long as the parts are available. The aircraft structure is the problem and ours have had a full fatigue rebuild including new centre sections rebuilt outer wings and significant fatigue attenuation of the fuselage.. As long as the structure is in good shape and ours are, the age is of little consequence and your normal maintenance should take care of the systems.
     
    recce.k1 likes this.
  8. Rob c

    Rob c Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    Marton NZ
    While you are wright in a day to day contex, I think we should be looking at what is required when the crap hits the fan, as that is the ultimate reason for having a military in the first place. I know the greens will disagree with this , but so be it . You did forget the KC 390 witch is reputed by some sources to have lower life time costs. I have not seen the proof of this, but would be surprised if they were significantly more than the C130J.
     
  9. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    1,020
    Location:
    In the rum store
    If we, as a country, were seriously looking at what is required when the crap hits the fan, we'd be spending in the region of 2 - 2.5% GDP on defence, would've acquired 6 P-8, 6 -8 C-130J back in the mid 2000s when the RAAF acquired theirs, 2 - 3 C-17A circa 2010 - 12, would've had been looking at a MLU for the brand new F-16 C/ D we should've bought in the 1990s about now, etc. However NZ hasn't taken defence serious since WW1, except for WW2 and more so the panic after 7/12/1941. As soon as the Japanese surrendered, the NZG went straight back to business as usual. Why do you think there were service mutinies over pay and conditions after the war in 1946 & 47. It was not as though the country was on the bones of its backside unlike the UK. Yes we owed the US for lend lease but there were significant offsets in that we supplied the US Army and USN with food, services and advanced radar technology, plus the UK owed us for all the tucker that we shipped to them throughout the war, included the stuff that was deep sixed because of enemy action. Australia was in a similar position to us vis a vis the US and the UK.
     
  10. MrConservative

    MrConservative Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,555
    Likes Received:
    654
    Location:
    Behind a Desk
    The winner of the tactical component of the FAMC solution will need to demonstrate its ability to meet or exceed as many of the sought essentials and desirables within the RFI and examined in the business case beyond its capabilities as a medium sized tactical transport aircraft. In other words what aircraft offers the best productivity in terms of outputs for the NZDF?
     
    ngatimozart and Novascotiaboy like this.
  11. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,364
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    NSW
    If they contested the Airbus MRTT for the Boeing alternative, do you really see the US buy a foreign transport in numbers?

    Yes we can point to foreign aircraft like the AV-8 and Goshawk
     
  12. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,364
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    NSW
    Agree that fatigue Life plays a significant portion to aircraft serviceability, but it cost more per square meter to renovate an existing house than it does to build new
     
  13. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,968
    Likes Received:
    278
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    @t68 and @Rob c , both making fair points. Considering the size of the Hercules fleet and the parts availability, there is no doubt that this transport can be maintained longer than just about any other military/commercial plane, especially if the cycle rate is not too high. Add the the fact the much of the supply chain for this aircraft has years of experience, stuff is likely available for older models. However at some point, as t68 mentions, new stuff will become the less expensive option compared to endless upgrades. Pollies in Canada and NZ can’t seem to figure this out. In Canada’s case, flying SeaKings for almost 50 years and now Hornets to God knows when.

    As for NZ’s tactical lift replacement, if the A400M development wasn’t so troublesome it should have been a shoe-in with its dual capability and Airbus’s market presence. A C-2 choice has lots of benefits for NZ except for the risk factor which applies to the KC-390 as well. LM should be reasonably confident IMO.
     
  14. Rob c

    Rob c Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    Marton NZ
    I remember when I was down at defence HQ in the late 70's being told and shown some figures by a lower Treasury official that showed that we were owed more by the US than we owed them and were the only country in the world that the US did not except the return of equipment as this was use to offset their debt to us. in other words we bought the gear though no money ever change hands due to what they owed us for reverse lease lend. We also were owed a considerable debt by the UK which was written off and never collected. NZ came out of WW2 in damn good shape.
     
  15. Rob c

    Rob c Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    Marton NZ
    Maybe, but our C130H renovation was only completed a short time ago.
     
  16. Rob c

    Rob c Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    Marton NZ
    IMHO I think the risk factor is often overstated, While there is some risk of problems (MAX 8 ) these are usually quickly resolved in the case of fixed wing aircraft and in the case of the C2 and the KC 390 these are conventional aircraft designs that do not push the limits in regard to new technologies and use well known design technics. They are made by long established and well regarded companies, so I think the risk factor is very low. In my opinion if you do not take some risks you simply don't have progress.
     
  17. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,968
    Likes Received:
    278
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Risk is a two component factor, pollie risk and performance/sustainability risk. In terms of combo- risk, C-130J least, C- 2 and KC-390 about the same. The former has political advantages and the latter, Boeing backup. Perhaps the 737 MAX has reduced the Boeing advantage somewhat along with the KC-46 effort.
     
  18. MrConservative

    MrConservative Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,555
    Likes Received:
    654
    Location:
    Behind a Desk
    Grumman Northrop has a number of technical defence partnerships with Kawasaki Heavy Industries including the EC-2 variant. It would benefit KHI's global footprint if they were to move this corporate relationship into a more sales and global support partnership with GN so as to leverage their experience with respect to the C-2, analogous to the Embraer-Boeing relationship with the KC-390. KHI also has ties with Boeing and Lockheed as well.
     
  19. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    1,020
    Location:
    In the rum store
    And what did we do with all those lovely nice aircraft we had left over at the end of WW2? F-4U Corsairs, P-40 Kittyhawks, TBF-3 Avengers etc. Parked them up outside of Hamilton scrapped them and decided to go back to pommy gear, straight away. We burned a squadron of Corsairs in Japan rather than return them to NZ. We could've operated a mixed fleet of Corsair and Mustang fighters along with Mosquitos from 1945 until the early 1950s and then acquired jet fighters and the Canberras. So in 1945 the only aircraft we would've had to pay for would've been the Mosquitos and we did order 80 of those, flew what 20, and burned the rest. What a waste.
     
  20. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,968
    Likes Received:
    278
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Interesting your choice of GN instead of NG in your post, ok by me, Grumman made two of my favourite things, the Tomcat and Lunar Rover. Hired many ex- Avro employees after the Arrow cancellation as well. Given Boeing’s current problems, an increased NG relationship for KHI could be a good route for them to pursue.