While contract prices and there breakdown will have differences, when the gap is that large it does raise eyebrows. The five eyes is an intelligence sharing agreement in other words it is about how we share our intell and not about what equipment we use to gather it, It was originally covering the commonwealth countries and the USA then joined it on entry to WW2. we are buying a transport aircraft, I see little connection to justify that as a reason as any intel equipment could be fitted to any suitable aircraft.. This would not be the first time that our armed forces have become fixated on an outcome as when I worked in D Eng I saw cases were the rules were carefully written to ensure an outcome. The final price will be interesting. My experience at Def HQ and time on aircraft leads me to feel that the risk factor with the KC 390 has been grossly overstated and there is a risk factor with the c130 of early obsolescence. The problem with taking a no risk at all approach to anything in life leads to a lack of progress, though excessive risk can be the cause of a lot of pain and I would have to admit at times to have visited both areas of risk to my detriment at both ends of the scale.

 

Remarkably the Herc was designed at the height of the Korean War. The Herc will definitely celebrate its Centenary in 2054 with a large number still in service.

 

One thing which it seems was overlooked when listing Portugal's purchase of KC-390 and the NZ acquisition of C-130J is to really look at what was purchased, aside from 'just' the aircraft themselves. Even with Boeing involved, is the parts support for the KC-390 going to be as large and robust as what is available for the C-130J right away? What about training and sims? Or how about aircraft modification and/or certification?

As for the issues that seem to be had with fitting ISR kit to the C-130J's... The US and IIRC others are already fitting ISR kit to some of their -J's, if the RNZAF were to decide that the purchase and deployment of the same or comparable ISR kit aboard aircraft was an <ahem> intelligent decision, what other RNZAF aircraft would be available for such utilization, keeping in mind the need to both fit the ISR kit and appropriate comms, as well as the range and/or loiter time required to have the intel harvesting when and where needed? Similarly, if NZ were to opt for going down an aircraft modification/development road alone in terms of fitting ISR kit, how well positioned is NZ to fund such developments and certifications as would be needed?

 

Military certification of aircraft and the kit involved is different to civilian requirements and where the basic structure has not been compromised is usually done in house by the modifier or designer and is not an expensive problem, A significant number of mods and equipment changes passed thru D Eng while I was there with little fanfare or cost and the RNZAF has done a large number of extensive fits and refits over the years to be very comfortable with the process. For example the C130 passive warfare kit, A4 kahu, P3 K and K2 rebuilds, the list is far more extensive, but I will stop there.

 

I wonder if NZ will also take advantage to aquire some of the EX RAAF Litening AT pods, butvthen im not sure if you would need it with the MX-20HD Electro-Optical/Infrared Imaging System listed within the FMS notification. Is there any indication that they may arm them with weapons like Harvest Hawk, being only 5 aircraft it might not be a priority but would make a handy addition to increase the CAS of ground troops in a light contested environment

An Update on the Australian C-130J: Plan Jericho and Related Developments - Second Line of Defense

 

The impression I have gotten is that NZ has either loss some capability to carry out such modifications, or lost the capability altogether. The C-130H SLEP debacle comes to mind as a rather glaring example. I would also imagine that doing something like adding hard points and a wiring harness in areas where the aircraft designers had not intended one to be would potentially compromise the aircraft structure.

For something like the Orion work, this would have been less of an issue because the aircraft itself was already intended for ISR tasks so there were positions for the kit, the workstations, and either wiring or space for wiring between the two. Taking a new airframe, or even a 2nd hand aircraft and then going in an adding an ISR (or ISR+CAS) capability which was not built in would be a bit of a different proposition. Otherwise I suspect that the aircraft manufacturers like Airbus would have less demand for variants of existing military airlifters and there would be more business being done 'in house' in different nations converting airlifters and airliners into various types of surveillance aircraft.

 

The problem with the SLEP program was that the original contractor went bankrupt and the ministry of defence then took over the program and wrighted the ship, but this whole process did take up a lot of time. Hard points to carry new equipment do need stress analise and quite often additional local strengthening but that is not unusual and that design work is usually contracted out to the aircrafts manufacture, and new wiring will usually just follow or replace existing wiring.

 

Hi, Friends.

KC-390 PT-ZNG is entering the third week being tested at The United States Army Yuma Proving Ground.
PT-ZNG - Embraer KC-390 - Embraer - Flightradar24
Cheers.

 

Likely aerial delivery/parachute drop analysis/certification. Whole mess of DoD/contractor equipment in place to do just that. No need to reinvent the wheel.

And, this should probably all be posted over on the Military Aviation News and Discussion thread, not here

 

Nice as it might be I feel there's just too few airframes to start extending the role to armed tasks. As it is I'm concerned the ISR planned for the new 'J' fleet might morph into the touted 'complimentary capability' for the P8... there's just too few J's to also take on a sustained 'lite MPA' role. Also there is no obvious policy for an armed role mentioned in the DCP.

Arguably it could happen under the radar with Oz wanting to maybe move some surplus pods and if it's then possible to arm them with a smaller (ie: cheaper and less contentious) weapon fairly easily... something like a mini-gun, then it could be an outside chance. However gut-feel is no, and that 5 'J's' isn't enough longer term even just for transport tasks.

 

I can see both the value in, as well as few reasons for the ability to mount/carry podded ISR kit.

One of the first would be to make any RNZAF C-130J engaged in aeronautical SAR both more valuable and more effective. Carrying out a volume search, especially at a distance for something like a missing vessel or missing/ditched aircraft (airliner in particular) would require as many 'eyes' as can be gotten into the area. Having the -J's able to be kitted out with something more effective than Mk I eyeballs would help. The -J's could then also potentially airdrop emergency stores/supplies should survivors be detected as well.

Another potential scenario where podded ISR kit would be useful was if a -J was deployed away from NZ in support of NZDF operations in an area where eyes in the sky would be useful in monitoring a situation, but the conditions or distance would not justify deploying a P-8, but an airlifter would be worthwhile.

Arming the -J's I do not think with be VfM, due to both the costs, but also the range of scenarios where arming a large, slow airlifter would be both useful and not exposed to undue risk.