Royal New Zealand Air Force

ADMk2 said:
Agree completely… Something with inherent manned and unmanned team capability too, I should think…

Could offset a lot of ‘lack of strike’ issues that way…
Click to expand...
We have the people, capabilities and capacity to build UAV, UCG, USV & UUV drones here for both surveillance and strike capability. Same with our space requirements. What we don't have is the political will or even inclination to think about it. It's exactly the same with offsets for defence acquisitions. We are one of the only OECD countries that doesn't negotiate offsets as SOP.
 
Well for 'battlefield support' a typical 3 (or 4) NZDF helo formation usually has at least 1 helo providing over-watch. So yes something more capable would be the ideal (and ideally be better optimised/equipped, weapon/sensor wise, be that the same or a different type).
 
ADMk2 said:
The fitout of the helicopter is customer dependant. Link16 for the aircraft as well as video downlinks have been developed and integrated, as have active dipping sonar and auxiliary fuel systems. The UK going cheap is not a slight against the aircraft in my book, but it’s a strange choice nonetheless. They’d literally have to de-spec the datalink equipped radios it is fitted with as standard… Lol

Click to expand...
Link 16 integrated in 2016 - General Dynamics integrates Link 16 datalink system on AW159 - HeliHub.com
 
A KC-30 acquisition could make a lot of sense if RNZAF aircraft (C-130/P8) are routinely forced to make unacceptable workarounds, compromises, or are simply unable to achieve missions, due to lack of fuel and/or endurance.

Otherwise it’s a relatively large investment (for the RNZAF) in a small force, with an ongoing training requirement. Although at least you could also replace the 757’s at the same time, while adding to the Western/5 Eyes AAR fleet.
 
south said:
A KC-30 acquisition could make a lot of sense if RNZAF aircraft (C-130/P8) are routinely forced to make unacceptable workarounds, compromises, or are simply unable to achieve missions, due to lack of fuel and/or endurance.

Otherwise it’s a relatively large investment (for the RNZAF) in a small force, with an ongoing training requirement. Although at least you could also replace the 757’s at the same time, while adding to the Western/5 Eyes AAR fleet.
Click to expand...
I imagine theres a big difference in fuel load and transfer volume but what about another buy of kc130j's? All piped up for in flight and say harvest hawk?
Say 5. Or 4. But not 3.
This would help address the same issue we have had for the last 40 years that we will see with the next 40 years- too few hercules.
 
Shanesworld said:
I imagine theres a big difference in fuel load and transfer volume but what about another buy of kc130j's? All piped up for in flight and say harvest hawk?
Say 5. Or 4. But not 3.
This would help address the same issue we have had for the last 40 years that we will see with the next 40 years- too few hercules.
Click to expand...
To refuel what? KC-130s only have the probe and drogue AAR system for refuelling aircraft, both the RNZAF P-8s and C-130J are fitted for using the Flying Boom system.
 
Redlands18 said:
To refuel what? KC-130s only have the probe and drogue AAR system for refuelling aircraft, both the RNZAF P-8s and C-130J are fitted for using the Flying Boom system.
Click to expand...
I could be very wrong but i thought the usmc and brits had a system for fitting boom receptacles for probe extensions
 
At lakes said:
[QUOTE="Shanesworld, post: 435264, member: 38972@]I could be very wrong but i thought the usmc and brits had a system for fitting boom receptacles for probe extensions
Click to expand...
I have read the same article as well l but I can not find the link but I will keep looking
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure i read about it with the three raf signit c130's cause they needed extended endurance but needed to swap netween potential fuelers.

But if the was a system where you could roll on roll off a boom system to a c130 that would be the business. But i imagine a boom would create a massive lever moment and ne a significant challenge
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shanesworld said:
I'm pretty sure i read about it with the three raf signit c130's cause they needed extended endurance but needed to swap netween potential fuelers.

But if the was a system where you could roll on roll off a boom system to a c130 that would be the business. But i imagine a boom would create a massive lever moment and ne a significant challenge
Click to expand...

There is a hose & drogue adapter which can be fitted to an AAR boom to enable refueling and known as BDA for Boom-drogue adapter, these can be fitted on a per mission basis. Given how AAR booms appear to work, I suspect that a similar type of adapter to turn a hose & drogue setup into a boom is not possible since the boom has an operator aboard the tanker aircraft that operates the boom which is inserted into the receiving aircraft. With hose & drogue, the receiving aircraft has a probe which is inserted into the drogue to take on fuel. I suspect it would be rather difficult and potentially dangerous for a pilot to attempt to fly their aircraft into a probe being dragged behind a tanker, with the pilot responsible for making all adjustments so that the probe is inserted into the receiving aircraft.

As a side note, there are (and have been for some time) a number of MPRS or mult-point refueling systems in service which can provide a boom tanker with additional, hose & drogue refueling points. This was developed at least in part because fighter aircraft cannot take full advantage of the max refueling rate a boom can handle, whilst the USAF (and likely others as well) found that tanking missions to support multi-aircraft sorties were easier when a single tanker could refuel several aircraft simultaneously.

In some respects I do think it would be good in the RNZAF were to acquire an AAR capability, but there would need to be quite a bit of thought put into it, lest resources get wasted on a capability that NZ could use, but might choose not to.
 
Rob c said:
OOP's same place. Bit odd, seems like you can have.one or the other.
Click to expand...
The fairing for the satcom antenna is further to the rear than the AAR receptacle. At one time there was an narrowband satcom antenna mounting that could replace the forward escape hatch of C-130 aircraft, whilst still providing an emergency egress point. The drawing of the C-130J-30 shows the location of both the forward escape hatch and the AAR receptacle. It may be that the wideband satcom under an aerodynamic fairing is located where the forward escape hatch is located.
 
Shanesworld said:
I have read the same article as well l but I can not find the link but I will keep looking

I'm pretty sure i read about it with the three raf signit c130's cause they needed extended endurance but needed to swap netween potential fuelers.

But if the was a system where you could roll on roll off a boom system to a c130 that would be the business. But i imagine a boom would create a massive lever moment and ne a significant challenge
Click to expand...
You can fit a probe onto a receptacle & enable an aircraft fitted for receiving from a boom to refuel via a hose, but you can't fit a receptacle onto a probe.

What you can do is fit the boom on a tanker with a hose attachment so aircraft with probes can refuel from booms, as Todjaeger says. And as he says, it's for the whole flight. Once an aircraft has taken off, it's committed to refuelling via one means, unless it has both a probe & a receptacle. It can't swap between differently equipped tankers.

IMO the UK decision to buy a fleet of tankers only fitted with hoses was a mistake, given that we have some US-built aircraft only fitted for refuelling with booms, & AFAIK we haven't refitted them to refuel from hoses. Airbus makes MRTTs with booms. We should have bought some (not necessarily the whole fleet).
 
Shanesworld said:
I imagine theres a big difference in fuel load and transfer volume but what about another buy of kc130j's? All piped up for in flight and say harvest hawk?
Say 5. Or 4. But not 3.
This would help address the same issue we have had for the last 40 years that we will see with the next 40 years- too few hercules.
Click to expand...
Others have answered but Harvest Hawk hose and drogue AAR isn't compatible with the flying boom AAR receptacles that our C130J-30s are being fitted with.
Milo said:
Where do you see the air-to-air refueling receptacle? If you are talking about that lump on the roof, that is for the satellite communications.
Click to expand...
One will be there because the USAF C-130Js have it fitted and our ones are the same standard variants in all aspects. Same with the P-8As which are the same standard variants as USN and RAAF P-8As.
WRT the B752 replacement, my vote has always been the A330MRTT AND the KHI C2 or the Airbus A400M.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top