Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Novascotiaboy]

Synergies from operating the same as Oz makes perfect sense. As a small nation with limited funds any decision on high value projects needs to take all factors in when making the decision.

Oz has expressed an interest in upping the seven aircraft fleet to nine. Makes sense for NZ to be the contributor of these two to the fleet of available KC30 aircraft. These will allow the P8s to range further afield and provides the NZDF a true strategic enabler. Huge volume of cargo and people. Full military self protection giving the ability to support operations into areas that previously have been off limits.

Is $600 million NZ enough to buy two KC30 even if supported along with the Oz aircraft?

 

[MrConservative]

It is, but it is my view that a couple of KC30 (A330MRTT) / KC46 could be acquired. My preference would be for the KC30 because the RAAF are going to be doing things with theirs that the USAF are only dreaming about with their KC-46, and it would be a game changer for us, and a force multiplier increasing the number of KCs in the region to 9. The budget would have to be increased by about 50%, but it'd be worth it. If they specified the A330 freighter floor and a cargo door, we could use it the same way we use the B757.

The budget band at present is too small to replace like for like with new build, milspec/secure comms/self protection et al, partner interoperable A330/B767 variants. With current FX rates only the MDE of two airframes without the usual OEM support, spares, training package is possible. I know the minister and opposition spokesman are aware of this. Because I told them and they agreed. Two airframe capability -$1B.

 

[MrConservative]

Synergies from operating the same as Oz makes perfect sense. As a small nation with limited funds any decision on high value projects needs to take all factors in when making the decision.

One could politely say that the approach in the later half of this decade in terms of evaluation and acquisition is 180 degrees compared to the early-mid naughties. They will not step far outside the FVEYS camp for any thing major.

Oz has expressed an interest in upping the seven aircraft fleet to nine. Makes sense for NZ to be the contributor of these two to the fleet of available KC30 aircraft. These will allow the P8s to range further afield and provides the NZDF a true strategic enabler. Huge volume of cargo and people. Full military self protection giving the ability to support operations into areas that previously have been off limits.

This is a clear example of where NZ can go back to participating in the spirit of CDR in that it can add to the strategic weight.

Is $600 million NZ enough to buy two KC30 even if supported along with the Oz aircraft?

Not if we would want to sustain them beyond the short term.

 

[t68]

The RAAF use the Spartan around Australia quite easily because it can access areas at small to medium distances with relatively good payloads, whereas we have to deploy over the deep blue mostly, and as such it doesn't make for good payload value. We found that with the C-47 Dakota, B170 Bristol Frightener, and HS780 Andover. Even if the funds were made available for such we'd be better off acquiring more NH90 and some CH-47. Do you wonder why the RAF never replaced the Andover with something similar like the C-27J Spartan or the C235 / 295? I believe that they, nor the USAF, didn't see the need for such a capability.

In the US the JCA started life as an battlefield lifter for the Army and its is a direct role of the of the Caribou/Buffalo days,The USAF got involved and became the lead service and then cancelled due to budgetary cuts. RAAF claim that the C-27J can access nearly four times the number of airfields in Australia than the larger C-130J, and double the number of airfields in our wider region. a useful bit of kit within the toolbox not only for the RAAF but also the RNZAF


When you look at the work that the Andover's did I believe there is still a requirement that would be needed not only within NZ but in the greater western Pacific, you can never have too much airlift capacity. I suggest the NZ is handling what it can do in regards to small unit loads of lift you have the make do mentality and getting buy but not doing well efficiently in way of cost and capability. But with the hollowing out of the NZDF overall the C130 provides the 70% solution for the intended role, it cant go every where the C27J could get to either directly from NZ or with stop overs.

Everything that you listed would be of benefit to NZ including either C295/C27J but they have vastly different roles to play, but with the size of the NZDF and budget allocated a battlefield airlifter would be wrong for NZ. I agree that if any extra funds become available it should be directed towards increasing the numbers of kit in service now and once those are sorted look to increasing capability from there and keeping in mind the future direction of NZDF.

In 95 the NZ Defence minister announced an option to buy 8 C130J, what has changed that the current government still see that 5 aircraft is all NZ needs?

 

[t68]

It is, but it is my view that a couple of KC30 (A330MRTT) / KC46 could be acquired. My preference would be for the KC30 because the RAAF are going to be doing things with theirs that the USAF are only dreaming about with their KC-46.

Any chance you can expand on this please, in what way extra ISR capability?

 

[ngatimozart]

Any chance you can expand on this please, in what way extra ISR capability?

If you look back through Second Line of Defence they have done a series of articles on RAAF 5th Gen capabilities and intentions. Part of it is extending the capability set of the KC-30 to include Airborne Comms Node and some EW capability etc. Limited ISR capability possibly, but mostly capability sets that can be used either in conjunction with its A2AR role or as secondary roles.

 

[40 deg south]

Any chance you can expand on this please, in what way extra ISR capability?

A330 MRTT Automatic Refueling To Go Live in 2021

More importantly, the company notes that the size of the aircraft and the nature of its operational employment make it an ideal platform to handle stand-off ISR tasks with signals intelligence sensors and to act as a command and control node in a wider comms network. In June the company demonstrated its “Network for the Sky” concept, in which data from ground forces was uplinked to a fighter, then on to the A310 testbed equipped with cyber-secure communications systems that relayed the data via satellite to a distant command post receiver. Such capabilities have resulted in Airbus now talking of a “Smart MRTT.”

Airbus is clearly looking at expanding the possible capabilities of the platform.

 

[John Fedup]

@t68 If the MRTT were to be considered as a replacement for the KC-10, it would certainly freak Boeing out. It might be a good way for the USAF to force Boeing to get its stuff in order. Unfortunate that Airbus doesn’t seem to think a A330neo version of the MRTT is viable.

 

[KiwiRob]

@t68 If the MRTT were to be considered as a replacement for the KC-10, it would certainly freak Boeing out. It might be a good way for the USAF to force Boeing to get its stuff in order. Unfortunate that Airbus doesn’t seem to think a A330neo version of the MRTT is viable.

The main reason is the wing, the CEO version uses the same wing as the A340, which is plumbed for 4 engines, the NEO wing is completely different and lacks the plumbing for the outer two engines, which aren't needed in an A330.

 

[John Fedup]

I assume then that the unrequired extra engine plumbing in the A340 wing is somehow reworked for refuelling with the A330CEO?

 

[Donnzy]

US signs off $2 billion sale of five Hercules airplanes to New Zealand

looks like its 5 C130J models and the approval by the US gov has been done so just gotta make that deal with lockheed

 

[KiwiRob]

I assume then that the unrequired extra engine plumbing in the A340 wing is somehow reworked for refuelling with the A330CEO?

yes it is, the use the plumbing and mounting location for the hose and drogue system.

 

[Gibbo]

US signs off $2 billion sale of five Hercules airplanes to New Zealand

looks like its 5 C130J models and the approval by the US gov has been done so just gotta make that deal with lockheed

Just remember, as the article states: Minister of Defence Ron Mark said the Government was not yet committed to buying the aircraft.
Cabinet would next year decide on the cost, funding, and number of planes to be bought.

Having said that, my gut feel is they'll go for 5 as there is fairly solid cross-party support for their replacement.

 

[RegR]

You need to be careful with those numbers. Two Andovers were VIP only and not all Andovers were kept operational at the same time due to the difficulty of keeping them serviceable.

Also, the Andover tasks were taken over by the B200s (now 350s), NH90s and C-130s. Some of the Andover and C-130 tasks have actually been taken over by motor transport. AF cadets used to get a ride to the West Melton gun ranges in a Herc. Last I heard it's now by road.

Here's a pic of the Andover replacement. A lot quieter and more comfortable to ride in and only slightly slower:

Servicebility applies to all fleets, even now, which is why 4 P8s will still do what the current 6 P3s do all because of improvements such as reliability, modularity, service cycles and overall performance.

The king airs replaced the golden eagles not the andovers and NH90s were literally a generation apart from the andovers so no real correlation there apart from the fact they can all transport freight of some description in some capacity.

MT (which was always an option not a replacement), much like the andovers, ironically is long gone now to cut costs only to be replaced by a more expensive civilian based option as they have now found, go figure.

The issues with the H fleet wrt to loss of any alternate were well known and felt, I personally have sat at the waiting end of many a ex, op or SATs flight and yes makes you wonder just how tasks were otherwise flagged as a result. Time will tell with how much pressure will be mounted on the Js from new and either how history repeats or a more improved management policy solves, avoids or just ignores any future issues.

 

[ngatimozart]

I originally posted this in the Aircraft Prices thread 2 years ago and have reposted it here as an explanation of the FMS costs.

This is an explanation of US FMS costing differences. Whilst this is placed here, it equally applies to naval and ground platforms.
Why Foreign Military Sales Are Always Worth Less Than The Published Number

Loren Thompson , CONTRIBUTOR

SEP 19, 2017 @ 01:30 PM

Arms sales to overseas partners are a major tool of U.S. foreign policy. They are also a growing source of revenues for U.S. defense contractors, who have faced flat domestic demand in recent years due to congressionally mandated caps on Pentagon spending. When arms sales are done right, they can bolster regional security, strengthen alliances, lighten the warfighting burden on U.S. forces, improve the trade balance and create jobs in the U.S.

To make sure they are done right, all foreign military sales are subject to strict standards set forth by the Arms Control Export Act of 1976. The Department of State has final say in approving proposed transactions, with the Department of Defense assuming a leading role in executing deliveries. Other cabinet departments and agencies may also participate, and Congress always is given an opportunity to block big arms deals.

However, there is one facet of this highly articulated process that often gets quite confused, and that is the value of the transactions. News reports about the value of pending arms sales are often greatly exaggerated, particularly compared with the amount of money that the companies manufacturing the arms are likely to ultimately receive. Here, for example, is a passage from a news story that appeared on the eve of President Trump's May visit to Saudi Arabia:

The official, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity, said the arms package could end up surpassing more than $300bn over a decade to help Saudi Arabia boost its defensive capabilities while still maintaining US ally Israel's qualitative military edge over its neighbors.

$300 billion would be nearly half of Saudi Arabia's annual gross national product, a level of weapons outlays unlikely in all but the most extreme circumstances. After the president completed his trip to the kingdom, many news accounts settled on the more "modest" estimate that Riyadh's new purchases of Lockheed Martin helicopters, Boeing maritime patrol planes, and other U.S. military items would be worth around $110 billion.

But where do such figures come from? Usually they come from congressional notification documents alerting Capitol Hill to proposed transactions. Congressional notification always occurs after a prospective purchasing country has formalized its request for specific military items, but before the U.S. government has responded with a proposed package of goods and services -- called a Letter of Offer and Acceptance.

And that's where what we might call the "arms sale inflation process" begins. Because negotiations with overseas buyers haven't been finalized when Capitol Hill is informed about an impending deal, the executive branch typically includes everything in its estimates that could possibly be covered by a deal. Not just weapons quantities but options for follow-on purchases, spare parts, initial training and maintenance, etc. It may also include a "just in case" financial buffer that further inflates the likely value.​

If Congress doesn't like what it sees, a joint resolution can be passed to block the deal. But to avoid having to go back to the Hill later if subsequent discussions with the customer take an unexpected turn, congressional notifications tend to include everything but the kitchen sink, and the resulting price-tag is quite imposing. It is not uncommon for the publicly reported value of a transaction drawn from congressional notification documents to be a quarter or a third bigger than the price that is ultimately agreed to.

Now, that might not be so bad if the real price were eventually disclosed, but it generally isn't. The Department of Defense claims an exception to the Freedom of Information Act for foreign military sales data that might cause competitive harm to weapons makers, or might impair the government's ability to secure necessary information in the future, or simply might undermine some undefined interest of the government. So usually the inflated estimates in congressional notification documents are the only cost data to reach the public.

So imagine, if you will, that the negotiated price for an arms package is $3 billion rather than the $4 billion contained in congressional notification documents. That's what the U.S. companies building the weapons being sold will actually get, right? Wrong. Because much of the price negotiated for a sale actually consists of so-called "government furnished equipment" (like aircraft engines and munitions) or services the U.S. government itself provides, rather than money that counts as revenue for weapons makers.

Thus, even before the weapons makers start passing revenues through to their own suppliers, the value of a transaction may have shrunk to less than half the figure that readers are seeing in published reports. Granted, the original equipment manufacturer may reap additional revenues after weapons are delivered to the foreign customer for maintenance and other in-service support, but those arrangements vary markedly from transaction to transaction, and they often are not finalized at the time an arms sale is agreed to.

The problem with inflating publicly available pricing data the way the current arms sale process does is that it can inflame opposition in purchasing countries because the size of transactions is so exaggerated. In other words, deals become harder to do because the locals get "sticker shock." The truth of the matter is that foreign buyers like the Saudis are canny negotiators striving to get the best deals they can, and deals don't happen unless both sides are comfortable with the outcome.​

Several companies engaged is selling weapons through the foreign military sales program contribute to my think tank. Some are consulting clients.​

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Nice post Ngati. So applying what you have said the government is likely spending US$ 1 billion not the US$1.4 as noted. If there is no kick back on spending the $1.4 billion by either elected parties or the citizenry why not add three additional airframes?

And as has been suggested these three could be the SOF version with a weapons delivery capability to support special forces on the ground.

I know the Pollies are averse to offensive weapons capability but a country needs to have options.

 

[BigM60]

Nice post Ngati. So applying what you have said the government is likely spending US$ 1 billion not the US$1.4 as noted. If there is no kick back on spending the $1.4 billion by either elected parties or the citizenry why not add three additional airframes?

And as has been suggested these three could be the SOF version with a weapons delivery capability to support special forces on the ground.

I know the Pollies are averse to offensive weapons capability but a country needs to have options.

I think the point of the Think Tank article was that these notifications are at the top end because the approval contain the maximum possible content and includes government supplied content that can be subject to negotiation. The article is really a defence of large defence contractors and showing that not all of the announced pricing flows through to LM, Boeing or Raytheon ect. because it is other government supplied content or not all of the options were taken up.

The second last paragraph includes this - deals become harder to do because the locals get "sticker shock." well, they are arguing that the way these approvals are announced and disclosing everything including the government furnished equipment is just 'bad for business'.

Why it was written? -Several companies engaged is selling weapons through the foreign military sales program contribute to my think tank. Some are consulting clients.

The announced NZ pricing is correct. It was never just over 1B NZD and was always going to be over 1.5B NZD. Don't get me wrong, NZ needs 5 aircraft well specified but until the population comes to terms with having to pay more overall for their defence - expect the NZ shopping lists to be a fantasy.

 

[Rob c]

It is interesting to note that the Portuguese signed off on $916m for 5 KC390's just a few months back. So we are paying a hell of a lot more for some convenience and a perceived risk which I consider to be offset by a possible risk of early obsolescence. To my way of thinking another case of target fixation by the NZ military, I also think that the risk factor has been highly exaggerated and is like the risk of early obsolescence , very small.

 

[ngatimozart]

It is interesting to note that the Portuguese signed off on $916m for 5 KC390's just a few months back. So we are paying a hell of a lot more for some convenience and a perceived risk which I consider to be offset by a possible risk of early obsolescence. To my way of thinking another case of target fixation by the NZ military, I also think that the risk factor has been highly exaggerated and is like the risk of early obsolescence , very small.

I am not knocking the KC390 because I think that it would be a great asset for NZ, especially since it is now part of the Boeing stable, however I very much get the impression that the current NZG is firmly staying within the FVEY fraternity for major new acquisitions. If its not operated by a FVEY partner, they're not interested. I noticed that Ron Mark was quite impressed by it and he said so, however he said that it wasn't IOC and because of that it was too risky.

 

[Gibbo]

I am not knocking the KC390 because I think that it would be a great asset for NZ, especially since it is now part of the Boeing stable, however I very much get the impression that the current NZG is firmly staying within the FVEY fraternity for major new acquisitions. If its not operated by a FVEY partner, they're not interested. I noticed that Ron Mark was quite impressed by it and he said so, however he said that it wasn't IOC and because of that it was too risky.

Yes and they are right to go with a proven piece of equipment that allies use. It's very, very risky to look at press releases & compare 1 contract with another, even of the same type... it's very much comparing apples with oranges with many of the contract prices, there is often many significant, but not so obvious, differences in contract specs.