Royal New Zealand Air Force

[MrConservative]

Given the current issues we are facIng though, would this be a good fit in the event of another earthquake regards to turnover of equipment and evacuation of local communities? Canterbury nothwithstanding, the effort is being severly hampered by damaged roads for our army response, so air transport would be seen as a priority now, surely?

It would be a baseline acceptable level in terms of fixed wing transport because what its the most pressing capability gap with respect to dealing to a HADR crisis is that we are a bit light with respect to our rotary element. They need to boost the MUH capability to 2 more airframes as what was considered optimal 13 years ago when the evaluation was undertaken.

With a fleet type mix of 2 x C-17, 4 x C-130J, and for example a B737-BCF, adding a further C-130 or B737-BCF just comes down to extra cash when the future portends that they are required.

Yes ideally, we should be working with five C-130J's and 2 B737-BCF types that have synergies with the four P-8's, along with another couple of NH90's and in my view 2 C-17's in that strategic/heavy airlift role if we can achieve some arrangement with the US.

 

[ngatimozart]

If two C-17's do get up then it will be only four C-130's and operation of a single transport type according to the recent C-17 document dump by MinDef.

There is no requirement for the solution to come from just a single manufacturer or bidding team. Making it all sweet and easy for the commercial bidder is not their main focus or problem to solve.

Yes I realise that but then it may have cost benefits in the maintenance contracts with a greater number of aircraft, rather than say just a few. I think that the KC390 offers more capability than the C130J, but unfortunately it is an immature design and still will be so in 2020.

It would be a baseline acceptable level in terms of fixed wing transport because what its the most pressing capability gap with respect to dealing to a HADR crisis is that we are a bit light with respect to our rotary element. They need to boost the MUH capability to 2 more airframes as what was considered optimal 13 years ago when the evaluation was undertaken.

With a fleet type mix of 2 x C-17, 4 x C-130J, and for example a B737-BCF, adding a further C-130 or B737-BCF just comes down to extra cash when the future portends that they are required.

Yes ideally, we should be working with five C-130J's and 2 B737-BCF types that have synergies with the four P-8's, along with another couple of NH90's and in my view 2 C-17's in that strategic/heavy airlift role if we can achieve some arrangement with the US.

I agree with the MUH need for boosting. Regarding the B737-BCF if C17s were acquired, I would actually query the need for a BCF variant with a strengthened floor because they would no longer be required for strategic lift. So I would suggest the B737-700ER instead and have a cargo door installed so that it can also fill a medivac role. It would be cheaper than a BCF and have a significant greater range, ~ 2000nm, which in our case is an important consideration.

 

[Rob c]

Yes I realise that but then it may have cost benefits in the maintenance contracts with a greater number of aircraft, rather than say just a few. I think that the KC390 offers more capability than the C130J, but unfortunately it is an immature design and still will be so in 2020.

While the C130 is a very mature design by the time we start to get our replacements the KC 390 will be in service with other air forces and both the C2 and the A400 are now in service now, so some years of service will have been accrued. If they get anywhere close to the RFI I think they are all in the picture with the C130's only saving grace being it's excessive maturity, as it falls well short on a large number of the RFI's requirements. There was the hinted possibility that both the strategic and tactical requirement could be covered by one type. I don't favor the 737 ER type as apart for max range when it can only use AIA or CHCH it offers nothing over the 757 and in fact comes up short in some area's.
The main reason for maturity seems to be cost saving. I the case of the C130j verses the Kc390 the significantly higher price for the C130 would easily ensure that any savings made due to its maturity would be cancelled out because of its significantly higher price.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

The KC390 is the elephant in the room as far as I am concerned. The systems are all mature it's just the airframe that's new. Unlike the A400 which has far too many new systems the KC390 has a lineage in other Embraer aircraft.

As has been said with Boeing responsible for worldwide marketing and support of the KC390, and its involvement with Kawasaki on their C2, it's not out of the universe that a buy of Boeing related aircraft could take the whole thing. Going a little further maybe an enhanced fleet could consist of;

Three C2 in the strategic / heavy tactical role
Four KC390 in the tactical role / AAR of both fixed and rotary assets
and
Three MH47F in the heavy rotary lift role to support domestic HADR operations in light of the recent and past earthquake events. These should be equipped with probes for receiving AAR from the KC390 to allow SP self deployment.

All supported by Boeing. Embed crews into Australian Chinook training and maintenance operations prior to arrival to prepare them.

http://worlddefencenews.blogspot.ca/2016/11/embraers-kc-390-airlifter-receives.html?m=1
All ten aircraft would be ramp equipped.

As much as I am not a fan of the P8 if it is the preferred option from a 5eyes perspective then the Boeing deal makes even more sense.

Boeing is a known commodity with worldwide support infrastructure.

From a price point the MH47F is less than additional NH90's. By working with Australia for Depot level maintenance a quick hop across the ditch isn't far to go.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Could today's announcement of a purchase of Predator B RPAS by the UK be an opportunity for the RNZAF to tag along and get not only a long endurance maritime surveillance capability but a limited strike capability as well?

As per the recent defence papers assertion of getting the best bang for the buck by taking advantage of bulk purchases with allies this may be a huge opportunity.

Your thoughts?

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.was...ed-u-s-predator-drones/?0p19G=e?client=safari

 

[John Fedup]

If Embraer wins Canada's FWSAR contest, it will likely have NZ and others taking a real hard second look at the KC-390. They are probably running a distant third in the FWSAR contest due to political backlash fears from Bombardier supporters. A shame as this jet has a lot going for it.

 

[ADMk2]

Could today's announcement of a purchase of Predator B RPAS by the UK be an opportunity for the RNZAF to tag along and get not only a long endurance maritime surveillance capability but a limited strike capability as well?

As per the recent defence papers assertion of getting the best bang for the buck by taking advantage of bulk purchases with allies this may be a huge opportunity.

Your thoughts?

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.was...ed-u-s-predator-drones/?0p19G=e?client=safari

I think NZ's lefties would have apoplexy...

 

[ngatimozart]

I think NZ's lefties would have apoplexy...

Mate they are having collective apoplexy and frothing at the mouth because the USS Sampson is helping out in Kaikoura. On that Auckland Peace Action Facebook page they were going right off like a Saturn 5. Couldn't resist having a dig or five.

 

[ngatimozart]

I don't favor the 737 ER type as apart for max range when it can only use AIA or CHCH it offers nothing over the 757 and in fact comes up short in some area's. The main reason for maturity seems to be cost saving.

That's absolute rubbish. If a B737-800 can get in to Wellington, Hamilton, Dunedin, Invercargill, then the B737-700ER will. It has a lower carrying capacity of the B737-800 but far greater range. It has the B737-700 fuselage & the B737-800 wing and under cart. The B757 is being replaced and that's the fact - what replaces it will not be another B757.

 

[t68]

Mate they are having collective apoplexy and frothing at the mouth because the USS Sampson is helping out in Kaikoura. On that Auckland Peace Action Facebook page they were going right off like a Saturn 5. Couldn't resist having a dig or five.

I have not heard of that action group before, but then I'm not on Facebook, but curiosity got the better of me and I had a quick look, one comment that caught my attention was that "Community opposition to the November visit of US Warship USS Sampson is growing fast" can you tell us the general feeling of the wider community and the media coverage of the USS Sampson visit to NZ, has it been very vocal?

And there site in regards to said visit,
https://aucklandpeaceaction.wordpre...on-the-way-community-opposition-growing-fast/

 

[ngatimozart]

I have not heard of that action group before, but then I'm not on Facebook, but curiosity got the better of me and I had a quick look, one comment that caught my attention was that "Community opposition to the November visit of US Warship USS Sampson is growing fast" can you tell us the general feeling of the wider community and the media coverage of the USS Sampson visit to NZ, has it been very vocal?

And there site in regards to said visit,
https://aucklandpeaceaction.wordpre...on-the-way-community-opposition-growing-fast/

"Community opposition to the November visit of US Warship USS Sampson is growing fast" in their own miniscule minds. Media coverage of the USS Sampson has been positive especially since it bcame involved in the Kaikoura HADR operation. One of the posts in that groups facebook page was "F**k the US for helping Kaikoura. That whole attitude is going to create a backlash against them.

 

[jbc388]

Mate they are having collective apoplexy and frothing at the mouth because the USS Sampson is helping out in Kaikoura. On that Auckland Peace Action Facebook page they were going right off like a Saturn 5. Couldn't resist having a dig or five.

Hi first time posting here but have watched for a while those guys the Auckland Peace Action Facebook page what a bunch of muppets I have made a few comments to wind them up a bit lol



Anyway this forum is a great read with useful info on what other people are thinking.

 

[Rob c]

That's absolute rubbish. If a B737-800 can get in to Wellington, Hamilton, Dunedin, Invercargill, then the B737-700ER will. It has a lower carrying capacity of the B737-800 but far greater range. It has the B737-700 fuselage & the B737-800 wing and under cart. The B757 is being replaced and that's the fact - what replaces it will not be another B757.

The ER requires 3000m at max all up weight for takeoff, landing is obviously shorter as they are much lighter then.None of the above runways are even close to this distance, when restricted to shorter runways its range is no better than the 757. The indication I got was that one of the main reasons for replacing the 757 was that they were considered as not fit for purpose. as they are far from worn out. One could surmise then that if the 757 was not fit for purpose then neither would be a 737 700 ER.

 

[ngatimozart]

The ER requires 3000m at max all up weight for takeoff, landing is obviously shorter as they are much lighter then.None of the above runways are even close to this distance, when restricted to shorter runways its range is no better than the 757. The indication I got was that one of the main reasons for replacing the 757 was that they were considered as not fit for purpose. as they are far from worn out. One could surmise then that if the 757 was not fit for purpose then neither would be a 737 700 ER.

Who said that the B757 were not fit for purpose? The reason that the B757s will not be replaced by B757 is because those aircraft have not been built for quite a while and any on the market will be well used. Also you are arguing using MTOW which would not be utilised all the time as you well know. The RNZAF flew the B757 in and out of Queenstown and the airlines fly the B737- 800s into and out of Queenstown from across the Tasman and its runway is 1900m long. The B737-800 is heavier than the 737-700 ER.

 

[ngatimozart]

AIRCREW TRAINING CAPABILITY (ACTC) PROJECT UPDATE

18 NOVEMBER 2016

Update regarding Request for Tender release

Wellington has been affected by the recent earthquakes. The Ministry of Defence and New Zealand Defence Force Buildings have suffered significant damage meaning that they currently cannot be occupied. We are working hard to relocate the ACTC Project team and this has delayed the planned issue of the Release for Tender (RFT). Currently we expect the release to be mid-next week; however, at this stage we have intermittent access to networks and emails and this may result in a further short delay.

At this stage, there have been no major changes to the RFT requirements that were in the DRAFT RFT documents released on 2 November 2016.

We apologise for the inconvenience that this may cause and look forward to re-engaging. The team will do their best to respond to any questions posted through the normal GETS process.

Background
The New Zealand Government intends to lease a fleet of King Air aircraft for seven years, starting September 2017. The new lease will include equipment fitted to the aircraft to increase capability and enable Air Warfare Officers to be trained. An open and competitive tender process for the aircraft and equipment will commence in November 2016. Subject to Government approval, a preferred prime supplier will be selected for the supply and maintenance of the fleet and all equipment.

This NOI was released via GETS.

 

[swerve]

The KC390 is the elephant in the room as far as I am concerned. The systems are all mature it's just the airframe that's new. Unlike the A400 which has far too many new systems the KC390 has a lineage in other Embraer aircraft.

As has been said with Boeing responsible for worldwide marketing and support of the KC390, and its involvement with Kawasaki on their C2, it's not out of the universe that a buy of Boeing related aircraft could take the whole thing. Going a little further maybe an enhanced fleet could consist of;

Three C2 in the strategic / heavy tactical role
Four KC390 in the tactical role / AAR of both fixed and rotary assets

Yeah, Embraer has been conservative (& sensibly so IMO) on the systems. Minimises risk, & it's relatively easy to upgrade or update them in the future, but the airframe is pretty much fixed for a long time once it enters service.

Can the KC390 do helicopter AAR? How slow can it fly?

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Swerve

According to this from Cobham it can be done.

http://www.cobham.com/mission-syste...ms/wing-air-refuelling-pods/kc-390-datasheet/

 

[Rob c]

Who said that the B757 were not fit for purpose? The reason that the B757s will not be replaced by B757 is because those aircraft have not been built for quite a while and any on the market will be well used. Also you are arguing using MTOW which would not be utilised all the time as you well know. The RNZAF flew the B757 in and out of Queenstown and the airlines fly the B737- 800s into and out of Queenstown from across the Tasman and its runway is 1900m long. The B737-800 is heavier than the 737-700 ER.

The 737- 800 is on limited fuel requirement for trips across the Tassy, and that makes a big difference, A fully loaded 757 only requires two thirds the runway of a fully loaded 737 ER the gross weight between "different" aircraft types is cannot be used to indicate similar performance criteria. The dissatisfaction with the 757 was passed on to me by a friend who has constant contact with RNZAF pilots and is not official. however the replacement of the type before they are worn out (the usual NZ defence practice is to totally scrape every gram from their equipment) would indicate there may be some substance in this. The RFI also indicates a desire by the RNZAF to acquire a military type of transport, the only requirement that a civilian type would be better at is the VIP requirement, which could be covered by a passenger pod. This does not mean that the RNZAF will get what they want, but recent acquisitions have been more in line with what is needed and closer to the military's requirements than in the past.

 

[swerve]

Swerve

According to this from Cobham it can be done.

http://www.cobham.com/mission-syste...ms/wing-air-refuelling-pods/kc-390-datasheet/

Thanks. I hope they're right. It'd be good for there to be a decent alternative to the KC-130.

 

[RegR]

The 737- 800 is on limited fuel requirement for trips across the Tassy, and that makes a big difference, A fully loaded 757 only requires two thirds the runway of a fully loaded 737 ER the gross weight between "different" aircraft types is cannot be used to indicate similar performance criteria. The dissatisfaction with the 757 was passed on to me by a friend who has constant contact with RNZAF pilots and is not official. however the replacement of the type before they are worn out (the usual NZ defence practice is to totally scrape every gram from their equipment) would indicate there may be some substance in this. The RFI also indicates a desire by the RNZAF to acquire a military type of transport, the only requirement that a civilian type would be better at is the VIP requirement, which could be covered by a passenger pod. This does not mean that the RNZAF will get what they want, but recent acquisitions have been more in line with what is needed and closer to the military's requirements than in the past.

The 757s are still not due for "replacement" for quite awhile and in line with replacement cycles for milspec vs civspec and as we aqquired them second hand initially they are already closer to their LOT than being in our service would suggest. They are not modern by civil standards and the only reason the beans even suggested early retirement was financially motivated not capability driven but as we all know getting rid of assets all to save a buck is not always as good as it seems on paper.

Interested to know why a pilot would not think essentialy a commercial airliner is not fit for purpose for moving mainly bulk pax from point A to point B? Why does said pilot not just fly the hercs then if he wants to fly tac as they are in the same squadron? I have heard nothing negative said about the boeings from a capability standpoint, pilot, maintainer and especially passenger bar the usual 'going U/S when needed' but that is not capability rather reliability, 2 different things.

Compareing the boeings to say the hercs is like compareing a unimog to say a LAV, sure you could use them to do the same task in most instances but that's not what they are designed or intended for so why?