Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Novascotiaboy]

Ngati at a fly away cost of NZ$41 million a piece then four could be had for NZ$164 million plus training and support costs. Conservatively speaking a project cost of NZ$250 million should cover the program without the attached long term life cycle costs.

Besides HADR they would be excellent SAR assets and would allow the army to train in country on an aircraft common in coalition operations. These aircraft could best be described as an insurance policy.

Ohakea is the likely geographic central location for basing and its proximity to Linton Camp offers great air mobile synergies.

Hopefully the after action reports and reviews identify the gaps and government sees the political value in the purchase of such valuable aircraft.

 

[Rob c]

Jeez no thanks. the 7.1, 6.2 and all the subsequent ones were bad enough. :shudder

Ngati, as mentioned in my post you received the second highest G forces ever recorded in an urban area, so a different type of 7.8 earthquake may have been a blessing. Richter scales can be unreliable when measuring affect in an area. For instance the 7.1 did far less damage than the 6.2.

 

[ngatimozart]

Ngati, as mentioned in my post you received the second highest G forces ever recorded in an urban area, so a different type of 7.8 earthquake may have been a blessing. Richter scales can be unreliable when measuring affect in an area. For instance the 7.1 did far less damage than the 6.2.

fftopic The 7.1 caused significant damage actually. Talk to the residents of Kaiapoi. It weakened buildings in Christchurch enough that the 6.2 finished them off. The G forces are only one part but it is the magnitude that is important because that is the intensity descriptor of the quake and it should always be read in conjuction with the quake depth. It is not the g force that damages so much but the duration of that force is applied. The 22/2 shake was a trampoline one, the first ever recorded I believe and that was the killer. I have papers and reports that have been generated from the quake sequence, plus geology texts in my book case. I did first year geology at uni as part of my degree, but the Seismology 101 practical I do not recommend.

There are a large number of helicopters in nz ( for example squirrels 5 and 6 seat) and while most are relatively small,(some bigger like the AW139 and the Bell 412) if the need was there I think they would be able to contribute significantly. Also there are the rescue helicopters. Out side of Wellington most other urban centres would not incur the the access problems that occurred. In regared to CHCH, while you did not get a 7.8 due to the location and type of earthquake the CHCH buildings received the second highest G forces (2.2G) ever recorded in an urban area due to an earthquake. The Richter scale is a measurement of the total force released, but does not measure the effect in any particular region, the G force measurement does.

When I did natural hazards work we always worked on the worst case scenario so made the assumptions that surface access to the disaster area would be severely restricted. Harking back to the Christchurch quakes we were lucky that HMNZS Canterbury was within the area and able to access the port. Lyttelton was cut off from the city by land. The major road and rail access routes to Christchurch cross major rivers both north,west and south. If bridges over those rivers had been severely damaged then we would have been cut off. That leaves the airport and if that had be severely damaged then what? Yes, you do work from history but you also have to take into account other scenarios and in NZ we are at a significant disadvantage compared to Japan because we have such a short recorded human history of earthquakes and tsunami here. Therefore how do we know who often these events occur and how many are large events? It was thought the the main divide fault rupture would produce around an 8 - 8.5 but now that is thrown into doubt because recent research suggests that the fault rupture length is actually significally longer, now being over 400km. The longer a rupture length the greater the magnitude of the quake, so now we are well into the great quake regime - possibly a 9.

At least wih quakes you can glean some history from the geologic record in NZ but paleotsunami research here is practically non existant. The first recorded tsunami in NZ is the 1855 Wairarapa event. Maori have records in various iwi oral histories of disasters that maybe tsunami and the causes are unknown. We can't accurately date the iwi records unfortunately. We had a 15m tsunami here in 1947 and it was disasterous - it destroyed a pub along the North Island East Coast. Again we don't know the cause or where it was generated but believe it to be locally generated. It was lucky that it happened there and not in Gisborne which was further along the coast.

So now do you undersand why I advocate for heaavy lift helo for NZDF. NZDFdoes need it for its own military capabilities but it is also required toundertake HADR and Chooks inthe HADR role are invaluable.

 

[Rob c]

fftopic The 7.1 caused significant damage actually. Talk to the residents of Kaiapoi. It weakened buildings in Christchurch enough that the 6.2 finished them off. The G forces are only one part but it is the magnitude that is important because that is the intensity descriptor of the quake and it should always be read in conjuction with the quake depth. It is not the g force that damages so much but the duration of that force is applied. The 22/2 shake was a trampoline one, the first ever recorded I believe and that was the killer. I have papers and reports that have been generated from the quake sequence, plus geology texts in my book case. I did first year geology at uni as part of my degree, but the Seismology 101 practical I do not recommend.

When I did natural hazards work we always worked on the worst case scenario so made the assumptions that surface access to the disaster area would be severely restricted. Harking back to the Christchurch quakes we were lucky that HMNZS Canterbury was within the area and able to access the port. Lyttelton was cut off from the city by land. The major road and rail access routes to Christchurch cross major rivers both north,west and south. If bridges over those rivers had been severely damaged then we would have been cut off. That leaves the airport and if that had be severely damaged then what? Yes, you do work from history but you also have to take into account other scenarios and in NZ we are at a significant disadvantage compared to Japan because we have such a short recorded human history of earthquakes and tsunami here. Therefore how do we know who often these events occur and how many are large events? It was thought the the main divide fault rupture would produce around an 8 - 8.5 but now that is thrown into doubt because recent research suggests that the fault rupture length is actually significally longer, now being over 400km. The longer a rupture length the greater the magnitude of the quake, so now we are well into the great quake regime - possibly a 9.

At least wih quakes you can glean some history from the geologic record in NZ but paleotsunami research here is practically non existant. The first recorded tsunami in NZ is the 1855 Wairarapa event. Maori have records in various iwi oral histories of disasters that maybe tsunami and the causes are unknown. We can't accurately date the iwi records unfortunately. We had a 15m tsunami here in 1947 and it was disasterous - it destroyed a pub along the North Island East Coast. Again we don't know the cause or where it was generated but believe it to be locally generated. It was lucky that it happened there and not in Gisborne which was further along the coast.

So now do you undersand why I advocate for heaavy lift helo for NZDF. NZDFdoes need it for its own military capabilities but it is also required toundertake HADR and Chooks inthe HADR role are invaluable.

Yes I see your point, but the the need has to be weighed against the question of usage and the time between events and could better use be made with the money in other fields such as building strengthening.If we got the heavy lift helicopters for HADR, there is a good possibility that they would need to be replace before the were used in the primary role, The only major urban area that is likely to be cut off in a major earthquake is Wellington and the size of gear that would be needed in that area I think would be beyond even a heavy lift chopper. Being cut off for a few days is an inconvenience (given, a stressful one) It is the requirement to rescue the trapped and injured is the major issue and Light/medium lift can carry out most of the functions needed in regard to transporting personal in and taking casualties out. The magnitude is a scale which tells us the total energy release, but does not tell us how this energy is applied. The G force tells us the force applied to each structure, and it is the G force which breaks things.
Hey Ngati have you given up on the Nuns (re Spelling)

 

[chis73]

While I would welcome the RNZAF operating a few Chinooks, they would definitely come with some issues. Firstly sheer operating cost. Also, it would be another type to support (again probably in very small numbers). Then there is deployment (particularly to the Pacific). If they had to airlifted (by let's say a possible A400M, C-17 or C-2), they would require substantial disassembly & reassembly before becoming operational (adding a fair amount of time to a disaster response). As far as I am aware, CH-47s are generally not marinised (apart from maybe some special forces versions) and won't fit in any hangars on RNZN vessels (so would have to be strapped to the deck or stored below), complicating seaborne deployment. I don't think self-deployment of any helicopter over oceanic distances is sensible (too much maintenance required after all the flight hours used just to get there).

Looking at the recent use of the NH90 at Kaikoura, they had to travel a fair distance from Kaikoura (it's 100km to Blenheim, 150km to Christchurch) for each trip in & out, which would have slowed the speed of the evacuation.

As an alternative to CH-47s, how would have an evacuation to the HMNZS Canterbury (& in future the new tanker), parked off the coast, by marinised NH90s have compared? A much shorter distance to be flown each trip (a few km at most each way), thus a higher sortie rate and perhaps a greater throughput of people overall. It's worth thinking about. The delivery of aid supplies by the international flotilla's helicopters seemed to be accomplished quite quickly as well.

 

[ngatimozart]

Hey Ngati have you given up on the Nuns (re Spelling)

No its an abberation and driving me nuts. I use Windows 10 with MS Edge as my browser on both my computers. The desktop browser has its spellcheck working fine, but the laptop one isn't & I can't figure out how to get the spellcheck to work. Also I am a 2 fingered typist and yes its fun, not.

Mind you TBH I did used to upset the nuns on occasion. They didn't have a sense of humour the day I rang the school bell when it wasn't supposed to be rung. Apparently 30 minutes before official lunch time is not cricket. Got 6 of the best for that . The first day I turned up, at the tender age of 5, they took one look at me and my cousin and said: "We taught your fathers & we know you". Totally unfair - bloody marked even before we started. Dad sold fireworks so a string of fire crackers thrown under the doors of the girls toilets during play time was great fun. Nuns had no sense of humour about that either. After a while they said to dad about the fire crackers and he tore me a new one in front off them. When we got home he gave me some more crackers and told me not to get caught. The nuns were the Sisters Of Mercy - they weren't very aptly named.

Yes I see your point, but the the need has to be weighed against the question of usage and the time between events and could better use be made with the money in other fields such as building strengthening.If we got the heavy lift helicopters for HADR, there is a good possibility that they would need to be replace before the were used in the primary role, The only major urban area that is likely to be cut off in a major earthquake is Wellington and the size of gear that would be needed in that area I think would be beyond even a heavy lift chopper. Being cut off for a few days is an inconvenience (given, a stressful one) It is the requirement to rescue the trapped and injured is the major issue and Light/medium lift can carry out most of the functions needed in regard to transporting personal in and taking casualties out. The magnitude is a scale which tells us the total energy release, but does not tell us how this energy is applied. The G force tells us the force applied to each structure, and it is the G force which breaks things.

Actually I am pushing the Chooks for the primary military one. The HADR role is secondary but it helps sell the deal. Speaking of HADR we tend to do at least one up the islands each year so they would still get used or that, but primarily their military role especially with the JATF.

 

[ngatimozart]

While I would welcome the RNZAF operating a few Chinooks, they would definitely come with some issues. Firstly sheer operating cost. Also, it would be another type to support (again probably in very small numbers). Then there is deployment (particularly to the Pacific). If they had to airlifted (by let's say a possible A400M, C-17 or C-2), they would require substantial disassembly & reassembly before becoming operational (adding a fair amount of time to a disaster response). As far as I am aware, CH-47s are generally not marinised (apart from maybe some special forces versions) and won't fit in any hangars on RNZN vessels (so would have to be strapped to the deck or stored below), complicating seaborne deployment. I don't think self-deployment of any helicopter over oceanic distances is sensible (too much maintenance required after all the flight hours used just to get there).

Looking at the recent use of the NH90 at Kaikoura, they had to travel a fair distance from Kaikoura (it's 100km to Blenheim, 150km to Christchurch) for each trip in & out, which would have slowed the speed of the evacuation.

As an alternative to CH-47s, how would have an evacuation to the HMNZS Canterbury (& in future the new tanker), parked off the coast, by marinised NH90s have compared? A much shorter distance to be flown each trip (a few km at most each way), thus a higher sortie rate and perhaps a greater throughput of people overall. It's worth thinking about. The delivery of aid supplies by the international flotilla's helicopters seemed to be accomplished quite quickly as well.

Don't get me wrong the NH90s are capable aircraft but there are things they can't lift and they do need to be marinised. If the chooks have to be moved to the islands for HADR then then one can be chained to Canterburys flight deck and covered. If / when a LHD is acquired then they can go on the deck of that or in the hanger. If / when the army go to 155mm artillery then the NH90s cannot lift the guns with gun disassembly so we are back to the days of the UH1Hs and the M119 105mms. A Chook can lift a M777 155mm howitzer in one piece, its ammo supply and its crew in one lift. Any major maintenance etc., can be done by Boeing in Australia under contract.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

You would also have to factor in location of local population living close to shore, lakes etc., I suppose. During Feb 2011 6.2 quake my nephews and sisters house in Burwood was ok initially, but they had liquifaction issues which along with insurance and ongoing issues with a.shoddy rebuild.�� Myself I'm out near Rolleston, so thinking the bedrock maybe in my favour? I couldn't see a Chinook in our NZDF sitting unused given the number of recent deployments in cyclone relief this yr alone, and the number of exercises like Talisman Sabre, Southern Katipo, I reckon it would become a workhorse, much like the hercs have.

 

[Rob c]

No its an abberation and driving me nuts. I use Windows 10 with MS Edge as my browser on both my computers. The desktop browser has its spellcheck working fine, but the laptop one isn't & I can't figure out how to get the spellcheck to work. Also I am a 2 fingered typist and yes its fun, not.

Mind you TBH I did used to upset the nuns on occasion. They didn't have a sense of humour the day I rang the school bell when it wasn't supposed to be rung. Apparently 30 minutes before official lunch time is not cricket. Got 6 of the best for that . The first day I turned up, at the tender age of 5, they took one look at me and my cousin and said: "We taught your fathers & we know you". Totally unfair - bloody marked even before we started. Dad sold fireworks so a string of fire crackers thrown under the doors of the girls toilets during play time was great fun. Nuns had no sense of humour about that either. After a while they said to dad about the fire crackers and he tore me a new one in front off them. When we got home he gave me some more crackers and told me not to get caught. The nuns were the Sisters Of Mercy - they weren't very aptly named.

Yea your father was a wise man, it was all about not getting caught. I was not always successful at that. Manage to set fire to some undergrowth with fireworks at the boarding school i was going to, more smoke than fire but with unfortunate results to my self after the smoke stopped.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Regarding the suggested acquisition of Chinooks and the issue of range and deployment I was not suggesting the acquisition of plain jane aircraft. I would suggest the acquisition of Canadian spec aircraft with long range internal tanks and refueling probe capability.

This would allow inflight refueling and self deployment capabilities.

As Ngati said they could lilypad if needed from Canterbury or its replacement and would be interoperable with OZ. I also agree fully with the ability to enable 155 mm transport and support.

If the KC390 is chosen as the FAMC then AAR of the Chinooks would be a reality.

 

[RegR]

While I would welcome the RNZAF operating a few Chinooks, they would definitely come with some issues. Firstly sheer operating cost. Also, it would be another type to support (again probably in very small numbers). Then there is deployment (particularly to the Pacific). If they had to airlifted (by let's say a possible A400M, C-17 or C-2), they would require substantial disassembly & reassembly before becoming operational (adding a fair amount of time to a disaster response). As far as I am aware, CH-47s are generally not marinised (apart from maybe some special forces versions) and won't fit in any hangars on RNZN vessels (so would have to be strapped to the deck or stored below), complicating seaborne deployment. I don't think self-deployment of any helicopter over oceanic distances is sensible (too much maintenance required after all the flight hours used just to get there).

Looking at the recent use of the NH90 at Kaikoura, they had to travel a fair distance from Kaikoura (it's 100km to Blenheim, 150km to Christchurch) for each trip in & out, which would have slowed the speed of the evacuation.

As an alternative to CH-47s, how would have an evacuation to the HMNZS Canterbury (& in future the new tanker), parked off the coast, by marinised NH90s have compared? A much shorter distance to be flown each trip (a few km at most each way), thus a higher sortie rate and perhaps a greater throughput of people overall. It's worth thinking about. The delivery of aid supplies by the international flotilla's helicopters seemed to be accomplished quite quickly as well.

Agreed, whilst chooks would be cool and all I feel for the majority of their time we would not actually gain full benefit of use that we don't already have in the NH90s and thus a financial drain for the very reasons you mentioned, operating cost, aqquisition, through life support, added type isues, small fleet etc etc (sound familiar, C17?). The benefits for this capability need to outweigh the considerstions not merely complement them as it is all extra cost, something even extra 90s will add but at least we are set up and running for those. That extra funding needs to come from somewhere otherwise somthing else has to give, be it capability, operating or expenditure funding as we can't just aqquire more expensive kit and run it on hopes and dreams. Aqquisition costs are only part of the overall funding over equipments lifespan something I think some forget, for example did'nt the hueys cost something like $6000 per flight hour (total roughly), NH90s closer to $20k and no doubt a CH-47 would cost more so without a considerable budget increase either the remaining fleet has to cut hours to compensate or something "lesser" has to go so nothing is really gained overall sometimes merely numbers moved. Would we also nesscessarily use them? Aus has them yet still deploys blackhawks and MRH90s on HADR ops so perhaps there is a time and place, alot of helo for maybes and what ifs.

I think the Kaikoura earthquake was unique and somewhat different to Christchuch in that it was fully isolated and the airbridge was the only option initially therefore max helo participation was the answer and luckily NZ has one of the highest helo per capita figures in the world along with the expertise (and size) of the military assets involved so was ideal, so much so they even needed temporary air traffic control to be set up. We had no where near that amount of military helo support respond to the Chch earthquake due to the differing circumstances so again is obviously site/disaster specific in terms of planning, response and outcome.

Whilst the tourists needed to be flown out of Kaikoura wether it was all the way to Christchuch is another matter and I feel maybe it was more the fact the helos were doing supply runs back was more the factor there so worked out anyway otherwise they could have just flown them beyond the blocked roads to say waiting buses, trucks, planes etc. Once the CY turned up they just flew them there meaning quicker turnaround times and more pers/freight moved as it was obviously closer.

I guess for something like this being fully marinised is not so much of an issue as they are more or less lillypadding and working off the naval ships rather than from them ie not at sea per se or underway but I did notice most of the 90s were the ones set up for working over water with flotation rig. A requirement no doubt considering the civilian cargo.

Overall good to see and just goes to prove why we conduct all these excersises and exchanges with our allies as the proof was in the pudding and this could have been anywhere in the world.

 

[swerve]

ADMk2 the height I have for the NH90 to the top of the rotor hub is here;
French Caiman | Modern weapons

The C17 dimensions are here;
C-17 Globemaster III dimensions

Somewhere in between these two dimensions is almost a half a metre. Not sure how this round peg fits in a square hole. Unless there is more to it then please share.

The C-17 cross-sections on that page show the cargo compartment is 4.50 metres tall behind the wing box, reducing to 3.96 under the wing. The NH90 rotor can be behind the wing.

3.76 metres comes from the USAF C-17 page. From other diagrams, it's possible to see that that's the lowest point, measured at the edge, under the wing. So it's the maximum height for a full-width rectangular object under or forward of the wing.

Under the wing there's more height in the middle, & behind the wing there's quite a lot more height right across the width.

 

[Rob c]

Agreed, whilst chooks would be cool and all I feel for the majority of their time we would not actually gain full benefit of use that we don't already have in the NH90s and thus a financial drain for the very reasons you mentioned, operating cost, aqquisition, through life support, added type isues, small fleet etc etc (sound familiar, C17?). The benefits for this capability need to outweigh the considerstions not merely complement them as it is all extra cost, something even extra 90s will add but at least we are set up and running for those. That extra funding needs to come from somewhere otherwise somthing else has to give, be it capability, operating or expenditure funding as we can't just aqquire more expensive kit and run it on hopes and dreams. Aqquisition costs are only part of the overall funding over equipments lifespan something I think some forget, for example did'nt the hueys cost something like $6000 per flight hour (total roughly), NH90s closer to $20k and no doubt a CH-47 would cost more so without a considerable budget increase either the remaining fleet has to cut hours to compensate or something "lesser" has to go so nothing is really gained overall sometimes merely numbers moved. Would we also nesscessarily use them? Aus has them yet still deploys blackhawks and MRH90s on HADR ops so perhaps there is a time and place, alot of helo for maybes and what ifs.

Agree with the above and I am also of the opinion that we would do better with additional NH90s. The same philosophy could be applied to the C130/B757 replacement. I think there could be significant savings going for one aircraft type, say 5-6 C2s or 7-8 KC390s, This would lower your infrastructure costs significantly, increase the availability of a spare in the event of a fault and simplify crew training. By going only for the jet powered types you also decrees transit times leading to greater availability and both types use modern but existing systems and did not go down the A400M road and try to re-invent the wheel so there is far less risk involved.

 

[htbrst]

The NZ Herald appears to be about to run some form of advertorial or article about the KC-390 - they have a video up and an article listed but its not working at the moment.

Link to the video: Watch: Inside Brazil's KC-390 - Business - NZ Herald Videos
Link to the article: Test flight in giant Brazilian jet: 'Unfortunately, you will not be able to fly the plane'

The video give the basic rundown of replacing the C-130H's, with the C-130J and A400M shoved in as images.

 

[ngatimozart]

The NZ Herald appears to be about to run some form of advertorial or article about the KC-390 - they have a video up and an article listed but its not working at the moment.

Link to the video: Watch: Inside Brazil's KC-390 - Business - NZ Herald Videos
Link to the article: Test flight in giant Brazilian jet: 'Unfortunately, you will not be able to fly the plane'

The video give the basic rundown of replacing the C-130H's, with the C-130J and A400M shoved in as images.

They'd be silly not to and IMHO there are many good attributes about the KC390. I don't think it is as risky as some might believe because it is basically using MOTS and COTS systems so no new untried technology. I reckon it has a chance and if they are really serious they will sure that they can have one aircraft here by Feb 2020.

The Aussies will be looking at replacing their C130Js in the next few years and Embraer will be aware of that. The Aussies may not be that keen on the A400M after their experiences with other European aircraft. I've also heard through the grapevine that the RAF are not overly impressed with the A400M either. Extremely disliked in some quarters may be an appropriate term. The C130s days are drawing to a close and the USAF are intending to replace it already having a project underway.

 

[swerve]

What are the reasons given for 'extremely disliked'?

The USAF had a project to replace the C-130 40 years ago, Had prototypes flying.

 

[t68]

They'd be silly not to and IMHO there are many good attributes about the KC390. I don't think it is as risky as some might believe because it is basically using MOTS and COTS systems so no new untried technology. I reckon it has a chance and if they are really serious they will sure that they can have one aircraft here by Feb 2020.

The Aussies will be looking at replacing their C130Js in the next few years and Embraer will be aware of that. The Aussies may not be that keen on the A400M after their experiences with other European aircraft. I've also heard through the grapevine that the RAF are not overly impressed with the A400M either. Extremely disliked in some quarters may be an appropriate term. The C130s days are drawing to a close and the USAF are intending to replace it already having a project underway.

The US has a firm order for 32 more C130J plus a multi year contract for 72 airframes, so the production should continue into the mid 20's.

The US has been look for a replacement for C130 and has put out a CRFI sometime ago , and are looking for something with a larger payload have seen reports of something in the vicinity of 190% more and a new concept called mounted vertical maneuver, it appears to be a cargo box something similer to the A400M under the Vertical lift program for which the ADF has been invited to participate in which they accepted, I havnt seen anything concrete but not expecting the RAAF C130J to be replaced till the mid 30's


https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...12c3ab214cffa29f23eaf6d9bae&tab=core&_cview=1


https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=6255a574e8cb005dff6fe2dbfcd7e14b

 

[ngatimozart]

What are the reasons given for 'extremely disliked'?

That I am unsure of. The term used was "hated" and no reasons were given. It was a conversation in passing and I didn't have the opportunity to ask questions.

 

[t68]

That I am unsure of. The term used was "hated" and no reasons were given. It was a conversation in passing and I didn't have the opportunity to ask questions.

Might have more to do with they can't get them quick enough and to a satisfactory level, so the hate might be directed at Airbus and not the horse.

 

[ngatimozart]

I see that a USAF C40 has been in and out of Whenuapai a couple of times recently. Appears to be no problem for B737 to fly direct to Nadi from Whenuapai. Just saying.