Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ngatimozart]

Can a B777-200ER get into and out of Wellington with a useful load?
Can you land a B777-200ER at McMurdo?
These have got to be two of the baseline requirements.

If the answers are "yes", then a couple of these airframes might be a very attractive buy, because they'll be written down to about $0 in Air NZ's books.
Maybe splash out on a third and outfit it as "Kiwi Force One"? LOL

Yes a B777-200ER would be able to get in and out of Phoenix Field at McMurdo.

If a B777-200ER was flying in and out of Wellington will VIP PAX and their hangers on, plus media, the answer would also be yes because it wouldn't be operating at anywhere near full capacity.

I would suggest that if we went down this road, we should go with three because our experience with the B757-200 Combi has shown us that two isn't enough, from an availability point of view.

I saw a comment elsewhere that this won't happen because they are to big and couldn't operate out of Whenuapai, being restricted to Ohakea. Well same was said about the P-8A, yet we got them. More to the point, I think that people who believe that have muddled thinking, because if we replace the B757-200 Combi with a B767 variant or an A330 variant such as the A330MRTT, the same argument applies. Even the B757-200 Combi cannot operate out of Whenuapai at full capacity. It also reflects those who still are stuck in the past and think that because, for example we did things a certain way with Hercs and Andovers, or with Orions, that is the way it is done and anything else is rubbish.

The interesting point about the B777-200ER in freight mode is that it can lift a 100 tonne payload, so whilst it wouldn't be able to lift that down to the ice, it would still be able to lift a significant load to the ice. That is an advantage in itself.

 

[KiwiRob]

Yes a B777-200ER would be able to get in and out of Phoenix Field at McMurdo.

If a B777-200ER was flying in and out of Wellington will VIP PAX and their hangers on, plus media, the answer would also be yes because it wouldn't be operating at anywhere near full capacity.

I would suggest that if we went down this road, we should go with three because our experience with the B757-200 Combi has shown us that two isn't enough, from an availability point of view.

I saw a comment elsewhere that this won't happen because they are to big and couldn't operate out of Whenuapai, being restricted to Ohakea. Well same was said about the P-8A, yet we got them. More to the point, I think that people who believe that have muddled thinking, because if we replace the B757-200 Combi with a B767 variant or an A330 variant such as the A330MRTT, the same argument applies. Even the B757-200 Combi cannot operate out of Whenuapai at full capacity. It also reflects those who still are stuck in the past and think that because, for example we did things a certain way with Hercs and Andovers, or with Orions, that is the way it is done and anything else is rubbish.

The interesting point about the B777-200ER in freight mode is that it can lift a 100 tonne payload, so whilst it wouldn't be able to lift that down to the ice, it would still be able to lift a significant load to the ice. That is an advantage in itself.

Which is where my idea of selling off Whenuapai and relocating to AKL comes into play.

 

[ngatimozart]

Which is where my idea of selling off Whenuapai and relocating to AKL comes into play.

Yep, and that does make sense in that context. I see this as an opportunity to get good capability for a great price, well within the bugdeted amount, being able to fit all the self protection kit and coms that the J30 have, and still have a lot of money left over.

 

[MrConservative]

Can a B777-200ER get into and out of Wellington with a useful load?

Singapore Airlines were operating a scheduled B777-200ER service out of Wellington until late last year flying with a reduced 263 passenger configuration. There have been other operators use the airport on an adhoc basis such as Air New Zealand and the Japanese airline ANA.

Can you land a B777-200ER at McMurdo?

Technically there is no reason why but it has to be cleared through the US DoD Ice Runway Criteria FC 3-260-06F regime following a qualification trial which will set weight parameters. Both the the B-757-2K and Boeing 767-300ER have meet FC 3-260-06F requirements.

If the answers are "yes", then a couple of these airframes might be a very attractive buy, because they'll be written down to about $0 in Air NZ's books. Maybe splash out on a third and outfit it as "Kiwi Force One"? LOL

Estimates are that a P2F conversion of a B772 would be around US$35m. Air New Zealand were considering a program of work to do this but Covid 19 events over ran this.

Air New Zealand Considers Converting 777s To Freighters

simpleflying.com

 

[Shanesworld]

Would the proceeds of such a sale stay in the NZDF kitty?

 

[ngatimozart]

Would the proceeds of such a sale stay in the NZDF kitty?

What sale?

 

[MrConservative]

A potential ex Air NZ B772 option does have merit and should not be dismissed as out of hand. For context it is only a bit larger than the A332. We were seriously considering the C-17 a few years back so the increase in size over the B752 is not daunting or an unsurprising consideration if the medium to longer context and expected strategic change that will eventuate over the lifecycle of such an airframe is given context. Rinse and repeat of a like for like capability in the size context is not a legitimate solution.

I would suggest that if we went down this road, we should go with three because our experience with the B757-200 Combi has shown us that two isn't enough, from an availability point of view.

It is a problem and needs to be looked at in a balanced way. One mitigating issue is that will there be 600 hours p.a of regular tasking available to keep that extra 3rd airframe sweet and ticking over. It is not an insignificant thing and will increase fleet costs by one third. Aircraft ownership is a bit like owning a dog you have to give it regular exercise. If you don't walk your dog often enough it will go u/s. Bear in mind that the B772 will have over double the lift capacity of the current B752. I am just putting it out there as it does need to be recognised.

On the other hand because of its greater lift capacity than the B752 it may be of greater demand and utility in a wider trans-tasman sense under CDR, in that it could alleviate some of the air mobility burden on the KC-30's allowing them a greater proportion of tasking on A2A. That may be a good quid pro quo arrangement between the two defence forces - we might need an outsize load per C-17 from time to time (like getting a B772 engine from Alice to Auckland) and they may need capacity to fly a decent sized Army contingent off somewhere and not impact the RAAF's KC-30A operations with their F-35's or Growlers. Also by 2035 the NZ Army if the DWP intention remains will build itself back to around 6000 regular personnel - that growth will drive future strategic requirements over the medium to longer term.

The other thing of course is that the potential is there to "add value" by incorporating like the JASDF have done and include a networked communications node capability on a couple of the airframes. There are likely other applications which could evolve or be explored. The real estate is inherently there.

Notwithstanding a potential B772 option would be cheap as chips - and with a potential $600m budget being earmarked for Part II of FAMC their is some scope. Air NZ own four of the B772's they are going to put into the desert. Buy four, fly three and convert two and keep one as a vanilla airframe for pax/vip which can still be useful as a backup lift and shifter noting its not inconsiderable lower deck cargo capability. Keep the fourth airframe in the OZ desert for spares.

What might be of interest to people is that EVA the Taiwanese airline in the mid 1990's were working with Boeing on a 777M variant which was a quick change combi which Boeing said they could deliver within 18 months. A Letter of Intent was signed in 1995 for eight 777M's with an option for four more. However the Asian Economic Crisis later in the decade killed the deal. The proposed combi aircraft for EVA would have accommodated up to 220 passengers, and a maximum of seven cargo pallets on the main deck, weighing up to 38000kgs. Boeing had to decide whether to manufacture the combi directly on the existing production line, or complete the aircraft as standard 777-200s, followed by conversion.

I saw a comment elsewhere that this won't happen because they are to big and couldn't operate out of Whenuapai, being restricted to Ohakea. Well same was said about the P-8A, yet we got them. More to the point, I think that people who believe that have muddled thinking, because if we replace the B757-200 Combi with a B767 variant or an A330 variant such as the A330MRTT, the same argument applies. Even the B757-200 Combi cannot operate out of Whenuapai at full capacity.

The B772ER has great flexibility, which is why it is a favourite of airlines worldwide. It all depends on how much the fuel - payload (including pax) balance is. It can get out of WLG and easily fly either across the Tasman in a VIP plus pax and baggage loading or through to the IATA listed hub airports in the Pacific capitals which can all handle FAA Part 139.315 Category D aircraft.

The B752 as we know does not have the range to safely operate down to the ICE due to PSR shortfalls. It is also only capable of lifting 21 tonnes spread across 11 pallets. The truth is - the B752 is only a "regional" strategic lifter and a fairly modest one at that. It only carries 160 pax other than when Jacinda and Jethro are on it, meaning that oversubscribed Vet Affairs and MFAT flights have had limits. So their is a cogent argument for some bigger and with longer range. So yes that means we would not be able to get out of WP or WLG or even OH at MTOW. I have always said that for the greater good of Auckland, and I agree with KiwiRob above that RNZAF Base Auckland should shift from WP and be an Air Movements Facility/Sub Base at AIA at Mangere, where it would be just around the corner from Air NZ. WP is being surrounded by suburbia like it or not, its value to the nation state and city in the real world of peoples daily lives is as housing for working families. Seven aircraft on hundreds of hectares cannot be justified - over a thousand if one considers the preclusion of housing over the runway approaches. Besides it has always been semi surrounded by the Waitakere Ranges to the south and west. That is not to say that parts of the current Defence Force facilities cannot remain in place such as Admin and Comms and some defence accomodation remaining to cater to the Auckland region (Even Navy personnel if they stay at DNB as there is a ferry up the harbour from Hobby which will get them to Stanley Point). Just an end to flight operations and 90% of the land turned over to residential.

There really is not that much choice going forward for a FAMC strategic solution. The B763, the B772 or the A332. All three have their merits so it is really a point of what will work in the context of a Post 2025 through to 2050 in terms of the NZDF. What a B772 or alternatively an A332 will provide is a global capability compared to the B752 or even a B763. Meaning Singapore, Bangkok, Beijing, Tokyo, Vancouver, LA, Santiago, Cape Town are all within one hop. Europe and the Middle East in two.

 

[MrConservative]

A moaning article about the 757's both being simultaneously out of action for two weeks (scheduled maintenance for one, no spare engines for No.2)... Of course about 30 minutes after I read the article one flew overhead.: Both Air Force jets spend two weeks simultaneously out of action

The Defence Minister is out looking for second-hand airliners to replace them though...

Dear Ron,

This should never have happened. Months away from getting engine o/h completed. The B757 replacement a few years ago was 2023 per DPW10 following 20 years in service, then 2025 per DWP16 and now 2028.

It is delusional that both will make it to 2028. Eight years away. The RNZAF flew the B752's for 4 years as vanilla airframes before conversion. Just grab a couple of decent wide bodies - there are a few parked down the road - requisition them for gawd sake, into the paint shop for a shade of grey, secure comms installed and get on with it.

Even if it is in the interim as a solution, it will stop a potential policy failure, mission failure and international embarrassment.

Regards, MrC

 

[Shanesworld]

What sale?

The sale of whenuapai? My gut feeling in this new climate would be no.

 

[Jellybeen]

Can a B777-200ER get into and out of Wellington with a useful load?
Can you land a B777-200ER at McMurdo?
These have got to be two of the baseline requirements.

If the answers are "yes", then a couple of these airframes might be a very attractive buy, because they'll be written down to about $0 in Air NZ's books.
Maybe splash out on a third and outfit it as "Kiwi Force One"? LOL

Can I ask at around 14 years old are we not going down the same rocky road . The Air Nz airframes are getting up there age wise . I for one think that cheap is not always the answer , maybe we should for a change spend some cash and buy the right bit of kit that is suitable for the job intended. My personal view is we should go new, an air refueling option, which would be a great force multipler for us as well as those we work with!

 

[Xthenaki]

Dear Ron,

This should never have happened. Months away from getting engine o/h completed. The B757 replacement a few years ago was 2023 per DPW10 following 20 years in service, then 2025 per DWP16 and now 2028.

It is delusional that both will make it to 2028. Eight years away. The RNZAF flew the B752's for 4 years as vanilla airframes before conversion. Just grab a couple of decent wide bodies - there are a few parked down the road - requisition them for gawd sake, into the paint shop for a shade of grey, secure comms installed and get on with it.

Even if it is in the interim as a solution, it will stop a potential policy failure, mission failure and international embarrassment.

Regards, MrC

I completely agree with you. A great interim solution. Eases primarily the load on the B752's and may even help the C130H fleet in limited cases until the C130J's arrive in 2024/2025.

 

[ngatimozart]

Can I ask at around 14 years old are we not going down the same rocky road . The Air Nz airframes are getting up there age wise . I for one think that cheap is not always the answer , maybe we should for a change spend some cash and buy the right bit of kit that is suitable for the job intended. My personal view is we should go new, an air refueling option, which would be a great force multipler for us as well as those we work with!

No, they're still relatively young and we wouldn't be putting them anywhere near through the cycles that they would go through with a commercial operation. However we probably would want to ensure that they did operate a reasonable number of cycles. I agree about an AAR requirement, and remember a time back reading somewhere that there was a proposal to use them as the replacement for the KC-10 Extender as the strategic tanker aircraft. Don't know what happened to that proposal.

 

[swerve]

The KC-777 proposal was about 15 years ago & IIRC it got no further than Powerpoint, with no mentions since about 2006. I don't see the RNZAF being the lead customer on a new tanker development.

If you want a tanker to offload more, at longer range, than A330 MRTT it means either a new development to turn another type into a tanker, or asking Airbus to increase the fuel load of A330 MRTT. The latter has been offered by Airbus. Its fuel load is limited by tank volume, not weight: it can take another 45 tons, & Airbus has offered to fit extra fuel tanks in the cargo hold for any tanker customer who wants it. That should be a pretty low-risk modification with very low development cost.

Otherwise it's one of the existing takers: standard A330 MRTT, Israeli-converted or direct from Boeing 767s, or tanker versions of military freighters, which for the RNZAF would logically be KC-130J.

 

[John Fedup]

MRTT is the correct choice, period! It is flying and NZ’s closest defence partner uses it.

 

[MrConservative]

MRTT is the correct choice, period! It is flying and NZ’s closest defence partner uses it.

There is now a far more reduced requirement for any NZDF owned A2A tanker capability.

The P-8A will be shifting from WP to OH and will have sufficient range to operate from its runway. The P-8A will also be able to be refuelled from a number of extended runways in the Pacific Islands as per what they have done with the P-3 for the last 54 years. If deployed on a coalition mission the P-8A will utilise tanker assets of other nations. Not unlike other nations who will be utilising our Aotearoa capability.

NH90's will be not self deploying into the islands topped up with gas courtesy of a C-130J. The decision was to go with an expanded amphibious sealift capability that had an enhanced aviation capacity.

There are more effective supplementary capabilities that a wide body passenger based strategic platform can perform if one wants to raise the point about having an asset that is a strategic enabler in a coalition sense and more significantly within a New Zealand defence context.

 

[OPSSG]

There is now a far more reduced requirement for any NZDF owned A2A tanker capability.

1. I have to admit at times like this, painting the Boeing 777-200ER grey, along with a freighter conversion programme, along the lines you mention in post #8,347 is a very attractive option that NZDF should consider.

2. Even if there is no plans to get a A2A tanker in 2020 or 2021, I would hope that in the analysis of alternatives to be selected to replace the B757, the A330-200 is considered (even 2nd hand ones that are less than 5 years old). I note that:

​

(i) NZDF can elect to modify them later should the need arise. Even if there is no plans to get a A2A tanker in 2020 or 2021, I would hope that the platform selected to replace the B757 replacement is the A330-200 (even 2nd hand ones that are less than 5 years old). If NZDF were at another DWP (in the mid-2020s) to ‘discover’ a need for A2A refuelling need for its C-130J or P-8A due to future changes to its strategic environment. This way, NZDF can elect to modify them later should the need arise.​

​

The other thing of course is that the potential is there to "add value" by incorporating like the JASDF have done and include a networked communications node capability on a couple of the airframes. There are likely other applications which could evolve or be explored. The real estate is inherently there.

(ii) Further to your comms suit comment, Singapore is the first customer to receive an improved version of the A330 MRTT, which is also capable of taking on expanded roles including acting as an airborne communications node, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. Certainly, a A330-200 (18 operated by Qantas) without A2A tanking capability would have easy route for modifications as an airborne communications node, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions being developed and tested by other nations (when compared other airliners and the recurring engineering costs borne by Singapore initially to derisk the project) — should the NZ Army need to be deployed.​

3. You are well aware of A330 MRTT’s ability to extend the range of the new C-130Js being acquired — the Australians have installed the Honeywell Ka-Band satellite communications (SATCOM) system In five of their C-130Js. This SATCOM upgrade will also be attractive to NZDF — the USAF has also equipped a limited amount of its C-130s flown by Air National Guard units with the Litening pod. — so there is no need to expand on the advantages of persistence for NZ C-130Js by A2A refuelling.

4. By the 2030s more of the Pacific Islands will find Chinese investments hard to resist and you can be sure that China’s wolf warrior diplomacy will feature prominently.

 

[south]

The KC-777 proposal was about 15 years ago & IIRC it got no further than Powerpoint, with no mentions since about 2006. I don't see the RNZAF being the lead customer on a new tanker development.

If you want a tanker to offload more, at longer range, than A330 MRTT it means either a new development to turn another type into a tanker, or asking Airbus to increase the fuel load of A330 MRTT. The latter has been offered by Airbus. Its fuel load is limited by tank volume, not weight: it can take another 45 tons, & Airbus has offered to fit extra fuel tanks in the cargo hold for any tanker customer who wants it. That should be a pretty low-risk modification with very low development cost.

Otherwise it's one of the existing takers: standard A330 MRTT, Israeli-converted or direct from Boeing 767s, or tanker versions of military freighters, which for the RNZAF would logically be KC-130J.

G’day swerve, do you have a citation for your middle paragraph (that the A330 could take more gas)?

 

[MrConservative]

1. I have to admit at times like this, painting the Boeing 777-200ER grey, along with a freighter conversion programme, along the lines you mention in post #8,347 is a very attractive option that NZDF should consider.

As an interim solution to the increasingly B757-2K's going U/S I think there is a compelling rationale for ex Air NZ B772-ER's to be introduced. The B757-2K main deck capability in full freighter mode is 11 463L pallets which have a height limit of 65 inches and a max load of 21000kgs. The lower hold of the standard B772-ER holds 10 463L pallets which have a slightly less height limit of 63 inches yet a max load of 52000kgs and a further 4000kg rear bulk hold. However, the B772 can carry a full load of passengers at a substantially greater range. As an interim solution for 5-7 years whether we would go for a an OEM Freighter / QC / Combi conversion could be evaluated as future policy and requirements unfold.

The B757-2K's are now nearly 30 years old and by May 2023 would have given 20 years of service. At DWP 2010 they were earmarked for removal from service by 2023. That 2023 date line should happen and a improved B772 capability would provide for a newer and more reliable interim solution allowing for breathing space until a final permanent solution and judgement call on exact long term capabilities are required.

The B772 is the easiest and cheapest option for the RNZAF to embrace in the interim. Air NZ (50% owned by the taxpayer) possess a CAE 7000 series flight simulator which is supported by a dedicated CBT classroom and 2 CAE Integrated Procedure Trainers which is available for hire. The RNZAF have at times used Air NZ sim and training facilities, including the former B767 sim for B757 pilots. There will be plenty of spare sim time capacity from now on. On the support side the RNZAF taking over some B772's would allow for Air NZ engineering to provide continuity and this cannot be over-stressed - EPMA Union jobs!

2. Even if there is no plans to get a A2A tanker in 2020 or 2021, I would hope that in the analysis of alternatives to be selected to replace the B757, the A330-200 is considered (even 2nd hand ones that are less than 5 years old). I note that:

​

(i) NZDF can elect to modify them later should the need arise. Even if there is no plans to get a A2A tanker in 2020 or 2021, I would hope that the platform selected to replace the B757 replacement is the A330-200 (even 2nd hand ones that are less than 5 years old). This way, NZDF can elect to modify them later should the need arise.​

​

​

I guess if the A330-200 gets the eventual nod you'd be keen on the work going up to ST in Singapore.​

​

​

(ii) Further to your comms suit comment, Singapore is the first customer to receive an improved version of the A330 MRTT, which is also capable of taking on expanded roles including acting as an airborne communications node, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions.​

​

​

If a transfer could be made of the B772's over the next year - it could allow for secure coms and potentially airborne communications node suite to be fitted and the capability IOC'ed by the time the B757-K2 gets put out to pasture by 2023.​

​

​

If NZDF were at another DWP (in the mid-2020s) to ‘discover’ a need for A2A refuelling need for its C-130J or P-8A due to future changes to its strategic environment. By the 2030s more of the Pacific Islands will find Chinese investments hard to resist and you can be sure that China’s wolf warrior diplomacy will feature prominently.

My view is that a RNZAF tanker capability won't be necessary unless the strategic outlooks deteriorates to the point were we reverse the misguided and senseless no air combat capability.

 

[ngatimozart]

1. I have to admit at times like this, painting the Boeing 777-200ER grey, along with a freighter conversion programme, along the lines you mention in post #8,347 is a very attractive option that NZDF should consider.

2. Even if there is no plans to get a A2A tanker in 2020 or 2021, I would hope that in the analysis of alternatives to be selected to replace the B757, the A330-200 is considered (even 2nd hand ones that are less than 5 years old). I note that:

​

(i) NZDF can elect to modify them later should the need arise. Even if there is no plans to get a A2A tanker in 2020 or 2021, I would hope that the platform selected to replace the B757 replacement is the A330-200 (even 2nd hand ones that are less than 5 years old). If NZDF were at another DWP (in the mid-2020s) to ‘discover’ a need for A2A refuelling need for its C-130J or P-8A due to future changes to its strategic environment. This way, NZDF can elect to modify them later should the need arise.​

​

​

(ii) Further to your comms suit comment, Singapore is the first customer to receive an improved version of the A330 MRTT, which is also capable of taking on expanded roles including acting as an airborne communications node, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. Certainly, a A330-200 (18 operated by Qantas) without A2A tanking capability would have easy route for modifications as an airborne communications node, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions being developed and tested by other nations (when compared other airliners and the recurring engineering costs borne by Singapore initially to derisk the project) — should the NZ Army need to be deployed.​

3. You are well aware of A330 MRTT’s ability to extend the range of the new C-130Js being acquired — the Australians have installed the Honeywell Ka-Band satellite communications (SATCOM) system In five of their C-130Js. This SATCOM upgrade will also be attractive to NZDF — the USAF has also equipped a limited amount of its C-130s flown by Air National Guard units with the Litening pod. — so there is no need to expand on the advantages of persistence for NZ C-130Js by A2A refuelling.

4. By the 2030s more of the Pacific Islands will find Chinese investments hard to resist and you can be sure that China’s wolf warrior diplomacy will feature prominently.

This is the fitout as described in the DSCA release:

The Government of New Zealand has requested to buy five (5) C-130J aircraft; twenty-four (24) Rolls Royce AE-2100D3 turboprop engines (20 installed, 4 spares); fifteen (15) Embedded Global Positioning System (GPS)/Inertial Navigation Systems (INS) (EGIs) with GPS security devices, airborne (10 installed, 5 spares); eight (8) Multi-Information Distribution System (MIDS)/Link-16 Low Video Terminal (LVT)-BU2 (5 installed, 3 spares); thirteen (13) AN/AAQ-24(V)N LAIRCM (Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures) System Processor Replacement (LSPR) (10 installed, 3 spares); and nineteen (19) Guardian Laser Transmitter Assembly for LAIRCM (15 installed, 4 spares). Also included are eight (8) AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning System (MWS); eight (8) AN/APN-241 Low Power Color Radar; eight (8) AN/ALR-56M Missile Warning System Receiver; fifteen (15) AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing System; six (6) MX-20HD Electro-Optical/Infrared Imaging System; forty-four (44) Missile Warning Sensor, LAIRCM; Control Interface Unit Replacement, LAIRCM; classified memory cards, LAIRCM; Low Volume Terminal Cryptographic Modules KIV-55; AN/ARC-210 RT-1990A(C) Radio; AN/ARC- 164(V) RT-1518 Radio; AN/ARC-153 Tactical Air Navigation; AN/ARN-147 VHF Receiver; AN/ARC-190 HF Radio; AN/ARC-222 VHF Radio w/SINCGARS; Classified Tactical Manuals; Cartridge Activated Devices/Propellant Activated Devices; M206 Flares; MJU-64/B Decoy; BBU-35A/B Impulse Carts; Joint Mission Planning System; Classified Computer Identification Numbers; Electronic Combat International Security Assistance Program (ECISAP) support, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The total estimated value is $1.4 billion.​

New Zealand – C-130J Aircraft | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

I think I read somewhere that SATCOMS are included, but don't quote me. Maybe @MrConservative can confirm this.

 

[OPSSG]

For a comms bearer, the angle that Singapore takes is from IP ownership of certain software modules as the hardware is COTS or MOTS.

I guess if the A330-200 gets the eventual nod you'd be keen on the work going up to ST in Singapore.

In this case, I don’t look at it from a Singapore industrial base angle as the A330MRTT is bought from Europe.

There are plenty of MRO around that can also do cargo conversions and as I understand it, the A330-200 is not a popular conversion model. If Singapore wins, it has to be on price or best value — due to the supplemental type certificate (STC) developed using original OEM engineering data. In this case, I am looking at it from a NZDF benefit angle - to be able to send pilots to Australia or Singapore for your NZ Air Force pipeline.