It's a pity they didn't order a few more NH90's at the same time.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
According to the Raytheon sales pitch you can convert the MK 46 to MK 54 with a "low-cost" upgrade kit.
Raytheon: MK 54 Lightweight Torpedo
Replace or upgrade, I hope they go all MK54.
A puff piece about Airbus (ex - Safe Air) in Marlborough with some nice shots of sea-sprites without engine covers. 75% of their work is for the RNZAF, with a new ongoing contract currently being negotiated and finalised in the next few months:
Pulling airforce planes apart for 20 years
Pulling airforce planes apart for 20 years
I hope so, but I do remember reading somewhere a few years back that our stock of Mk-46 mod 5 torpedoes were pretty ancient, so I hope that the upgrade kit will apply. I think that they might've been the first ones off the block from about the time Noah started his Ordinary Seaman's task book.
Anyway it would be very silly not to upgrade all of NZDF's Mk-46 mod 5 torpedo stock up to Mk-54 standard.After thinking about it I am left wondering why they have purchased new MK 54's if they could have upgraded existing stocks of MK46's to MK 54 standard. Knowing our government's attitude to capital expenditure on defence I would have thought that they would have upgraded rather than purchased new if this had been an option. So it would seem to me that any upgrade they could do would not have met the standards required by the P8. However any improvement in our MK46's over their current standard would be welcome, as from memory they are not due for replacement until 2028.I hope so, but I do remember reading somewhere a few years back that our stock of Mk-46 mod 5 torpedoes were pretty ancient, so I hope that the upgrade kit will apply. I think that they might've been the first ones off the block from about the time Noah started his Ordinary Seaman's task book.
The Cabinet papers on the P-8A acquisition approval have been released.
DEFENCE FORCE FUTURE AIR SURVEILLANCE: APPROVAL TO PURCHASE THE BOEING P-8A POSEIDON AIRCRAFT
DEFENCE FORCE FUTURE AIR SURVEILLANCE: APPROVAL TO PURCHASE THE BOEING P-8A POSEIDON AIRCRAFT
Note it was the cheapest option, that money is set aside for a complementary platform which likely portends to 2-3 KA-350ER's (or outside chance Sea Guardian) and synergies with the FAMC.
Something like the US Customs and Boarder Patrol KA-350ER multi-role enforcement aircraft would be nice, but optimized for maritime patrol.
Multi-Role Enforcement Aircraft | U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Since this is largely about a RNZAF capability, I am continuing this here.
For the RNZAF's FAMC requirement, as I understand it, there are two components both of which are fixed wing. The first, which is also IMO the most urgent, would be a tactical airlift replacement for the C-130H and potential candidates could be CN-235, C-295, C-27J, C-130J, KC-390 or perhaps even the A400M. The other requirement is for a strategic airlift replacement for the B-757, with potential candidates being militarized version of newer civilian passenger/freight airliners, the A400M, Kawasaki C-2, or perhaps even 'surplus' C-17's from USAF stocks.
My take on the aircraft listed is that the A400M would be more suitable as a replacement for the strategic airlift requirement and would be overkill, both in terms of acquisition and operating costs, for the tactical airlift role. As I understand it, there already exist a significant number of airlift missions where C-130 transports were moving a quantity of cargo that was much smaller than either the volume or weight a C-130 could carry, so that the Hercules was flying mostly empty. The Hercules was used (by the USAF and RAAF in these instances) because it was the aircraft which was available when/where needed that met or exceeded the range and cargo weight/volume requirements. If the A400M is selected to fill the tactical airlift role, then I suspect the operating costs for airlift to go up, and the cost per weight/volume of cargo carried to also climb, because there would be even more missions where aircraft are flying mostly empty because smaller and less expensive aircraft to operate are just not in the inventory.
Personally, I think the RNZAF fixed wing air transport fleet needs to go back to a structure similar to what it had in the 1990's where there were three tiers of transport with the Andovers, C-130H, and B727's, covering tactical (short and medium) airlift, and then strategic airlift.
Personally I disagree, but I have some questions to clarify my understanding of the position.
For the RNZAF's FAMC requirement, as I understand it, there are two components both of which are fixed wing. The first, which is also IMO the most urgent, would be a tactical airlift replacement for the C-130H and potential candidates could be CN-235, C-295, C-27J, C-130J, KC-390 or perhaps even the A400M. The other requirement is for a strategic airlift replacement for the B-757, with potential candidates being militarized version of newer civilian passenger/freight airliners, the A400M, Kawasaki C-2, or perhaps even 'surplus' C-17's from USAF stocks.
My take on the aircraft listed is that the A400M would be more suitable as a replacement for the strategic airlift requirement and would be overkill, both in terms of acquisition and operating costs, for the tactical airlift role. As I understand it, there already exist a significant number of airlift missions where C-130 transports were moving a quantity of cargo that was much smaller than either the volume or weight a C-130 could carry, so that the Hercules was flying mostly empty. The Hercules was used (by the USAF and RAAF in these instances) because it was the aircraft which was available when/where needed that met or exceeded the range and cargo weight/volume requirements. If the A400M is selected to fill the tactical airlift role, then I suspect the operating costs for airlift to go up, and the cost per weight/volume of cargo carried to also climb, because there would be even more missions where aircraft are flying mostly empty because smaller and less expensive aircraft to operate are just not in the inventory.
Personally, I think the RNZAF fixed wing air transport fleet needs to go back to a structure similar to what it had in the 1990's where there were three tiers of transport with the Andovers, C-130H, and B727's, covering tactical (short and medium) airlift, and then strategic airlift.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Rob C I realize the tactical load over strategic distances situation that NZ has to deal with but in all reality why pay for such a large aircraft in the form of A400 for those infrequent requirements. As a tactical lifter the new Js offer significant improvements over the H models. The Hercules isnt going anywhere anytime soon so it will be well supported. As Ngati said the chance to acquire A400 in 8 years should have the kinks worked out for the strategic component of the FAMC. That time line should also allow for production slots. Hopefully during that same time the C2 will gain other operators making it not so much a novelty platform.
With a Hawkei purchase the ability to move armour via air would be able to happen. As a PMV it would meet the needs of the threats in the SP and near ops areas.
As noted the oldest H models still flying are yours and they need to be replaced sooner rather than later. By getting in the line now, 2018, you could likely see the first aircraft by late 2020. If a fleet of three KC 130 SOF and three C130J30 could be acquired the flexibilty such a fleet would provide would be exponentally greater than todays fleet.
Your Honourable Def Min has proven himself in the last two months by implimenting two of the three major projects left over from the previous government. Lets hope he can complete the trifecta and deliver the goods for the Hercules replacement.
Good on you Ron Mark for supporting your troops.
With a Hawkei purchase the ability to move armour via air would be able to happen. As a PMV it would meet the needs of the threats in the SP and near ops areas.
As noted the oldest H models still flying are yours and they need to be replaced sooner rather than later. By getting in the line now, 2018, you could likely see the first aircraft by late 2020. If a fleet of three KC 130 SOF and three C130J30 could be acquired the flexibilty such a fleet would provide would be exponentally greater than todays fleet.
Your Honourable Def Min has proven himself in the last two months by implimenting two of the three major projects left over from the previous government. Lets hope he can complete the trifecta and deliver the goods for the Hercules replacement.
Good on you Ron Mark for supporting your troops.
I tend to agree Todj. Some say that because we had the Andover / C-130H / B727 and the RAAF have the C-27J / C-130J / C-17A, we should follow suit with a similar suite of C-27J or C295 / A400 / B757 or similar. However the Australians have different operating parameters to us with this tad large landmass that they live on plus reasonably close neighbours that a C-27J can fly to reasonably quickly with a reasonable cargo. We on the other hand have a large amount of wet, wobbly, salty, stuff around us making us, IIRC, the most isolated nation in the world. Compared to the RAAF we do relatively less short range intra theatre air lift and most of what we do within NZ is now handled by commercial freight forwarders. Outside of NZ we use the C-130 for that, especially in the Middle East.
What I would suggest is:
- Tactical: 6 x KC-130J
- Strategic: 3 x A400M or 'surplus' C-17A from USAF stocks
- VIP / Airborne Communications Node / ELINT/ MEDEVAC: 3 x B737-8MAX with 2 extra fuel tanks to increase range or KC-767
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
My thinking would be a possible light/medium twin airlifter to possibly take some pressure off the medium tactical airlifter on the short and/or light haul lifts. The C-130J (of one version or another) does seem most appropriate for as the main tactical airlifter.
For strategic lift, IMO it would really come down to what the airlift study determined was best, something which can handle large cargo weight/volume and outsized loads, or a militarized version of a civilian passenger/freight airliner.
Given my regard for VIP lift, especially for pollies and their entourage of staffers and journos, I would suggest something like an Airco DH.16 would be a better choice, but that might just be me...
Totally agree on the Airco DH.16 especially for Transtasman hops. evil
A couple of familiar faces in that article. I worked in No. 1 RD (repair depot) for nearly four years, 92 - 96. It's kind of depressing to me that it's all civilian now. It was all the talk just before I left about it being contracted out to Safe air. The idea being that it would be cheaper and would free up service personnel for squadron work. The problem with that thinking was you then lost all of that aircraft depot level maintenance knowledge and experience from the service. When the contract was signed a bunch of 1RD guys 717'd and walked straight into civilian employment with Safe Air, doing the same job as before, but for higher pay.
Last edited:
And none of the service service rubbish like parades and duty NCO etc. I think it was a big mistake getting rid of No 1 RD, but after Ruth Richardson's Mother of all Budgets, the RNZAF had no choice. I believe that Defence lost about 22% of it's funding starting then, with that particular budget being responsible for the single largest drop in the funding.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The A400 is a compromise for AFs needing tactical and strategic lift. A reasonable solution had the program been on time and on budget without the development issues. It may be the only solution for strategic lift but if the US were to offer 1-2 USAF C-17s that is the way to go. Add C-130Js for tactical lift. They will still be viable 40 years from now and would be less expensive to operate than A400s for tactical roles.
Probably not suitable for NZ but I wonder if the USAF would be more willing to part with a C-5M than a couple of C17s?
Probably not suitable for NZ but I wonder if the USAF would be more willing to part with a C-5M than a couple of C17s?
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
As to the C5M I had that very thought as the plane was profiled on the Natgeo channel on this past weekend.
Lots of life left in them but so huge cant see NZ being able to afford to operate.
Agreed the C 17 would be the ideal strategic transport. Still think the baby C17, the Kawasaki C2 would be a great runnerup.
Lots of life left in them but so huge cant see NZ being able to afford to operate.
Agreed the C 17 would be the ideal strategic transport. Still think the baby C17, the Kawasaki C2 would be a great runnerup.
"While the C-17A and the C-5 clearly enjoy distinct advantages in speed, payload, and range over the C-130 in their application as long-range airlifters, the newest C-130J excels in its extremely low relative cost to operate. Per hour of flight and the cost metric analyzed, the C-130J is between 66 percent and 70 percent less expensive to operate than the C-17A and costs between 74 percent and 78 percent less than the C-5M." p63
Maywald, J.D & Reiman, A.D. The Myth of Strategic and Tactical Airlift; Air and Space Power Journal - March 2017
The issue with the C-5M is not the affordability per-se (as in reality the M model is considerably more efficient and reliable than the early A and B models which burned $$$$$ per hour) - and as the stats above show they are only around 20% more AFTOF than the C-17A (But both way less cost effective than the C-130J).
BUT unless we want to be able to regularly fly 15 million ping pong balls around there is a huge amount of empty space we would have trouble inventing ways to fill it up and load it up. Not to mention having to build super sized hangers to keep them in and the infrastructure to support them.
Agree about the C-17 and C2.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Mr C if the Japanese acquire the C2 as expected in numbers would that in your opinion remove the novelty of the pkatform in the eyes of the NZ government? A flight of 3 in 2024 or so eould be possible from a production slot perspective.
The biggest question mark over the KHI C-2 is the MDE cost which has blown out over the last 12 months by ¥7B. Now out to a princely sum of ¥23B (NZ$310m) plus the support, spares and training costs on top of that. It would need to get that down sharply to be competitive and also have one or two other nations buy it (Gulf States??) before the Govt comfort level would be OK with it. It would also help if KHI went into a formal partnership with a major US firm on the export support side. The expected number may also be an issue as the Japanese Treasury are getting concerned at the rising costs and may build only 20 C-2's and 4 EC-2's according to some Japanese media reports, which means that it may well all be over by 2024 if a white knight does not step in which would likely see more orders for 130J variants.