Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Reaver]

Flying a kite and definately from the left field - and because it is sometime fun to introduce fresh ideas to mull over here at DT.

Whats not to like! (Though I bet you all will hate it because it is not brand spanking new and gold plated and they look blooody ugly)

Cheers MrC

OK I will bite I bet most people on the forum have been following the T-6C project and thinking to themselves wow that project is running on time, on budget and by anyones measure sucessfully. I bet those same prople are looking at the C-130 LEP and thinking the exact opposite.

If you buy "off the shelf" options that have been certified, proven and have a wide customer base then Defence Acquisition is a a simple activity however if you buy a bespoke (orphan) option, that has not been certified and/or comes with large engineering overheads to turn into something it was never designed to be and that no one else in the world has attempted then Defence Acquisition generates the type of headlines that Ministers of Defence don't like to read while eating their breakfast.

So while it may be technicaly feasible to modify 1900's to a Military multi-role platform it might not be the smartest or most cost effective option. I think the success of the T-6C, MHOV & SH-2G(I) projects speaks for itself and it would not suprise me if the next anouncement the the Minister makes concerning acquisition of a new platform for the RNZAF follows these same prinicples. And once that platform is flying around the skys of NZ on time, on budget and with zero introduction into service issues we will all start to see the wisdom of this new philosophy.

 

[ngatimozart]

Flying a kite and definately from the left field - and because it is sometime fun to introduce fresh ideas to mull over here at DT.

Based on the news that Air NZ are going to withdraw the Beechcraft 1900D from regional commuter services I had one of those lightbulb moments. Of course I have no idea on their hours, condition or if in fact if Air NZ actually owns or leases them (never have taken an interest in them before I read the Herald online this afternoon).

So once they have each gone through a deep maintenance / life extension project and with a Garmin G950 STC glass cockpit retrofit and installation of an enlarged rear cargo door and extended range fuel tanks they could have potential as a RNZAF MEPT, VIP, SAR and EEZ maritime ISR platform to replace the B200 in 2018. That work could be done at locally at Safe Air / Hawker Pacific (local jobs, more money stays in the country etc....) A there is the chance to pick them up at pretty much book value.

Configure 5 in the basic Trainer / VIP / Light Transport role and a further 5 in the more sophisticated Maritime ISR role. Capability sorted, and in fact doubled, money saved to spend elsewhere, basically a roomier B350, cheaper and in more numbers. Free up more money to spend on more LUH's. Whats not to like! (Though I bet you all will hate it because it is not brand spanking new and gold plated and they look blooody ugly)

Cheers MrC

I do like this.

I had a similar thought, but a couple of years earlier! My thinking was that the 1900D was essentially a stretched KingAir, with greater passenger/payload capacity. If RNZAF bought a handful for MEPT/VIP/EEZ surveillance, they could piggyback on the Air NZ logistics and maintenance system. The lightbulb moment lasted until I discovered that AirNZ's 1900Ds were the last batch ever manufactured (in 2002), and I doubted RNZAF would look at a second-hand light turboprop.

I still think the idea deserves consideration; while there will be no major commercial player using the same type, there is a pool of experienced engineers/maintainers in Hamilton eagerly looking for work. The aircraft are relatively new and have been well-maintained. Plus the type has already been modified for special missions - sample link below. And it is a significant step up in the VIP/light transport role over the existing KingAirs.

TKCA | Airborne Beech 1900 D

But will it happen? Probably not. My impression is that the new procurement systems are so focused on long-range planning that these aircraft will have been sold off long before the various hoops could be jumped through and a business case presented to Cabinet.

In 2014 Eagle Air operates a fleet of 12 Beechcraft 1900Ds according to wiki because the Eagle Air website is unavailable. In 2007 the entire fleet was grounded due to undercarriage fault Fault grounds NZ airline fleet - National - NZ Herald News. Then in 2012 cracks were found in the tailplane area of the aircraft with the fleet being grounded again Cracks ground Air New Zealand planes - national | Stuff.co.nz. If those issues have been properly sorted and they are not an ongoing issue with the aircraft then Mr Cs kite actually would be something worth looking at. The Wiki article, which I've linked at the bottom of this post, states that Air NZ treats these aircraft as being in their mid life stage. Please note that that statement is unreferenced. If we accept that statement as being accurate then in RNZAF service the aircraft could possibly be expected to have a Life Of Type (LOT) of around 20, possibly 25 years max taking it out to 2035 give or take past all of NZDFs major purchase bar CTYs replacement.

I base this on the fact that in airline use the hours flown are important but the number of cycles are more important. A cycle is a takeoff and landing and apparently it is these cycles that put the most stress on the airframes. In RNZAF service the aircraft would not go through the number of cycles that they would've with Eagle Air. Hence after an airframe MLU, done whilst they were being modified as Mr C suggested, would easily extend their life out to the time period I suggest. 40 DS takes it further and makes very valid points.

OK I will bite I bet most people on the forum have been following the T-6C project and thinking to themselves wow that project is running on time, on budget and by anyones measure sucessfully. I bet those same prople are looking at the C-130 LEP and thinking the exact opposite.

If you buy "off the shelf" options that have been certified, proven and have a wide customer base then Defence Acquisition is a a simple activity however if you buy a bespoke (orphan) option, that has not been certified and/or comes with large engineering overheads to turn into something it was never designed to be and that no one else in the world has attempted then Defence Acquisition generates the type of headlines that Ministers of Defence don't like to read while eating their breakfast.

So while it may be technicaly feasible to modify 1900's to a Military multi-role platform it might not be the smartest or most cost effective option. I think the success of the T-6C, MHOV & SH-2G(I) projects speaks for itself and it would not suprise me if the next anouncement the the Minister makes concerning acquisition of a new platform for the RNZAF follows these same prinicples. And once that platform is flying around the skys of NZ on time, on budget and with zero introduction into service issues we will all start to see the wisdom of this new philosophy.

You raise valid points however we did do that with the B757. We would not be changing anything to the airframe structure per se, except attaching a maritime surface search radar and installing more fuel tanks. Fuel tank installation is basic stock of the trade and the radar should be ok. The avionics and instrument upgrade is pretty much standard now with Garmin being very much a known and well supported platform. The radar and ISR gear is all MOTS / COTS so is a known quantity. As long as the MTOW is not exceeded then it should not be a major issue.

If the Minister decides it is going to happen it will. But the idea is worthwhile discussing and it does have spin offs as both Mr C and 40DS suggest.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Airways"]Eagle Airways - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[Reaver]

I do like this.

the idea is worthwhile discussing .

Eagle Airways - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK lets discuss this "cool" idea

1) What Data Management System do you suggest is used to provide an integrated sensor picture to the Flight Crew? Is this DMS certified for the 1900 cockpit plus the suite of COTS/MOTS sensors or will the RNZAF have to Software certify the aircraft?
Or do you suggest that the sensors operate Stand Alone negating the benifits of a Common Operating Picture to the flight crew?

2) Noting that the 1900 aircraft has not been certified by any NZDF recognised authority in any of the Military configurations (Radar/EO Turret/Comms antennas i.e. anything that is different from the Civilian FAA cert) what Test & Evaluation regime is required for the RNZAF to be able to utilise the aircraft? For example the P-3K2 undertook 6 months worth of EMI/EMC & TEMPEST, Antenna compatability, flight characteristics testing (including "wooling the airframe & chase plane filming). This was on Military instrumented test ranges where the data gathered was used to by the Airworthiness Authority to certify the Capability. Does SAL/Hawker Pacific or anyone in NZ have access to these sort of facilities?

2) What Mission Planning System do you suggest is used? Is the MPS designed to facilitate the suite of sensors and glass cockpit of the 1900? If not what will be required to customise it to the configuration? How does 230 SQN input and retrieve the data?

3) Does a "back end" simulator (as oppiosed to a Flight Simulator) exist for the 1900?

4) Have the enlarged cargo door & fuel tanks been certified by the FAA, if not how much structural testing/flight testing will be required to show that the modifications do not impact on the safety of the aircraft? Will Beechcraft release structural source data to SAL/Hawker Pacific to allow for this analysis to be carried out?

These are the issues that lead to major project delays as the engineering and certification burdon they place on the RNZAF are horrendous. This has been shown by P-3K2, C-130 LEP and B757 projects.

The NH90 was supposed to have all these issues resolved before we purchased our aircraft but due to delays in the international testing propgram we have been caught up in the project delays as we move thru the Interim Configuration to the Final configuration and then the Final + configuration. It is thru the testing regime that problems and issues are discovered and should be rectified before delivery to the customers. If a massive company NHI have problems testing & certifing aircraft how will SAL/Hawker Pacific cope?

Building/modifying a aircraft is easy, and any company can do it however it is what happens after the A/C is built that causes the problems.

The RNZAF has learnt this lesson, T-6C was a proven, certified A/C that had a production line established and that is why less than a year after contract signiture the RNZAF has taken possesion of the aircraft and issued a Special Flight Permit allowing for T-6C operations to commence.

 

[ngatimozart]

OK lets discuss this "cool" idea

1) What Data Management System do you suggest is used to provide an integrated sensor picture to the Flight Crew? Is this DMS certified for the 1900 cockpit plus the suite of COTS/MOTS sensors or will the RNZAF have to Software certify the aircraft?
Or do you suggest that the sensors operate Stand Alone negating the benifits of a Common Operating Picture to the flight crew?

2) Noting that the 1900 aircraft has not been certified by any NZDF recognised authority in any of the Military configurations (Radar/EO Turret/Comms antennas i.e. anything that is different from the Civilian FAA cert) what Test & Evaluation regime is required for the RNZAF to be able to utilise the aircraft? For example the P-3K2 undertook 6 months worth of EMI/EMC & TEMPEST, Antenna compatability, flight characteristics testing (including "wooling the airframe & chase plane filming). This was on Military instrumented test ranges where the data gathered was used to by the Airworthiness Authority to certify the Capability. Does SAL/Hawker Pacific or anyone in NZ have access to these sort of facilities?

2) What Mission Planning System do you suggest is used? Is the MPS designed to facilitate the suite of sensors and glass cockpit of the 1900? If not what will be required to customise it to the configuration? How does 230 SQN input and retrieve the data?

3) Does a "back end" simulator (as oppiosed to a Flight Simulator) exist for the 1900?

4) Have the enlarged cargo door & fuel tanks been certified by the FAA, if not how much structural testing/flight testing will be required to show that the modifications do not impact on the safety of the aircraft? Will Beechcraft release structural source data to SAL/Hawker Pacific to allow for this analysis to be carried out?

These are the issues that lead to major project delays as the engineering and certification burdon they place on the RNZAF are horrendous. This has been shown by P-3K2, C-130 LEP and B757 projects.

The NH90 was supposed to have all these issues resolved before we purchased our aircraft but due to delays in the international testing propgram we have been caught up in the project delays as we move thru the Interim Configuration to the Final configuration and then the Final + configuration. It is thru the testing regime that problems and issues are discovered and should be rectified before delivery to the customers. If a massive company NHI have problems testing & certifing aircraft how will SAL/Hawker Pacific cope?

Building/modifying a aircraft is easy, and any company can do it however it is what happens after the A/C is built that causes the problems.

The RNZAF has learnt this lesson, T-6C was a proven, certified A/C that had a production line established and that is why less than a year after contract signiture the RNZAF has taken possesion of the aircraft and issued a Special Flight Permit allowing for T-6C operations to commence.

There are various systems available that could possibly meet NZDF requirements if a requirement is issued. Since NZDF has not issued such a requirement it is moot to get into specifics. However one could look at the systems the the USAF use with their MC12W Liberty ISR or the RAF with their Shadow R1 aircraft. Whilst NZDF would not necessarily fully go down that pathway, there is already a prerequisite for the systems and there subsequent data integration and post mission download etc.

However that in a way is the cart before the horse, because the aircraft availability and suitability for service has not yet been determined and I for one can see some obstacles.

1. Are the aircraft leased or owned by Eagle Air?
2. If owned by Eagle Air, how soon will the aircraft be on the market?
3. The flight hours, number of cycles and general condition of the aircraft are of considerable importance. So what are those and what is the general condition of the aircraft?
4. We would, for all intents an purposes, possibly have an orphan fleet.
5. NZDF would not have enough time to an in depth feasibility study into whether or not such a project is viable.

This whole kite flying idea from Mr C is just that - a hypothetical scenario worth looking at and like I said it is worth looking at but I am not convinced it is the right course of action. It does have pros, some of which I posted but those come with cons some of which I've just mentioned. You do point to the some of the finer points of system integration with wider NZDF systems which most definitely has to be looked at when such projects are mooted. We are fully aware of the current NZGs preference for MOTS / COTS platforms and systems.

 

[MrConservative]

BTW I ran the hypothetical past an ex Beechcraft guy over here. A MEPT version of the 1900D with an enlarge cargo door and glass cockpit is evidently straightforward. However a bespoke maritime ISR version even though technically wouldnt present any major dramas certifying wouldnt be cost effective on such small numbers as manufacturer initiated development and testing is always cheaper than client initiated the more complex a project gets and the economies of scale of larger build numbers. Manufacturers would much prefer sell clients new builds anyway - easier and bigger margins.

PS: The Sprite (I) was manufacturer initiated where as the C-130H / P-3 were client initiated. No wonder things were rather different.

 

[ngatimozart]

BTW I ran the hypothetical past an ex Beechcraft guy over here. A MEPT version of the 1900D with an enlarge cargo door and glass cockpit is evidently straightforward. However a bespoke maritime ISR version even though technically wouldnt present any major dramas certifying wouldnt be cost effective on such small numbers as manufacturer initiated development and testing is always cheaper than client initiated the more complex a project gets and the economies of scale of larger build numbers. Manufacturers would much prefer sell clients new builds anyway - easier and bigger margins.

PS: The Sprite (I) was manufacturer initiated where as the C-130H / P-3 were client initiated. No wonder things were rather different.

Well in that case, Beech have already done the maritime surveillance and ISR work on the B350 so that would suggest a more logical, albeit higher upfront cost, path for one contender for the EEZ surveillance platform with some ISR capability.

 

[ngatimozart]

According to this story Air NZ may have issues trying to sell its fleet of B1900Ds. The article states that the aircraft are the youngest available with the ages from 12 - 15 years, an estimated value of between NZ $2 - 4 million each and Air NZ being the second largest operator of the aircraft in the world.

Remembering that this is a hypothetical discussion, if one were to run with this costing and the important point is if it is accurate, then even when you factor in certification costs this might be an attractive proposition. The NZG is the large majority shareholder in Air NZ and it could, if it desired to do so, could put some pressure on pricing wise. With regard to certification that could be a civilian certification by NZ Civil Aviation Authority which should in theory also cover FAA certification. If the initial prototype certification is done as the first aircraft is being modified here in NZ then maybe costs could be kept down.

Maritime surveillance radar is important and something along the lines of the Elta EL/M 220 which only weighs around 100kg excluding the operating station, may be an option. a cost effective option for ISR sensors maybe something along the lines of modular pods similar to the Airdyne SABIR Pods which don't involve cutting holes in the aircraft and are based on an external fuel tank or can be fitted to an existing door. Hence with the Beech 1900s it could be quite feasible to fit two hard points to each wing, with one on each wing being both plumbed and wired and the second just wired. That way you could have the fuel in external tanks plus the sensors on the wing and if you need it a capability such as APKWS II: Laser-Guided Hydra Rockets, AGM65 Maverick, gun pod etc., on the other wing. Think Defence have a couple good articles on this approach, here and here. This is where I have obtained the above sensor material from. They also have a link to a Lockheed presentation on Vigilant Watch - ISR and Vigilant Hawk - Armed ISR. So there are options out there if the NZG decided to go down this track. I actually do not see a logical reason for a cargo door being fitted to the aircraft. They wouldn't fit the CONOPS as a tactical lifter by any stretch of the imagination.

Addition: Today according to the Wikipedia article Eagle Air has 15 of the aircraft so if all 15 were acquired, 6 for EEZ maritime surveillance plus ISR, 6 for transport MEPT, VIP taskings, 1 as a prototype and development aircraft, with the final 2 for spares.

 

[40 deg south]

Flying a kite and definately from the left field - and because it is sometime fun to introduce fresh ideas to mull over here at DT.

Kite successfully flown!

I think Reaver's initial response was broadly correct - RNZAF is better to concentrate on new MOTS aircraft than modifying used civilian platforms. I only hope that the funding pipeline enables NZ to continue on this path. While it's no doubt technically possible to convert the B1900D's into a range of roles, the cost of modifying/certifying a small fleet doesn't justify it.

The only plausible role in RNZAF is as a supplement/replacement to the current leased B200 Kingairs for VIP/light transport. If NZ is under-strength in this area, they could be a cost-effective stop-gap solution until the Grand Fleet Replacement occurs.

 

[40 deg south]

Was looking at the Kaman website, and came across their current earning report.

Kaman Reports 2014 Third Quarter Results

The key quote for NZ is

We are currently preparing the first of the New Zealand SH-2G(I) aircraft for acceptance by the New Zealand Ministry of Defence and expect this to occur in the next few weeks. We have had a number of program wins and contract extensions during the quarter and, more recently, we are pleased that the Peruvian Navy has agreed to buy New Zealand’s existing fleet of SH-2s.We are negotiating final terms with General Dynamics Canada and are prepared to provide upgrades and overhaul services for these aircraft.

Good news if correct. I wonder if they are actually referring to physical delivery of the aircraft to NZ, rather than legal 'acceptance'. As we have seen with the Texans, it is common to delay official handover until some time after physical delivery.

Either way, RNZAF is in the unusual position of having 'new' platforms delivered as fast as it can handle them.

 

[40 deg south]

Speaking of new platforms being delivered, the RAF appears to have received its first A400.
RAF Takes Delivery of First A400M Atlas | Defense News | defensenews.com

While Airbus seems to be ramping up deliveries nicely, they are still behind on reaching the agreed standard operating capabilities.

Airbus confident on A400M deliveries despite capability shortfall - 11/14/2014 - Flight Global

Airbus continues to work towards introducing further progressive enhancements on the A400M, says Wilhelm, with aerial delivery, in-flight refuelling and self-protection “the key capabilities to be in the course of the next year”.

However, in parallel with the capability improvements, Airbus will continue with deliveries and “industrial ramp-up”.

But Wilhelm concedes this is “not the most cost efficient way to do this”, due to the need for retrofit programmes for aircraft that have already been handed over.

Should be nicely sorted by the time NZ Govt puts an order in!

 

[MrConservative]

Kite successfully flown!

I think Reaver's initial response was broadly correct - RNZAF is better to concentrate on new MOTS aircraft than modifying used civilian platforms. I only hope that the funding pipeline enables NZ to continue on this path. While it's no doubt technically possible to convert the B1900D's into a range of roles, the cost of modifying/certifying a small fleet doesn't justify it.

The only plausible role in RNZAF is as a supplement/replacement to the current leased B200 Kingairs for VIP/light transport. If NZ is under-strength in this area, they could be a cost-effective stop-gap solution until the Grand Fleet Replacement occurs.

Well the Kite is still up there but has flown in a new direction. So thanks for the contributions so far.

We dont need them (The B1900's) but maybe hypothetically - Samoa, Tonga, the Cooks, Nuie et al do?

NZ Govt through MFAT and NZDF work with the US State Department to find a solution to donate the aircraft under an ODA program so they can transform and take proactive control and ownership of their respective patrol needs. Australia is doing the Pacific Patrol Boat program - thus we and the US could chime in with the Pacific Air Patrol Program under the Pacific Forum Secretariat. It would be smart politics to do so. A fleet of 15 refurbished and reconfigured Island based B1900's conducting day to day fisheries and customs patrols, SAR, Medevac and light transport duties is probably better ODA than most. We supply the airframes & training support, the US the technology & engineering, and the respective territories via the Pacific Forum oversight the operating budgets on a pro-rata basis.

 

[Nick underscore]

NZ Govt through MFAT and NZDF work with the US State Department to find a solution to donate the aircraft under an ODA program so they can transform and take proactive control and ownership of their respective patrol needs. Australia is doing the Pacific Patrol Boat program - thus we and the US could chime in with the Pacific Air Patrol Program under the Pacific Forum Secretariat. It would be smart politics to do so. A fleet of 15 refurbished and reconfigured Island based B1900's conducting day to day fisheries and customs patrols, SAR, Medevac and light transport duties is probably better ODA than most. We supply the airframes & training support, the US the technology & engineering, and the respective territories via the Pacific Forum oversight the operating budgets on a pro-rata basis.

What a great idea Mr C!

Do you know at all whether this idea has been discussed on any level previously, unofficially or otherwise (not specially using the B1900's, but a PAP program)? A small obvious issue IMV, would be the respective nations maintaining and importantly 'utilising' the ability via budgets and human resources..

Personally, more should be done by the P.I nations regarding proactive policing of their respective EEZ's.

I'm sure Aus Govt would help with funding, but a great NZ initiative and works hand-in-hand with the PPB program and one wonders why this wasn't looked at previously?

 

[MrConservative]

What a great idea Mr C!

Do you know at all whether this idea has been discussed on any level previously, unofficially or otherwise (not specially using the B1900's, but a PAP program)? A small obvious issue IMV, would be the respective nations maintaining and importantly 'utilising' the ability via budgets and human resources..

Personally, more should be done by the P.I nations regarding proactive policing of their respective EEZ's.

I'm sure Aus Govt would help with funding, but a great NZ initiative and works hand-in-hand with the PPB program and one wonders why this wasn't looked at previously?

I have not heard anything from the NZ end. I'd have to ask Boris McClay if he had heard anything when he was working for the Cooks Govt on their diplomacy side. I hope not - I want full credit if the idea is topshelf. Arise Sir MrC has a ring to it!

I think the Aussies are already doing their bit bigtime via the PPB program - this would be to complement that. The US have skin in this game as they have a reasonable footprint in the Pacific. Think American Samoa and the Marshals/Gilberts if we would want to widen this out some more. The French as well. In fact the Pitcairns are still British so lets hit up David Cameron while we are at it.

This is a no brainer regardless of what aircraft is used. It is microscopic for the US but wins them huge bouquets of goodwill and could be seen and read as the positive side of their overall Pacific pivot. The French will me too as they do not like to miss out. NZ beats the rhetoric drum of the Pacific, its own soft power and all this nation building mumo jumbo, all that Wellington talkfest piffle - but does not really walk the talk in the Pacific (or at least until now we hope). If the NZ Govt set this off it would be Smart Power incarnate - if Key wants a Pacific diplomatic legacy this is it.

 

[Nick underscore]

I have not heard anything from the NZ end. I'd have to ask Boris McClay if he had heard anything when he was working for the Cooks Govt on their diplomacy side. I hope not - I want full credit if the idea is topshelf. Arise Sir MrC has a ring to it!

I think the Aussies are already doing their bit bigtime via the PPB program - this would be to complement that. The US have skin in this game as they have a reasonable footprint in the Pacific. Think American Samoa and the Marshals/Gilberts if we would want to widen this out some more. The French as well. In fact the Pitcairns are still British so lets hit up David Cameron while we are at it.

This is a no brainer regardless of what aircraft is used. It is microscopic for the US but wins them huge bouquets of goodwill and could be seen and read as the positive side of their overall Pacific pivot. The French will me too as they do not like to miss out. NZ beats the rhetoric drum of the Pacific, its own soft power and all this nation building mumo jumbo, all that Wellington talkfest piffle - but does not really walk the talk in the Pacific (or at least until now we hope). If the NZ Govt set this off it would be Smart Power incarnate - if Key wants a Pacific diplomatic legacy this is it.

And all credit you should take!

I'm Aus, but in exile and although not residing back home, I can't help but think if an initiative like this 'got up', the GoA would want - as you quite aptly put it - some skin in the game to some degree. Any idea what the PBB costs on through-life of program (per cycle)? EDIT; est. $1.5b AUD over 35 years

Just going further and as an example, the Republic of Vanuatu do have some inherent financial problems with utilising their ONE PPB from what I understand from a few local expat contacts in Vila. The budget planning and allocation never seems to translate to 'X' number of required days at sea.

Anyway, well done sir and to then sell it as a 'legacy'.. could and should have some politicans drooling.. (Tips hat)

EDIT; This should assist the business case, via a PPB program ASPI publication from April 2014 - Making waves: Australian ocean development assistance

 

[ngatimozart]

The NZG has extended the current P3K2 Orion deployment to the Gulf of Arabia for a further 12 months with the extended deployment ending 15 December 2015. beehive.govt.nz - Orion to remain in Gulf to support ongoing operations. This has appeared in the NZ Herald as well. The release states that it will provided ongoing support to regional maritime operations. This announcement is likely to have been made to coincide with the Defence Ministers current visit to Washington for a meeting with US Sec Def, New York to the UN and to Canada for the Halifax International Security Forum. beehive.govt.nz - Minister visiting the United States and Canada.

On another note the DCAF reported in the current Air Force News that the Hercules and Orion replacement timeline is 10 years.

 

[40 deg south]

Nothing up on the MinDef or RNZAF website, but Kaman has the following release. Nice that first delivery is only a few months away. These really are busy times for the air force. Note that 1 December US time is today.

After Australia's enormous wasted effort with these aircraft, I hope they are a good fit for NZ's more modest requirements

Kaman Announces New Zealand Acceptance of First SH-2G(I) Super Seasprite

December 01, 2014

Kamn
Kaman Announces New Zealand Acceptance of First SH-2G(I) Super Seasprite

BLOOMFIELD, Conn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 1, 2014-- Kaman Corp. (NYSE:KAMN) today announced that the New Zealand Ministry of Defence (MoD) has accepted the first SH-2G(I) Super Seasprite helicopter for the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF). Acceptance occurred at Kaman’s Bloomfield, Connecticut facility.

“We are pleased to have achieved this significant program milestone, which in addition to the acceptance of the first aircraft signifies acceptance of the aircraft design. This accomplishment was the result of significant effort and cooperation between Kaman, the MoD, and the NZDF,” stated Greg Steiner, President Kaman Aerospace Group.

Kaman and the MoD entered into a $120 million contract in May 2013 for the purchase of ten state-of-the-art Kaman SH-2G(I) Super Seasprite aircraft, spare parts, a full mission flight simulator, and related logistics support. Additional aircraft are scheduled to be accepted by the MoD in the next few weeks. The first three aircraft are projected to arrive in Auckland in early 2015 with the remaining deliveries of helicopters and equipment expected to occur by the end of 2015.

The SH-2G Super Seasprite is an advanced maritime weapon system and proven day/night/all-weather multi-mission helicopter. Originally designed to meet the exacting requirements of the U.S. Navy, the SH-2G Super Seasprite has the highest power-to-weight ratio of any maritime helicopter, assuring a safe return-to-ship capability even in single-engine flight conditions. Its robust design, outstanding stability, and excellent reliability have been proven through more than 1.5 million flight hours. The SH-2G is a multi-mission maritime weapon system designed to fulfill anti-submarine warfare (ASW), anti-surface warfare (ASuW), over the horizon targeting, surveillance, troop transport, vertical replenishment, search and rescue, and utility missions. It is the largest, most powerful small ship helicopter in use today and is recognized for its mission effectiveness, support, and unmatched performance. The SH-2G Super Seasprite is currently operated by the Royal New Zealand Navy, the Egyptian Air Force and the Polish Navy.
- See more at: Kaman Announces New Zealand Acceptance of First SH-2G(I) Super Seasprite

 

[ngatimozart]

Throwing this up as a thought bubble. I know that given current fiscal policies fast jets in RNZAF service will be but a mere dream, but having read this Warplanes: FA-50 Enters Service and the cost per aircraft (US$30 - 35 million) then such things might be possible in the long term. Mr C thought a joint Sqn with the RAAF of 6 RNZAF F18Fs, however for the price of 6 Shornets we could buy 18 odd TA50s FA-50 Light Combat Aircraft - Airforce Technology. They have the similar weapons weight capabilities as the old A4Ks, 4.5 short tons as against 4 short tons for the A4. So I'd suggest probably 12 x KAI FA50s and 12 x KAI TA50s. KAI T-50 Family. It is supposed to have a 1000nm range which is quite respectable and would be a lot cheaper to procure and operate than the Gripen. It also has longer legs than the Gripen.This South Korean Jet Is a Bargain Dogfighter.

Like I say a thought bubble or flying a kite and maybe worth discussing.

 

[t68]

Throwing this up as a thought bubble. I know that given current fiscal policies fast jets in RNZAF service will be but a mere dream, but having read this Warplanes: FA-50 Enters Service and the cost per aircraft (US$30 - 35 million) then such things might be possible in the long term. Mr C thought a joint Sqn with the RAAF of 6 RNZAF F18Fs, however for the price of 6 Shornets we could buy 18 odd TA50s FA-50 Light Combat Aircraft - Airforce Technology. They have the similar weapons weight capabilities as the old A4Ks, 4.5 short tons as against 4 short tons for the A4. So I'd suggest probably 12 x KAI FA50s and 12 x KAI TA50s. KAI T-50 Family. It is supposed to have a 1000nm range which is quite respectable and would be a lot cheaper to procure and operate than the Gripen. It also has longer legs than the Gripen.This South Korean Jet Is a Bargain Dogfighter.

Like I say a thought bubble or flying a kite and maybe worth discussing.

If memory serves correct I believe this was brought up some time ago and was dismissed, it’s something I believe is missing from your Orbat. It’s not just about duelling with other aircraft it’s an integrals part of your training needs.

But in saying that it needs to be only a learning curve to a future acquisition of a platform that can integrate with the RAAF –USAF/USMC and other coalition partners so I see it as a stepping stone to JSF weather that’s an A or B which could take advantage if the RAAF gets the B or not


but with your big ticket items to be replaced in the next 10-15 years its a bridge too far, I believe you need to invest more heavily in your current support helicopters namely NH-90 to at least 12-14 airframes and an armed helicopter support either something like light OH-58D Kiowa Warrior or heavy AH-64E , Bell AH-1Z Viper. the recently acquired Seasprite will also need to be replaced in that timeframe as well see how the NFH is doing at the time for commonality to NH-90
RNZAF - Exercise WILLOH

 

[MrConservative]

Throwing this up as a thought bubble. I know that given current fiscal policies fast jets in RNZAF service will be but a mere dream, but having read this Warplanes: FA-50 Enters Service and the cost per aircraft (US$30 - 35 million) then such things might be possible in the long term. Mr C thought a joint Sqn with the RAAF of 6 RNZAF F18Fs, however for the price of 6 Shornets we could buy 18 odd TA50s FA-50 Light Combat Aircraft - Airforce Technology. They have the similar weapons weight capabilities as the old A4Ks, 4.5 short tons as against 4 short tons for the A4. So I'd suggest probably 12 x KAI FA50s and 12 x KAI TA50s. KAI T-50 Family. It is supposed to have a 1000nm range which is quite respectable and would be a lot cheaper to procure and operate than the Gripen. It also has longer legs than the Gripen.This South Korean Jet Is a Bargain Dogfighter.

Like I say a thought bubble or flying a kite and maybe worth discussing.

Cost of an airframe is not the way to work out the cost of a capability. I understand that the KAI FA-50s are more likely in the USD$45m ball park than $30m quoted in the article. Domestic industrail offsets and subsidies are in play for a start. They are a 2nd tier platform for the RoKAF Air Force which will rely on its better capabilities, per upfraded F-16s, F-15Ks and the 40 F-35As on order. The FA-50s are just a supplement to a proper frontline capability. The 2014 DoD fly away cost of the F/A-18F is USD$68m according to the stuff published by the GAO/US Congress - but that is just a number. But the F/A-18F is a proper frontline strike capability unlike a tricked up trainer albeit better than the others.

Out of 12 FA-50s how many could you realistically deploy? Not likely to have that full squadron of 12 deploy. Who would we operate alongside - Korea, Indonesia or the Philippines - the only other likely operaters in our region? What is it like in the anti-ship role - when operations within that realm will be of greater neccessity if we again sort an air combat capability? Now there is a problem! Why have a further dozen of the T models? With us flying the T-6C and no doubt a Sim suite an operational conversion unit would require only half that anyway. Where are we going to find the hundreds of extra personnel? How much would these 24 aircraft cost? Probably US$1B for the airframes alone and another $0.5B for the support package. How much p.a will it cost to operate them? If 15 years ago it cost 210m p.a all up to run the old ACW it would at least be NZ$250m p.a by now to run the 24 your after. How will a small number 2nd teir fighters add to the strategic weight of the Anzac alliance or the context of the Wellington-Washington declaration? Lastly what are the role requirements for the capability? In what way will these aircraft be used? What are the alternatives? Will these alternatives have operational synergy with either the ADF or USPACOM?

T-68 is right. There are other capabilities that need to addressed first. But to play along with this as a hypothetical I am going to be a hypothetical Bill English. I can spare you a lousy NZ$1b and an extra $150m p.a operational costs without chopping anything from the current DWP high pathway from my budget. Find a solution gentleman.

Cheers MrC

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Some say, to reconstitute an air combate force would take ten years to get it to a good level of proffisionalism.

Which kinda gives me the creeps if we ever need an ACF in less than ten years.