Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ngatimozart]

The Ministry of Defence has issued an RFP for a C130 Hercules training Simulator. According to the RFP the Hercules will be in service for approximately another 10 years. This would make sense in that it takes the projected retirement time out to around 2025. The last airframe is going through the LEP process at the moment and I think that it is due out next year some stage, maybe in the latter part of the year. I'm not commenting on possible / probable impacts upon the replacement acquisition because until we see the study and the DWP there's not a lot more that we can add to the conversation that already hasn't been said.

 

[Zero Alpha]

m not commenting on possible / probable impacts upon the replacement acquisition because until we see the study and the DWP there's not a lot more that we can add to the conversation that already hasn't been said.

I would say it's possible that the RFP process is intended to help inform decision making on getting the Herc fleet to where the 'objective capability level' is and then compare cost of that with the Herc fleet versus a potential replacement.

Or in simple terms, how much will it cost to get this level of synthetic training capability for the Herc fleet compared to what we get if we buy something earlier.

 

[40 deg south]

I'm not commenting on possible / probable impacts upon the replacement acquisition because until we see the study and the DWP there's not a lot more that we can add to the conversation that already hasn't been said.

Heresy!

The whole point of commenting on defence websites is to construct a mountain of speculation on a molehill of information. If the information turns out to be wrong, that is even better!

If your unseemly attitude spreads, I foresee the immediate demise of Defencetalk and all similar websites.

More seriously, ZA's explanation of a likely reason for the RFI sounds very plausible.

Interesting that Mr Lee-Frampton managed to get a story published before NZ Defence Ministry even listed the RFP on their website.

 

[40 deg south]

https://www.gets.govt.nz/NZDF/ExternalTenderDetails.htm?id=16886501

I've just looked at the GETS front page (this RFI still not listed on MinDef site). It has a few puzzling features. The main one is the rapid nature of the acquisition. The RfT went out on 14 October and closes 16 November, which is shorter than usual. Tenderers are to be advised of the outcome in early December, and the estimated start for the contract is mid-December. They are going to contract within a month of the tenders closing - very much against the current tend to detailed analysis and review before signing a contract.

The RNZAF requires C-130H(NZ) flight deck simulation training and the use of the flight simulation facilities, including:
1. Dry lease initial conversion to type training for pilots and flight engineers;
2. Dry lease captaincy upgrade training;
3. Dry lease pilot and flight engineer continuation training;
4. Dry lease instructor familiarisation and Qualified Flying Instructor / Qualified Aircrew instructor (QFI/QAI) on type qualification training;
5. Dry lease maintenance engine ground training; and
6. Dry lease simulator access for initial Night Vision Goggle (NVG) training.

The length of the contract will be aligned to the life of the aircraft (approximately 10 years).

The term 'dry lease' is usually used when hiring aircraft that are supplied without crew, insurance, fuel etc. So NZ isn't purchasing the equipment, from the look of it. Or are we simply trying to buy access time in an existing simulation facility elsewhere - that would tie in with the phrase 'the use of the flight simulation facilities'.

I wonder how similar the upgraded Herc flight decks are to any other type in service, such as the J's? I'd have assumed they required a heavily modified simulator, but perhaps that isn't the case?

I guess we only have to wait a couple of months before all will be revealed.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

I would say it's possible that the RFP process is intended to help inform decision making on getting the Herc fleet to where the 'objective capability level' is and then compare cost of that with the Herc fleet versus a potential replacement.

Or in simple terms, how much will it cost to get this level of synthetic training capability for the Herc fleet compared to what we get if we buy something earlier.

so with the oldest hercules celebrating its 50th in march this year,an 40 squadron expected to fly them for another 7 to ten years, according to defence minister Jerry Brownlee? some would be past there lep well and truely by then, what happened to the intrest in buying A400m, wont this put our pilots at risk?

 

[ngatimozart]

so with the oldest hercules celebrating its 50th in march this year,an 40 squadron expected to fly them for another 7 to ten years, according to defence minister Jerry Brownlee? some would be past there lep well and truely by then, what happened to the intrest in buying A400m, wont this put our pilots at risk?

No it will not put the aircrew at risk, because the 5th Herc is going through the LEP at the moment so that's the one that will be the last one to retire in 10 years. They are looking at the sim system to husband the flying hours on the airframes. The study for the NZDF Air Transport study is happening at the moment and should be close to finishing. The A400M will still be in the loop along with others. The 2015 Defence White Paper plus the study will shine some light on their intentions. If you read back through this thread you will get an idea of what is thought to be happening.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

No it will not put the aircrew at risk, because the 5th Herc is going through the LEP at the moment so that's the one that will be the last one to retire in 10 years. They are looking at the sim system to husband the flying hours on the airframes. The study for the NZDF Air Transport study is happening at the moment and should be close to finishing. The A400M will still be in the loop along with others. The 2015 Defence White Paper plus the study will shine some light on their intentions. If you read back through this thread you will get an idea of what is thought to be happening.

just as well we have award winning mechanics then

 

[kiwipatriot69]

I had written an earlier response but accidentally deleted it before posting. There were a couple of points I wanted to make.

Cyber attacks: these can be over before we even know that an attack has taken place. It may not be clear what has happened and who is responsible. Conventional military aggression- we/our our allies would likely see it coming and it would be clear what had taken place. I would imagine any first move would be in the cyber realm. FYI this as well
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#/media/File:PLA_ballistic_missiles_range.jpg


APKWS are a good start, but they may not be heavy enough or have the range for all jobs. I doubt NZ forces are likely to face any soviet tank armies, buy Brimstone has been the weapon of choice in A'stan, Lybia,Iraq for taking out technicals, protected firing positions etc. definitely effective, maybe not cost effective.

Lack of experience with UAVs is hardly an excuse not to move forward. The latest Def Tech Review discusses an ASPI article about the lack of UAVs on Australias LHD as a "glaring gap in capability." I have long felt the same applies to our JATF. I'm not talking of having a Triton overhead. More a ship/land deployed tactical ISR capability. Sure these may be vulnerable in a contested environment, but how contested are we talking. If it was truely contested, we would be there (at least until the yanks and Australia had done their bit). And a UAV wouldn't be any more vulnerable than a AW109 (with people on board).

Cheers.[

 

[kiwipatriot69]

but this would require developing new infrastructure and tactics,training as well as buying new equipment, and some of that drone technology is tens of millions each,so wouldnt it be far easier to use what we have already been trained on,quicker to establish a squadron of a10's or even a texan t6c armed version like they have developed in USA.

 

[40 deg south]

http://airforce.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/airforce-news/afn175.pdf

Latest Air Force News is out. Nothing unexpected - sounds as if the T-6Cs and ex-Aussie Seasprites are moving smoothly towards full introduction into service.

There was a piece on page 30 about RNZAF developing new load spreaders for the floors of the NH90s which raised by eyebrows. The picture and description show it is a hell of a lot more complex than a precision-cut piece of plywood!

I couldn't help thinking 'Isn't it the NH90 consortium's job to do this stuff?'
quickly followed by 'Could we sell a set of these to the Aussies?'

I suspect every user country has probably developed it's own home-made solution, which seems a remarkably inefficient way to build military equipment.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

http://airforce.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/airforce-news/afn175.pdf

Latest Air Force News is out. Nothing unexpected - sounds as if the T-6Cs and ex-Aussie Seasprites are moving smoothly towards full introduction into service.

There was a piece on page 30 about RNZAF developing new load spreaders for the floors of the NH90s which raised by eyebrows. The picture and description show it is a hell of a lot more complex than a precision-cut piece of plywood!

I couldn't help thinking 'Isn't it the NH90 consortium's job to do this stuff?'
quickly followed by 'Could we sell a set of these to the Aussies?'

I suspect every user country has probably developed it's own home-made solution, which seems a remarkably inefficient way to build military equipment.

Well if were having issues with them than surely the aussies would have too, operating the same helicopter for longer. Maybe they already had a solution sleeves. I like the idea though, if we could start a little trans tasman industry first then look at other Nh90 operators if its durable enough to sell. Help put some money back in the defence budget too

 

[40 deg south]

A few Airbus-related items that may be of interest to those who pick Airbus to supply NZ's next generation of fixed-wing transport.

Airbus reveals further C295 enhancements - IHS Jane's 360

More upgrades for the popular tactical lifter. The helicopter refueling capability is probably related to the problems the A400 has in this role below. Improved STOL capability could have an impact in the marketplace, as this is one area where the rival C27J has previously had an advantage.

https://youtu.be/QNz4gcf76jE

Nice footage of the A400 doing grass-landing trials at a gliding club in the French wopwops.

The following two pieces from Flightglobal require you to register for free to read the whole article - recommended.

Airbus Confident of Turning A400M Program Around | Defense content from Aviation Week

Good overview of the programme, industrial ramp-up, impact of the Seville crash etc. Reveals no new customers expected to sign up this year.

Snippet

Rossner says an intense test program for the capabilities is in process, and he is confident the vast majority of tactical capabilities — including tactical delivery of loads and paratroopers, aerial refueling, and operations from unpaved surfaces — should be certified in 2016, but a fully common standard aircraft with all the capabilities will not be delivered until 2018. This means countries likely will face the issue of having aircraft delivered with different capabilities until then...

Antonio Barberan, head of sales for Airbus Defense and Space’s military aircraft division, says he doesn’t believe any customers will sign upon the dotted line for the A400M this year but says the environmental conditions in the market that prompted him to believe they would sign on a first customer in 2015, are still in place. The company says it has made proposals to nine customers and that serious negotiations were underway.

A400M Helicopter Aerial Refueling Now A Research Project | Defense content from Aviation Week
Reveals that refueling helicopters unlikely to be possible, due to turbulence from the aircraft. Also problems with paratroops exiting through both side doors at once.

snippet

Speaking to journalists on October 26, Fernando Alonso said helicopter refueling simply was not possible with the A400M in its current configuration, but because several countries were interested in the capability, the company had begun work with some research institutions to see what could be done.

“It’s physically not possible given the length of the hoses, given the wake of the aircraft, and the power of the helicopters which are going to be refueled,” said Alonso.

 

[t68]

A few Airbus-related items that may be of interest to those who pick Airbus to supply NZ's next generation of fixed-wing transport.

Airbus reveals further C295 enhancements - IHS Jane's 360

More upgrades for the popular tactical lifter. The helicopter refueling capability is probably related to the problems the A400 has in this role below. Improved STOL capability could have an impact in the marketplace, as this is one area where the rival C27J has previously had an advantage.

https://youtu.be/QNz4gcf76jE

Nice footage of the A400 doing grass-landing trials at a gliding club in the French wopwops.

The following two pieces from Flightglobal require you to register for free to read the whole article - recommended.

Airbus Confident of Turning A400M Program Around | Defense content from Aviation Week

Good overview of the programme, industrial ramp-up, impact of the Seville crash etc. Reveals no new customers expected to sign up this year.

Snippet


A400M Helicopter Aerial Refueling Now A Research Project | Defense content from Aviation Week
Reveals that refueling helicopters unlikely to be possible, due to turbulence from the aircraft. Also problems with paratroops exiting through both side doors at once.

snippet

Well from a NZ perspective AAR is not needed but a nice to have for coalition events,but from memory it has a on ground pumping capabilty wonder if that is having any problems or is the AAR just related to airflow problems?

Para-drops would only effect SASR but that might be mitigated if the purchase a battlefield lifter like C295 or C27J

 

[40 deg south]

Well from a NZ perspective AAR is not needed but a nice to have for coalition events,but from memory it has a on ground pumping capabilty wonder if that is having any problems or is the AAR just related to airflow problems?

Para-drops would only effect SASR but that might be mitigated if the purchase a battlefield lifter like C295 or C27J

Agree that neither of these problems are likely to have much impact on any NZ use.

Unless staging a role-reversal rematch of the Battle of Crete, unlikely NZ would ever need to drop a large enough group of paratroopers to require use of both side doors.

Airbus Proves More A400M Capabilities, and Eyes Exports | Defense News: Aviation International News

Another good overview article on the A400 here. Interestingly, New Zealand and Indonesia are the only potential customers Airbus will mention by name. There was a report in the Spanish media last month that managers at the assembly plant in Seville had been briefed on a sale to Egypt, but Airbus is still refusing to confirm or deny this.

Antonio Barberan, military aircraft sales head for Airbus D&S, said that the company has presented A400M sales proposals to nine countries. He would not confirm reports that Egypt is one of these, but did say that three were in Latin America, and also acknowledged discussions with Indonesia and New Zealand. ]/QUOTE]

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Hopefully we do go for enough numbers of these A400, it certainly is a dramatic increase in lift and speed,but at $300 million each, i fear that we may not get them on a one for one replacement deal with the C130 replacement .When will defence white paper be out i wonder, to confirm?.

 

[40 deg south]

Hopefully we do go for enough numbers of these A400, it certainly is a dramatic increase in lift and speed,but at $300 million each, i fear that we may not get them on a one for one replacement deal with the C130 replacement .When will defence white paper be out i wonder, to confirm?.

Initial description of the Defence White Paper had it being completed by end of 2015. The latest news I can remember seeing is that it would go to the Minister before the end of 2015, but not be releasedto the public until 2016 (please don't ask for a link - I have no idea where I read that).

How early in 2016 we see it will presumably depends on whether the Minister wants any substantial changes to the version he receives.

 

[Oberon]

Initial description of the Defence White Paper had it being completed by end of 2015. The latest news I can remember seeing is that it would go to the Minister before the end of 2015, but not be releasedto the public until 2016 (please don't ask for a link - I have no idea where I read that).

How early in 2016 we see it will presumably depends on whether the Minister wants any substantial changes to the version he receives.

Do you think it's anyway related to the delay in the Australian defence white paper?

 

[ngatimozart]

Do you think it's anyway related to the delay in the Australian defence white paper?

IMHO, no because the two are completely separate policy documents by two completely separate national governments. However I would think that there may be some talk between the two govts about some of the content and context. I would suggest that the overall context of the Australian DWP has been decided and that it is some of the specifics that will be changed from the Abbott govt draft. By overall context I mean the geopolitical and strategic situations and outlooks that Australia faces and possibly will face in the future. They haven't really changed in the time since the Abbott spill. What may change is the Turnbull govts assessment and response to them.

 

[40 deg south]

Do you think it's anyway related to the delay in the Australian defence white paper?

I'm pretty sure Ngati is right.

I've done a few public consultation exercises while working for the government, and I always thought that their time-line from close of submissions to public release was highly optimistic. I think they just underestimated the size of the job.

An additional factor may be that the current DefMin wears many other hats. While the DefMin role is normally given to a fairly junior Minister, the present incumbent is ranked No 3 in Cabinet. He is also (pause for quick google check) Leader of the House (i.e. responsible for the gov't day-to-day legislative programme), MInister of the Earthquake Commission and Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. Those latter two roles are fairly contentious and time-consuming, so Defence is probably a piece of cake in comparison.

Brownlee is a pretty abrasive character by reputation (I've not met him), but I've always had a soft spot for him following this exchange in the house with the late Parekura Horomia, his only rival for the title of paliament's most overweight MP.

Parliament descends into fat gay jokes on last day | General | 3 News

 

[t68]

An interesting development for A400, it appears France may buy upto 4 C130J to complement the A400 for inflight refueling and spec ops work, article also states that they are trying to make a AAR capabilty for the C295 as well. See what the frogs do.

Airbus Scrambles To Compete Against France's Planned Buy of 4 C-130s

Whilst the capabilty does not effect the RNZAF for AAR, but does point to it being to big for the specials. So NZ really needs to get this one right 1st go if they want a single type in service.