Was more an option just to get us within reach of viable A400 use (operational), stop gap not soloution as I still believe the C130J model to be same same in terms of capability and not solving any of our identified issues. Our Hs are not getting any younger regardless of a delayed SLEP and IMO we should stick with the original retirement dates, we can't keep the museum waiting lol. Our govt will just run the current hercs into the ground just like other kit.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
That 2nd link sure sums up NZ's commitment to defence related matters - the Aussies throw everything at the assisting the JLP - and of course have C17 to assist should they decide.
NZ suffers more 'delays' & the paltry C130 can't take part... what sort of 'commitment' is that?!! Hah - NZ Govts (of all colours) bitch about the costs & trade-off capability at every chance they get, in this case risking the loss of the JLP to Hobart & costing the NZ economy many, many millions!
The Govt's answer? - no change in air-assets & the ability to occasionally send a naval tanker that still relies on USA assistance (ice-breaker), and at the same time removes it as an available capability for some of the summer months - oh we'll just ask the RAN nicely to help us during summer shall we? Typical case of finding a way of not spending money on a heavy air transport for JLP by loading up the commitments in an already busy asset!
They seem to be well aware of the impact of a lack of heavy air-transport and seem almost embarrassed by it - hence they even redact the images for god's sake! (notice that they didn't for the proposed RNZN assets). Again it'll be a case of bludging a C17 lift off the RAAF - I guess is their thinking.
Not so fast Gibbo - it is not all that bad.
Though the C-17 would be the ideal aircraft in the RNZAF strategic role - but unless the cost-benefit analysis does not support two leased C-17's to conduct a heavy lift dimension then that opportunity has flown. However it would place the Boeing 767-2C under strong consideration. My view is that the A400M is no longer in the NZDF picture. That project is becoming the aviation analogy of the EU.
For those not familiar with it the B767-2C is basically the KC-46 including its internal fitted tank capacity, but without the refuelling and milspec avionics. It has its own FAA type certification from which the KC-46 has a supplementary certification. I would see no difficulties in seeing a 767-2C with mil spec avionics getting a type cert.
Boeing 767-2C First Flight Begins Tanker Test Campaign | Defense content from Aviation Week
Two B767-2C's and five C-130J's will be a huge difference to our airlift capability from where we are now. The downside is that outsized loads will now have to be taken via Sealift viz Canterbury or the future Endeavour, LOSV and SOPV which will all have a sealift capability and a flight deck/hanger dimension. The upside is that it will shore up the JLP side when we add in ice capable assets. The range and airlift capability on these things is way above the B757-200's we have now. And if the effluent really hits the air-con down the track leasing used C-17A's for an interim period always is an option.
Boeing are having to wear some cost over-runs on the development of the A2A development side of the KC-46 so a sale to the NZDF would be pretty helpful. A couple of Kiwi B76-2C's would also be able to slot into the production timetable around the B757 retirement circa 2022/23. BTW it is plumbed and wired for later retro fitting in the A2A role if we decide that is what we also need.
Cheers, Mr C
I don't necessarily see the movement of the 13 US pers down to the ice as a fullblown case of program shift to Hobart (although I do remember the aussies trying to sell the idea to the yanks at some stage) but more a case of what our militaries do ie we are both sending personnel to this area of the world, we have an aircraft already going so let's combine efforts. Reciprocally a US flight could then return the favour for a return trip at some stage therefore in a way sharing the costs and saving potential flights. 13 bodies is not exactly going to fill a C17 so makes sense to find alternate transport if available.
On further reading of the latest releases it all seems a case of sharing anyway as an interesting part I read is where we actually patrol the Ross sea region on behalf of Australia (presumably with our OPVs recently) so I guess the added Ice OPV and even the improved tanker would only further this arrangement in the future (literally). I could'nt think of any RAN asset ice strengthened so makes sense.
As for our air transport commitment it does seem to read we are going like for like (rather than earlier terminology used like or better) so it seems to be leaning towards the C130J as opposed to the discounted C17 and possibly deemed too risky A400. The B757s had a similar handle but unlike MrC I would have assumed the airbus A320 as Aus seems to be doing ok with the A319 (therefore risk tested) and it has the advantage of being a main fleet in Air NZ for maintenance synergies. Though not quite a 757 in terms of capability IMO not far off either but also not as large as a 767. I guess as MrC said it does have the added benefit of the extra freight being larger than our current boeings and there is the future proofing of a possible refueller option as an added feather. Either option would be good to maintain/enhance that particular capability for both JLP and NZDF as a whole if this type was to survive the review.
So for me the updated guess for air transport looks like 5 C130J-30s and 2 A320s (or yes MrCs 767s for more improved freight/fuel options). The report mentions 'instead' of DMRR fleet mix so could possibly be in lieu of a A400/C295 combination which is IMO somewhat of a let down but hey could still be on the cards (at least pending mid balance reveiw in 2018 anyway). Overall would be a similar capability to what we have now IRT air mobility with a marginal improvement in cargo (amount not bulk) but obviously new build so at least there would be that.
I read the maritime surveillance portion to be P8s (enhanced like for like) as well to patrol southern ocean (and the rest) including numbers but I guess overall cost will be the winner on that front but heres hoping as it seemed to have emphasis, could still be a mixed fleet just with similar value to current. There is provision for alternative force structure for each updated force structure (I take this to be similar to the low-mid-high options for pathways) for lesser versions to keep within budget in case of budget constraints/blowouts as well and in navys case the inevitable trade offs to ensure the ENDII and littoral enhancements (IPV early retirement etc). Interestingly the increased cost of the ANZAC upgrades was signed off in 2014 whereas I assumed the $100m blowout was more recent? unless this was a different increase?
If these fleet predictions were to be true I would still like to see a C295 type in both transport and MPA secondary roles as well as the issues of overkill/core function/better suited to task etc would still remain at both 40 and 5sqns regardless of the new modern reliability. Just my interpretations of the somewhat clearer (barely) updated report but as 40ds says we still got 2 years to wait for more solid info and costings, still keen on the A400 in the mix just does not seem to read like that, still time I guess if airbus gets the whip out.
Reg
The B767-2C has a massive range and payload advantage over the 320Neo.
EFW, ST Aerospace and Airbus to launch A320/A321P2F freighter conversion programme | Airbus Press release
That range of the 320Neo maybe an issue when a passenger / freight mix on a infamous McCully flight caused the whole re-focus towards C-17's.
With the B76 there is a ton of Air NZ expertise at the Engineering Base in Mangere and it has the B-787 cockpit - which is another synergy with ANZ alongside their sim. They do contract work there all the time for a lot of Asia-Pacific B76 operators.
My calculated guess is that if the B76-2C meets SPR parametres for flights to MacTown it will be a contender. It is also made in the USA which these days has more of an aura of fondness than it used to a few years ago since it is again a formal defence partner.
The B767-2C has a massive range and payload advantage over the 320Neo.
EFW, ST Aerospace and Airbus to launch A320/A321P2F freighter conversion programme | Airbus Press release
That range of the 320Neo maybe an issue when a passenger / freight mix on a infamous McCully flight caused the whole re-focus towards C-17's.
With the B76 there is a ton of Air NZ expertise at the Engineering Base in Mangere and it has the B-787 cockpit - which is another synergy with ANZ alongside their sim. They do contract work there all the time for a lot of Asia-Pacific B76 operators.
My calculated guess is that if the B76-2C meets SPR parametres for flights to MacTown it will be a contender. It is also made in the USA which these days has more of an aura of fondness than it used to a few years ago since it is again a formal defence partner.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Since the A400 is unlikely to solve its problems anytime soon that leaves the C-130J and possibly the KC-390 as options in 2019. With Boeings participation in KC 390 would it not be in the best interests of NZ to seek a Boeing only fleet with KC390 as tactical, KC46 as strategic combi no A2A as KC390 can do that and P8 for maritime strike and ISR?
I too believe an urgent requirement exists to lesson the load on the legacy C-130H fleet ASAP of a minimum of three C-295. These would cover a multitude of roles as I noted in an earlier post. With at least one FITS pallet for enhanced mission effectiveness doing EEZ and SAR patrols when not tasked with transport tasks.
I too believe an urgent requirement exists to lesson the load on the legacy C-130H fleet ASAP of a minimum of three C-295. These would cover a multitude of roles as I noted in an earlier post. With at least one FITS pallet for enhanced mission effectiveness doing EEZ and SAR patrols when not tasked with transport tasks.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Too much going on today in my world. On second thought I think a better approach In place of my Boeing suggestion I think a buy of two A330 MRTT to the same spec as RAAF plus P8 and C-130J-30 to provide commonality. An interim buy of three C-295 for utility roles when other assets are too big.
t68
Well-Known Member
I thought a lease of C295 would be better option keeps Airbus interested, but by all accounts another election(18 November 2017 no later than) has got to happen before the current crop decide if they are in at that time. and that could turn everything on its head
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
t68
Well-Known Member
Look at the RAF lease of C17, most likely see no tactical work that would work for a short term solution around the Pacfic islands which would lighten the load on C130, which unturned makes the airframe cheaper as it needs no defensive aids. Unlike RAAF C27J
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
I forgot about that fact. Thank you for that. So going to Airbus with a request to lease three C-295 may give them the warm and fuzzy that an MRTT buy could happen. Since PZ was looking for a fleet of nine MRTT but have only committed to seven, including the latest two as conversions, maybe the addition of two by NZ could entice interest in C17 usage in exchange for access to the NZ MRTT. Win win.
A lease of three C-295's is not going to happen. The C-130'Hs have been upgraded and are doing very well according to 40Sqd. They will serve us for the interim period (2020-2025). The B-757 will serve until 2023.
If there is a perceived shortfall in airlift capability it is simpler and cheaper overall on a whole of force basis to order an extra C-130J and move the project forward earlier.
I dont want to curb people's enthusiasm for the the A330/KC-30 but it is important to point out that the MRTT version of the A330 does not have a reinforced main deck cargo floor. It has a focus bias towards a passenger and A2A orientation. However, the B767-2C in the cargo role was designed to work with up to 4500kg HCU-6/E pallets that are transfer compatible with C-17's and C-130J's which required it to have a reinforced main deck cargo floor. I understand that a full volume/weight capacity HCU-6/E pallet would not be possible in the lower deck of the MRTT. The passenger capacity of the MRTT is excessive. All we realistically need is the ability to transport at one time is an infantry company or personnel - in the VIP role even less. The B767-2C will swallow volume wise 18 HCU-6/E (463L) pallets just the same as a C-17 though circa 29,500 kilograms it is considerably less than the C-17 or the MRTT at 45000kg.
Cheers, MrC
Yes was just thinking along the lines of maybe abit too large and maybe they would try and keep in the similar size bracket to current 757 (athough I guess if we were legitamitly considering C17 then not an issue). I do like the idea of sticking with boeing and if the 737 range had a viable contender than the obvious similarities with any P8 purchase would be a bonus but since they are pushing the antartic angle I do not think this is best option.
Agreed the 767 would be an improvement in terms of range, size, capacity etc just wondering if the nay sayers who were considering ditching the current boeings would pull out the same arguments just on a slightly larger scale perhaps?
As you say at least some polly support will come from first hand experience from the 'incident' so that is an argument in favour of at least. Can the 767 conduct a point of no return round flight or is it still commited at some point?
I did not believe govt (especially) would be to quick to give up the boeing capability as with our minor force it actually projects a certain status as well as strat trans, kind of ultimate flag waver for our pollies, and I guess the C130 toilet would have changed some of their penny pinching attitudes haha.
I would have thought the same reasons they were noted and mooted in the first instance would still be relevant ie undersize loads, overworking frames etc would still be relevant otherwise we will just do the same with these hercs and face the same issues further down the track just with a J instead of an H?
Originally it was considered we actually need 8 C130s to cover off all tasks adequately (hence our option for 8 Js that we turned down) so maybe we then up the order back to the original findings and order the excess (3) now and then 1 for 1 the Hs as and when they retire. Ease into introduction and avoid any downtime through transition into service.
5 C130J-30s and 3 C130Js would offer options (well slightly more) and increase lift and availability. Still leaves the multitude of under utilised loads and lesser but equally important outsize loads however, guess a factor in compromise.
Hmm must admit I was a bit 'ranty' in my last post - I stand by the sentiments though. Admittedly for JLP the C17 isn't the 'be all & end all' as it's a non-hostile & controlled field with full logistics support for un/loading so any B757 'like for like' replacement should be suitable. Of course that point doesn't hold so well for other potential theatres where there's no logistics facilities and/or a 'quick in & out' is required.
As to what B757 should be - A32x NEO (A321LR!?!) too small for my liking, but knowing how NZ Govt always look for $savings$ that is likely what we'll get!
MRTT - if no reinforced main deck cargo floor then that's a definite 'no' in my book. B767-2C would seem to be a damned fine fit on paper but being a much bigger airframe than B757 the NZDF would have to push hard to convince Govt to part with the dosh! The B767 line was to have closed down but got re-invigorated with this - hopefully will still take orders 2019+ !?!
I do think there's an element of waititng to see where the A400 ends up by 2018 before an order is made but I'm becoming more convinced (as are many of us clearly) that the C-130J will replace the H models.
I know many hate that idea but I don't have a problem with it. Given the 'resourcing constraints' & large distances we have to deal with, we benefit from having a tactical lifter with longer legs, which also has the ability to step-up into a (lighter) strategic lift role - the C130's are actually close to perfect for that niche in my book. Yes agree the status quo isn't the best mix & firm fan of 2 x C17 but I'm trying to take a 'real world' view of what Govt will pay for.
The Govt seems to believe naval assets with their greater carrying capacity are better value for money, ignoring that fact there's a lot of places they can't get to (ie: land-locked) & can't get to quickly.
Hopefully by 2018 the Govt (god knows who that might be! :roll) realises they need to bite the bullet & invest in a decent air mobility capability.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
i would be worried Reg R of a LITERAL running into the ground of our ageing C130 , like other airforces have had with younger versions than ours over the years, most recent case in point, Indonesia Airforce C130 crash, june 30th 2015. tragedy killed crew and passengers onboard.
Yes 8 x C130J would be a definite improvement - and like your 5/3 split! This way it's entirely feasible that RNZAF could each season commit 2 x C130J to ice ops with 1 x B757 replacement helping as need be. That would show the US we are committed!
Last edited:
Yeah true was ranty wasn't I - just pissed off about lack of balls by Govt! True 2018 DMRR could offer some hope but I won't hold my breath (will hold it for next years election tho!).
Regarding Aussie maritime assets for ice ops - yes they already lease a very capable vessel - refer to this link then look at what their planned replacement looks like - it'll be far in excess capability-wise of what our's will be!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_Australis_(icebreaker)
Last edited: