Royal New Zealand Air Force

[gf0012-aust]

While the overall costs would be higher, it must be remembered that both the range and the payload of a C5m are a lot, lot, bigger. For example the C 5 m can carry almost 50 tonne more than a C17 across from NZ to Auz. While I dont have the figures I was lead to believe that the C5m was cheaper per tonne nmi than the C17.The down side is that the C17 can be used both Tactically or strategically and therefore is far more flexible, while the C5 is definitely only strategical, due to it's runway requirements. For example a max weight C5m could not use RNZAF base Auckland.

australia went to C17's after years of leasing the big antonovs - which were cheaper per tonne than the galaxys.

the dual hat role meant that VFM was pretty critical. it also meant that looking at the CASA and RAAF databases for likely use and utility was a strong motivator to employ and deploy flexible assets

 

[ngatimozart]

While the overall costs would be higher, it must be remembered that both the range and the payload of a C5m are a lot, lot, bigger. For example the C 5 m can carry almost 50 tonne more than a C17 across from NZ to Auz. While I dont have the figures I was lead to believe that the C5m was cheaper per tonne nmi than the C17.The down side is that the C17 can be used both Tactically or strategically and therefore is far more flexible, while the C5 is definitely only strategical, due to it's runway requirements. For example a max weight C5m could not use RNZAF base Auckland.

The C5M uses four engines of the similar size to the C17 hence its fuel burn is going to be twice as much per nautical mile. Secondly, we simply do not have the capacity, financial or otherwise, to operate such aircraft. Thirdly, even if we came to some arrangement with Australia, between the two countries there would most likely not be taskings that would justify the acquisition of such an aircraft. Fourthly, the aircraft are old and as previously stated even though they have had engine and avionics upgrades they still would be a risky proposition for NZ. Fifthly, the USAF and the US Congress see them as a national strategic lift platform and will not part with any of them. Finally, aircraft the size of the C5 do not fit into current and foreseeable NZDF CONOPS.

 

[Rob c]

The C5M uses four engines of the similar size to the C17 hence its fuel burn is going to be twice as much per nautical mile. Secondly, we simply do not have the capacity, financial or otherwise, to operate such aircraft. Thirdly, even if we came to some arrangement with Australia, between the two countries there would most likely not be taskings that would justify the acquisition of such an aircraft. Fourthly, the aircraft are old and as previously stated even though they have had engine and avionics upgrades they still would be a risky proposition for NZ. Fifthly, the USAF and the US Congress see them as a national strategic lift platform and will not part with any of them. Finally, aircraft the size of the C5 do not fit into current and foreseeable NZDF CONOPS.

While I agree with you that it is highly unlikely for us to acquire any C5s there are a couple of points I would say. The Fuel burn would not bet twice as much as the F117 engine fitted to the C17 and the CF6 fitted to the C5 have very similar fuel burn per pound of thrust, However the CF6's fitted to the C5 are about 30% more powerful than the F117 fitted to the C17 so you could expect a fuel burn increase for the C5 to be 20 -30% greater at cruise. Anyone wanting a C5m would have to get them rebuilt them selves from C5a's that are to be de-activated. The expected life of the rebuilt C5's is greater than that of the C17 fleet. However the C5 is just to damn big.

 

[chis73]

According to the C-17 "acquisition" documents just released (thanks Ngati), to meet NZ's portion of the Antarctic flight obligations, perhaps only required three C-17 flights a year. With a C-5M, maybe they would only need to prep it for one trip a season!

It doesn't seem that C-17 is going ahead (it appears even the 7-year lease option for one aircraft has been turned down), so we need to think about Plan B. I think we need to give a tanker option some serious thought. Probably a 767 derivative rather than an A330. A Multi-role Tanker Transport (MRTT) could offer the extra role & range that the 757 doesn't (hence the bad-mouthing it received in the 2010 Value-for-Money report). A 767-200ER could carry approx 200 passengers or 19 standard pallets to a deployment + maintain VIPs in the style that they have become accustomed, while being able to assist with tanking duties during Antarctic runs (eventually it might even be cleared to land at McMurdo itself). But we are talking close to C-17 money for such an aircraft. A second-hand conversion could be a good choice again.

If we acquire P-8, then a tanking option could very well come in to it's own, as the P-8 sucks (fuel, literally) at low-level. We have an absolutely huge SAR zone, and search-and-rescue missions (which involve lots of low-level flight) will be a major role for the Orion replacement capability.

I was extremely disappointed with the cabinet decision to go with a 'like for like' replacement air transport capability. Neither the C-130 or the 757 meets current or future needs. A complete cop-out! Despite the supposed $20 billion commitment, we will actually be spending less between now and 2018 than even the 2013 DMRR proposed. Too many morons at the top table seems to be the fundamental problem. They just need to start getting the 'bleepity-bleep' on with it! A heavy-lift squadron (be it 3-4 A400M or C-2, backed with 1-2 MRTT, for example) seems essential. Just too tight to pay for it and too deluded to admit that things are currently not in any way adequate.:frown

 

[gf0012-aust]

If we acquire P-8, then a tanking option could very well come in to it's own, as the P-8 sucks (fuel, literally) at low-level. We have an absolutely huge SAR zone, and search-and-rescue missions (which involve lots of low-level flight) will be a major role for the Orion replacement capability.

whats the AAR req for P8's based on? eg Hawai'i and RAAF west coast ops are huge - and they don't tanker up. USN P8's were running long ops out of perth and didn't require tankering on 10 hr missions

 

[chis73]

NZ's SAR zone extends more than 50 degrees of longitude east from Auckland (pretty much to 130 deg W, ie. halfway to Chile). In comparison, Australia covers a larger region, but it's western edge is only about 45 deg west from Perth. Both country's regions extend from roughly the equator to the South Pole. Granted NZ's zone is not a high traffic area, but getting busier. Not a lot of places for large aircraft to operate from (Raratonga & Tahiti, maybe McMurdo; Chathams would struggle with more than a C295 or a lightly loaded Herc).

I'd say we would struggle if something happened in the most far-flung regions (say another MH370-like search) with the P-3. P-8 is plumbed for AAR, might as well use it. If you sign up to be responsible for something, you should be prepared to be capable of actually doing it.

 

[MrConservative]

NZ's SAR zone extends more than 50 degrees of longitude east from Auckland (pretty much to 130 deg W, ie. halfway to Chile). In comparison, Australia covers a larger region, but it's western edge is only about 45 deg west from Perth. Both country's regions extend from roughly the equator to the South Pole. Granted NZ's zone is not a high traffic area, but getting busier. Not a lot of places for large aircraft to operate from (Raratonga & Tahiti, maybe McMurdo; Chathams would struggle with more than a C295 or a lightly loaded Herc).

I'd say we would struggle if something happened in the most far-flung regions (say another MH370-like search) with the P-3. P-8 is plumbed for AAR, might as well use it. If you sign up to be responsible for something, you should be prepared to be capable of actually doing it.

The P-8 would be no different to the P-3 in such circumstances as we would forward deploy to either Raro / Niue / Faleolo / Fa'a'ā which were all long enough to take the ANZ 747-400 as trans-Pacific divert fields. That should be enough for the P-8 to stretch its legs. Though I agree on the point that RNZAF should at least train to A2A on the P-8 (If it is selected - yeah I know the DWP virtually all but says the P-8 but - there is always last minute backouts or shagging around.)

 

[vonnoobie]

In regards to the C-5 I highly dealt NZ would get something like that, Not that I don't think they couldn't operate it but the government would be jumping up and down at how much it would cost.

However with the recent upgrades having reduced runway requirement's, fuel burn, operating and maintenance cost's they are now more economical then ever to have having read in some articles (not sure of there validity) that cost's have almost halved per a flight hour.

That being said another 2013 article Costly Flight Hours | TIME.com put the cost's of the standard C-5B at just under $79k, if the half cost is accurate then possibly marginally cheaper per a ton then the C-17 but still not necessarily an aircraft suitable to NZ. If anything it is more suitable to the RAAF with the ADF being more active globally then the NZDF while also having plans set in future for much larger equipment that could justify much larger aircraft, New Zealand just doesn't have those justifications.

So while the C-5M Super Galaxy could operate from NZ airfields it would still be more restricted then most other aircraft, would have less need for it's massive cargo capacity and actually reduce the ability of the RNZAF to respond to multiple missions at any one time as you would end up with fewer air frames. All in all shiney toy, but not very practical for NZ. As for the RAAF? Well there is an argument to have it down the track, We can actually afford it.. but more important needs for the foreseeable future so it's about as likely as getting an honest politician.

Regards, vonnoobie.

 

[John Fedup]

A couple C-5Ms shared between OZ and NZ in exchange for OZ C-17 time for NZ has some merit but it just won't happen, the US won't give C-5As for conversion and the cost is likely too high for both governments. A case for EU members in NATO to convert a few C-5As to Ms would negate the need to rely on An-124s but the political will isn't there either.

 

[Rob c]

According to the C-17 "acquisition" documents just released (thanks Ngati), to meet NZ's portion of the Antarctic flight obligations, perhaps only required three C-17 flights a year. With a C-5M, maybe they would only need to prep it for one trip a season!

It doesn't seem that C-17 is going ahead (it appears even the 7-year lease option for one aircraft has been turned down), so we need to think about Plan B. I think we need to give a tanker option some serious thought. Probably a 767 derivative rather than an A330. A Multi-role Tanker Transport (MRTT) could offer the extra role & range that the 757 doesn't (hence the bad-mouthing it received in the 2010 Value-for-Money report). A 767-200ER could carry approx 200 passengers or 19 standard pallets to a deployment + maintain VIPs in the style that they have become accustomed, while being able to assist with tanking duties during Antarctic runs (eventually it might even be cleared to land at McMurdo itself). But we are talking close to C-17 money for such an aircraft. A second-hand conversion could be a good choice again.

If we acquire P-8, then a tanking option could very well come in to it's own, as the P-8 sucks (fuel, literally) at low-level. We have an absolutely huge SAR zone, and search-and-rescue missions (which involve lots of low-level flight) will be a major role for the Orion replacement capability.

I was extremely disappointed with the cabinet decision to go with a 'like for like' replacement air transport capability. Neither the C-130 or the 757 meets current or future needs. A complete cop-out! Despite the supposed $20 billion commitment, we will actually be spending less between now and 2018 than even the 2013 DMRR proposed. Too many morons at the top table seems to be the fundamental problem. They just need to start getting the 'bleepity-bleep' on with it! A heavy-lift squadron (be it 3-4 A400M or C-2, backed with 1-2 MRTT, for example) seems essential. Just too tight to pay for it and too deluded to admit that things are currently not in any way adequate.:frown

I agree with the above, it is blindingly obvious that the 757/C130 are well short of even satisfying current requirements let alone future requirements. The like for like is very much the a cost driven decision, not a result driven decision. the only possibilty for change seams to be That other party, with a defence policy setting defence at 2%GDP and a restoration of a ACF. How serious this is, is another question.

 

[40 deg south]

I agree with the above, it is blindingly obvious that the 757/C130 are well short of even satisfying current requirements let alone future requirements. The like for like is very much the a cost driven decision, not a result driven decision. the only possibilty for change seams to be That other party, with a defence policy setting defence at 2%GDP and a restoration of a ACF. How serious this is, is another question.

Not just a cost-driven decision, Rob.

Of the two obvious contenders for heavy lift, one has just gone out of production while the other is suffering serious teething issues.

It would be a brave Minister who would sign up for the A400 at this stage of development, and the main alternative seems to be a lone C-17.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/kc-390-confirmed-for-farnborough-debut-426808/

http://www.airforce-technology.com/...-testing-of-kc-390-transport-aircraft-4934832

Back to the 'like for like' scenario, the C130J must be the overwhelming favorite. Can't help but notice that Brazil's contender seems to be coming along nicely. If RNZAF has a delegation at Farnborough, I hope they make sure they are photographed at the Embraer stand just so Lockheed Martin doesn't take us for granted.

 

[chis73]

Don't know about Farnborough, but there is a RNZAF 757 confirmed for static display at RIAT this weekend.

My main gripe with the KC-390 is those turbofan engines. In the absence of any sign of a C295/C27J type on the RNZAF horizon, I assume that whatever replaces the C-130H will be expected to fulfill the role of 'dirt-tracker' as well. Turbofans on a strategic airlifter I would be happier with. I like my tactical airlifters cheap & cheerful. They have a strong tendency to end up peppered with holes (sometimes even mortared) in action.

 

[ngatimozart]

Don't know about Farnborough, but there is a RNZAF 757 confirmed for static display at RIAT this weekend.

A 86 strong NZDF group departed OH yesterday to march in the Bastille Day Parade in Paris on 14th July. RIAT will be quite interesting this year.

My main gripe with the KC-390 is those turbofan engines. In the absence of any sign of a C295/C27J type on the RNZAF horizon, I assume that whatever replaces the C-130H will be expected to fulfill the role of 'dirt-tracker' as well. Turbofans on a strategic airlifter I would be happier with. I like my tactical airlifters cheap & cheerful. They have a strong tendency to end up peppered with holes (sometimes even mortared) in action.

Well, I think a turbo fan might be better from an engine repair / replacement point of view. Less complicated because you don't have to worry about removing / fitting props and gear boxes etc. Just my POV.

 

[Rob c]

A 86 strong NZDF group departed OH yesterday to march in the Bastille Day Parade in Paris on 14th July. RIAT will be quite interesting this year.

Well, I think a turbo fan might be better from an engine repair / replacement point of view. Less complicated because you don't have to worry about removing / fitting props and gear boxes etc. Just my POV.

Good point Ngati not only that the modern turbo fans are remarkably tough and can swallow a lot of water and debris without stopping, I would not have a problem with the KC390 due to its turbo fans.It must be remembered that the C17 was designed to be capable of operating from dirt strips, but is not use due to possible damage to the bottom of the fuselage, the engines have never been questioned in this regard.

 

[ngatimozart]

Good point Ngati not only that the modern turbo fans are remarkably tough and can swallow a lot of water and debris without stopping, I would not have a problem with the KC390 due to its turbo fans.It must be remembered that the C17 was designed to be capable of operating from dirt strips, but is not use due to possible damage to the bottom of the fuselage, the engines have never been questioned in this regard.

It's not that it damages the bottom of the C17 but the damage that repeated C17 operations do to the same strip of dirt. They tend to dig it up somewhat due to their weight. Ballet dancers they are not.

 

[Rob c]

It's not that it damages the bottom of the C17 but the damage that repeated C17 operations do to the same strip of dirt. They tend to dig it up somewhat due to their weight. Ballet dancers they are not.

The following is from Edwards test centre report AFFTC-PA-09023
The underside of the fuselage and landing gear pods as well as the landing gear and tyres are often damaged by sand and rocks, during takeoff, landing and taxi. During The dirt field testing they also found that as long as the thrust reversers where retracted by 30 knots no engine ingestion occurred.

 

[40 deg south]

Good point Ngati not only that the modern turbo fans are remarkably tough and can swallow a lot of water and debris without stopping, I would not have a problem with the KC390 due to its turbo fans.It must be remembered that the C17 was designed to be capable of operating from dirt strips, but is not use due to possible damage to the bottom of the fuselage, the engines have never been questioned in this regard.

From a maintenance point of view, the IAE V2500s used on the KC390 are ideal for NZ. Not only are they used on AirNZ's Airbus 320s, but Christchurch houses a leading V2500 maintenance facility.

Christchurch Engine Centre, Air New Zealand Pratt & Whitney V2500 engine maintenance, repair and overhaul MRO centre

It would be interesting to learn more about the precise dimensions of the KC390 hold, and whether it would have the height to take a NH90 without significant disassembly. Quoted payload is 1.5 - 2.0 tonnes heavier than the C-130J, while cubic volume is similar to the stretched C130J-30. But it's the usable volume that counts, and I'm not sure how the width and height stack up.

As for short-field performance, I'd assume it would be worse than something sporting four turbo-props. But I'm curious to know how often the Herc's short-field performance is actually used by RNZAF. Because of the tourism industry, pretty much every PI country now has at least one substantial modern airfield, and some have more. It may be that a reduction in this area might be worth trading away for greater speed/economy/payload? Particularly if NZ reinstates the lost 'Andover' capability.

If MinDef planners keep an open mind, the 'like-for-like' replacement may be more interesting that I had initially assumed!

 

[40 deg south]

The following is from Edwards test centre report AFFTC-PA-09023
The underside of the fuselage and landing gear pods as well as the landing gear and tyres are often damaged by sand and rocks, during takeoff, landing and taxi. During The dirt field testing they also found that as long as the thrust reversers where retracted by 30 knots no engine ingestion occurred.

Rob, Ngati

I think it's not a question of damage to aircraft vs. damage to landing strip. Gravel/debris can obviously cause damage to the underside of an aircraft, while landing a 77-tonne (empty weight) aircraft tends to plough up a paddock. This gives two good reasons for USAF to avoid rough-field landings unless absolutely necessary, particularly if you are intending to use the same patch of dirt for ongoing operations, and can't afford any down-time for the aircraft.

 

[vonnoobie]

From a maintenance point of view, the IAE V2500s used on the KC390 are ideal for NZ. Not only are they used on AirNZ's Airbus 320s, but Christchurch houses a leading V2500 maintenance facility.

Christchurch Engine Centre, Air New Zealand Pratt & Whitney V2500 engine maintenance, repair and overhaul MRO centre

It would be interesting to learn more about the precise dimensions of the KC390 hold, and whether it would have the height to take a NH90 without significant disassembly. Quoted payload is 1.5 - 2.0 tonnes heavier than the C-130J, while cubic volume is similar to the stretched C130J-30. But it's the usable volume that counts, and I'm not sure how the width and height stack up.

As for short-field performance, I'd assume it would be worse than something sporting four turbo-props. But I'm curious to know how often the Herc's short-field performance is actually used by RNZAF. Because of the tourism industry, pretty much every PI country now has at least one substantial modern airfield, and some have more. It may be that a reduction in this area might be worth trading away for greater speed/economy/payload? Particularly if NZ reinstates the lost 'Andover' capability.

If MinDef planners keep an open mind, the 'like-for-like' replacement may be more interesting that I had initially assumed!

According to Wiki (avoid the eye role please ) the cargo compartment dimensions are 17.5 x 3.45 x 2.9 (LxWxH), So not a chance in hell of carrying an NH90.

It's a good like for like replacement that would possibly cheaper to maintain with the engines being civilian sourced but if you want to carry NH90's or possibly in future vehicles the size that Australia is looking at for the future ASLAV/M-113 repalcement then you need something bigger.

Personnaly I don't think NZ would be able to afford a like for like repalcement in larger aircraft but possibly a like for like repalement in a mixed fleet. Could possibly get a deal in getting a pair of A400's from either Germany or Spain who between them have 26 that they want to resell or could try and pick up the final C-17 whitetail that every nation appears to have forgotten about. A single C-17 is not much use but used in conjunction with the RAAF could have it's advantages, then again getting some A400's could be a stpping stone to the RAAF getting some them selves.

1 x C-17 or 2 x A400's
3 - 4 KC390's or Super Herc's
and for the 757 replacement I'd seriously look at the MRTT, good multi role aircraft to acquire that fill's the needs and then add's a bit extra capability.

 

[MrConservative]

1 x C-17 or 2 x A400's, 3 - 4 KC390's or Super Herc's and for the 757 replacement I'd seriously look at the MRTT, good multi role aircraft to acquire that fill's the needs and then add's a bit extra capability.

If that is the A330/KC-30 MRTT - again as I noted a few pages back that the MRTT does not have a reinforced main deck cargo floor, and is more for troop transport (way more capacity than we need) and A2A which we will not have as a prime consideration.

The single C-17 idea has been parked. The KC-390 and the C-2 were not seriously considered in the FAMC. These points have been mentioned previously.

A400M if it can sort itself by 2023, with either 1x the B738-ER BCF or B767-2C leased in the strategic role and the C-130J in the tactical role. If not a straight B767-2C x 2 and C-130J x 5-6 replacement direct FMS purchase.