Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Realistically would the A400 be a tactical lifter in NZ use or is it more a strategic lifter given its voluminous internal cargo hold and its range? If so, would it not be the replacement for the B757 and not the venerable C130H?
Even the RAF, French and German AF's realize the benefits of aircraft of the C130 size in addition to their larger A400 and C17.
B200 to A400 is IMHO too much of a capability gap. Some mid size type is required in order to give options that are more financially responsible.
Three A400 and five KC390 would cover most taskings. Like RegR I too believe there is a role for the C295 in RNZAF colours. If there was an opportunity for this to happen I would prefer three of each type theoretically allowing one of each type at all times. This option has a secondary benefit if the KC390 and the C295W were fitted with EO turrets to give them an enhanced search function to allow them to be the primary SAR eyes in place of the likely P8.
Nine ramp equipped aircraft all capable of rough field operation offering a combined maximum lift of 480 tons, double the current capability with two additional airframes. From a commanders perspective having access to 1 ton, 10 ton, 23 ton and 40 ton maximum lift aircraft is a huge plus when determining the most appropriate response. No single aircraft can do everything well. Yes I agree there is an added cost of adding a third type but I think the overall savings provided in the utility of having options is value in itself especially when each platform can multi task. And of corse there is value in overall numbers of airframes.
Let's hope that 2017 sees movement in these programs.
Even the RAF, French and German AF's realize the benefits of aircraft of the C130 size in addition to their larger A400 and C17.
B200 to A400 is IMHO too much of a capability gap. Some mid size type is required in order to give options that are more financially responsible.
Three A400 and five KC390 would cover most taskings. Like RegR I too believe there is a role for the C295 in RNZAF colours. If there was an opportunity for this to happen I would prefer three of each type theoretically allowing one of each type at all times. This option has a secondary benefit if the KC390 and the C295W were fitted with EO turrets to give them an enhanced search function to allow them to be the primary SAR eyes in place of the likely P8.
Nine ramp equipped aircraft all capable of rough field operation offering a combined maximum lift of 480 tons, double the current capability with two additional airframes. From a commanders perspective having access to 1 ton, 10 ton, 23 ton and 40 ton maximum lift aircraft is a huge plus when determining the most appropriate response. No single aircraft can do everything well. Yes I agree there is an added cost of adding a third type but I think the overall savings provided in the utility of having options is value in itself especially when each platform can multi task. And of corse there is value in overall numbers of airframes.
Let's hope that 2017 sees movement in these programs.
The fact A400 has strategic qualities as well as tactical ability is more of a bonus and not a designation and is more the way of the future ie multi-role/purpose platforms. I actually think we need to look more at the type and function rather than focus on the title of the "role" as as you say a B200 is as different to A400 as C130 is different to B757. If a single particular type can cover/crossover both Tac and strat then do we really need to shoehorn them in as replacement for a particular type in our legacy fleet based on current numbers as TBH for me personally A400 is nothing remotely like our current B757s in terms of operation, use or requirement other than they both have wings and fly. Range, speed and volume are attributes, type, role and employment are abilities but do we really need to get stuck on old type casts especially if we can blend the 2 more readily these days in terms of performance.
The big boys (with matching budgets) can afford multiple tiers to cover multiple roles but sadly we have to be more selective and choose the type(s) that cover the most roles/tasks we conduct. I think A400 and C130J are too similar in fact A400 was/is originally touted as the replacement for current C130/transall types in user fleets. Those countries that are aqquiring more C130 types are for more specialized roles such as tankers and SF support currently not covered, signed off, suited or lacking in A400, all of which are not currently big NZDF factors or likely to warrant a seperate type at added cost for such small numbers. For us A400 ticks the boxes our current hercs are lacking in ie outsize/weight that new build hercs would not solve and along with a C295 type would cover a wider range of the overall transport spectrum ie light to heavy (and everything in between) rather than say a C130/A400 mix of medium/heavy to heavy (too close). I cannot see us getting 3 types in our air transport fleet due to duplication, support, training, logistics, numbers, costs etc especially since even 2 types (to replace C130 direct) still seems like a pipedream at the moment. I do agree we need some kind of tier though as A400 is still a larger more complex beast, I just feel 2 rather than 3 is more realistic and achievable for us. The fact A400 and C295 are from the same stable is also advantageous as would a C130 and C27, mix and matching manufacturers loses synergy benefits somewhat in terms of support, logistics and even training.
Agreed on adding the EO turrets to add to and support the P8s (especially if we are only getting 4) or better yet allocated maritime versions alongside transport with a degree of task sharing. Strength in numbers, coverage of lesser tasks, graduated training and cost savings are all added benefits of a common "medium" fleet. B200 is what I would consider light transport (if you consider 5 seats transport that is) and alittle light on the proposed maritime side as well (essentially a flasher Mark1 eyeball with no growth potential) and without and increase in numbers too few to make a viable contribution in any added task on top of their already current roles. I can see the cost savings in such an arrangement but also the limitations.
As you say hopefully 2017 brings more clarity and direction at least, in both transport and maritime projects, as we seem to just be treading water now.
The only possible down sides of a A400 fleet would be the operating cost,(don't know what it is ,just assuming it is greater than the C130) and the size which could lead to under utilization of the aircraft's abilities. I personally like the C2 due to its higher speed (gives higher availability ) twin commercial engines, (should be significantly cheaper to maintain ) and slightly better range, I would still be happy with the A400.
Possibly, but modern day engines/avionics vs 60s era tech could even the playing feild markedly, too early to tell with such a new engine though really regardless of any projected claims. Reliability is also a cost factor in itself.
Guess it would be like the UH1H/NH90 upgrade, big increase in operating costs but also bigger increase in capability therefore worth the added expense and somewhat offset. Everyting complex seems to come at some cost these days.
Can I ask why you are bringing this tired old argument up again? It's been done to death so many times even Lazarus is having second thoughts. You are adding nothing new to the discussion, just repeating old arguments.
TBH I think things will quiet down now on the acquisition front until after the 23/9/2017 election and a new govt is formed. The Ministry acquisition division will still be business as usual, but no major new acquisition announcements will be made. That's my humble opinion anyway.
if they are anything like Oz, all acquisition in an election cycle gets shut down. the only things that continue on will be operational reqs and anything thats been pre-approved and signed off on before the election gets called.
so, that's normally triggered as soon as an election is announced, and if a new govt comes in, then unless an emergency kicks in, everything then gets delayed for another 6 months due to a changing of the guard.
major capital acquisitions will unfort get deferred.......(and that assumes that they have made the selection in the first place)
The RAF in documents tabled in the UKHoR placed the A400M between the C-130J and the older C-130K in operating costs iirc. But in terms of utilisation capacity per payload mile the A400M was found to be a substantially improvement over the legacy C130's.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Just replying to RegR as he brought it forward. Let's hope your comments do not come to fruition. Elections and defence programs never go well together especially when there is a change in parties.
Ta, in the terms of utilization the RAF have the advantage as they have the C17, A400 and the C130J so can use the appropriate aircraft to fit the load.
They also have the Chinook their inventory in the short range light tactical air mobility role.
But a small air force like ours is always limited by the economies of scale and the most perfect solution is undermined by the cost.
The air mobility spectrum from the B350 and NH90 to A400 type to a 767 type represents the most efficient solution to bridge all the capability requirements whilst noting the cost limitations. The elegant solution of adding a small-medium tactical fixed wing will bring better scale to the spectrum but unfortunately not the economy gains and the opportunity cost of doing so is high for the capability it brings.
You may find that once the A400 is bedded in, the C130Js will move to special force ops.
The NZG is deploying a C130H(NZ) and 30 personnel to the Middle East at the request of the ADF. This is a two month deployment.
Agree that our budget and size at this time simply does not stretch to an additional type and while a A400/C2 sized aircraft would at times be over kill it would be the best solution. However the KC390 size may get the nod for economical reasons,
While this is possible, I think that for day to day ops they would remain part of the transport pool.
Nope, that is the latest plan because the A400 offers a reduction in operating costs compared to the C130J. The only reason the C130J is being kept is because the SF don't like the A400 for a variety of reasons, and it isn't certified for SF operations yet.
Our current Hercs are still overkill on some tasks now, nature of the beast when it's the only option. I have been on a herc where there was less than 20 of us as pax and not even a full pallet on a few occasions both here and further afield but needed to be done, bonus is you get alot of leg room.
The difference with say A400 is that it will be able to move our big gear when and if required that the C130s just physically cannot do, a very relative tick in the box in a long list of boxes IMO and all about those options. Goes both ways though, could be screaming out for capacity one week and prioritising then have nothing but space and offerring perky seats another, not your average transportation buisness that's for sure. The new replacement will still have many of the "issues" of the legacy fleet but should solve a few others as well so technically still winning fingers crossed.
The published plan is for the RAF to keep 14 C-130J after all the A400M are in service, at least some until 2030. The current fleet consists of 24 aircraft, of which 14 are C-130J-30, but AFAIK it's not been made clear whether it's the -30s which will be kept.
India to Acquire At Least 60 Airbus C-295 Transport Aircraft | at DefenceTalk
This report on Indian Air Force mentions India is adding an 11th C-17, so the last whitetail C-17 seems to have found a home.
This report on Indian Air Force mentions India is adding an 11th C-17, so the last whitetail C-17 seems to have found a home.
I think that the last C-17 went to Qatar. India has been talking about acquiring extra C-17s for ages and given their defence procurement dramas I would not believe it until I see the aircraft flying in Indian AF colours. Same with the C295; the contract negotiations will go on for years. Their bureaucracy is shocking and the empires within it are phenomenal. Makes Yes Minister and Monty Python look perfectly sane.
First of all Indian law stipulates a Make in India requirement for any defence acquisition of reasonable size. The C-17, P-8 and eventual Rafale acquisitions were exempt because of the relative small size of the numbers. The Original Rafale deal was for 100+ aircraft but the Indian govt and France could not reach agreement on the make in India part and the price. The only reason that 36 Rafale were eventually acquired was when PM Modi was in Paris and did a govt to govt deal with the French President. With the C295, Airbus will have a big problem regarding the make in India stipulation, because they have a longstanding agreement with the Indonesian govt for any Asia Pacific C212/235/295 aircraft to be built by Indonesia.