Royal New Zealand Air Force

[RegR]

Whilst that is true, what happens when the 4 P8's are 20+ years old, and you will then have fewer than 4 available due programmed maintenance and unexpected unserviceability?
I'm have no doubt RNZAF have thought of this and either allowed for it, or plan a future supplemental buy of ?Triton, or just have to fit in with available funds whatever the future availabilty.

Yes I think eventually (once bedded and fuctioning) supplementry options such as UAV could then be added to the mix to make full use (or at least as much as possible) of it's full potential. Whether or not this is triton or a downgraded model remains to be seen and most likely will be greatly infuenced by any common ally operators and their lessons learned. Helps us by spreading the funding stream, avoiding any teething issues, following closely others implementation processes and acheiving the crawl, walk, run mantra. We literally could not afford to introduce the complete package in one foul swoop in terms of funding, technology and operation IMHO.

Another factor to consider regarding the adjusted numbers is the modern training practices whereas more and more technical training can be conducted via sims, allied programmes and even commercial means which in the past may have demanded more hours on an actual operational platform for pilots, aircrew, techs, groundies etc for as realistic training as possible. Also if we say aqquire a replacement for the 757s then by making them same/similar model/type to P8 then the benifits of cross training would then free up even more hours on any actual P8 alongside the other benefit of a somewhat streamlined logistics tail.

 

[ngatimozart]

Another factor to consider regarding the adjusted numbers is the modern training practices whereas more and more technical training can be conducted via sims, allied programmes and even commercial means which in the past may have demanded more hours on an actual operational platform for pilots, aircrew, techs, groundies etc for as realistic training as possible. Also if we say aqquire a replacement for the 757s then by making them same/similar model/type to P8 then the benifits of cross training would then free up even more hours on any actual P8 alongside the other benefit of a somewhat streamlined logistics tail.

One of the advantages of the P-8A is its IFR capability therefore if we were to acquire the KC-46A as the B-757 replacement we would have a significant range extension capability for the P-8. Secondly if the Elta AESA radar, E/O turret, 2 or 3 work stations from the rail, ELINT and EW equip from the P-3K2 were transferred to the KC-46, plus the new node system installed, we would have an aircraft that would have extra capabilities besides being a TT. The P-3K2 work stations could be set up so that they are ro/ro or even left permanently fitted. This extra kit could be fitted and integrated at the Boeing Renton plant when the aircraft are assembled. IIRC, the KC-46 cockpit is the same as the B-737-800 series / P-8 cockpit.

 

[KiwiRob]

IIRC, the KC-46 cockpit is the same as the B-737-800 series / P-8 cockpit.

The 767 (not including the 767-400ER) and 757 have cockpit compatibility and are depending on airline covered by a single type rating.

The KC-46 cockpit is based on the 767-400, which is based off the 777 cockpit, it has the displays from the 787, it's a real frankencockpit.

 

[MrConservative]

The 767 (not including the 767-400ER) and 757 have cockpit compatibility and are depending on airline covered by a single type rating.

The KC-46 cockpit is based on the 767-400, which is based off the 777 cockpit, it has the displays from the 787, it's a real frankencockpit.

Not really a frankencockpit Rob. That is standard industrial practice to evolve a new product model from a previous model or models of OEM parts.

 

[ngatimozart]

The June issue of APDR has an interesting 4 page article on the NZ FAMC & FASC projects. Whilst I don't agree with the author's comments about the C-130J being good for the RNZAF, overall the article was good. The article is on page 49 and worth the read.

Asia Pacific Defence Reporter : APDR June 2017, Page 1

 

[John Fedup]

Given the C-17 option is more or less gone, the A400M is really the only viable strategic lift option and should have been eligible for a sole source but its troubled development prevents that IMO. From my perspective the MPA choices are interesting and the RCAF may be forced to consider the two mentioned in the article, the Seaherc and the Saab/Bombardier, as the government here likely won't fund P-8s. Both have merits, the former has synergies with are current C-130J fleet and the latter, cost along with Bombardier content.

It willl be interesting to see a KC390 proposal. As you may know Leonardo is contesting Canada's FWSAR award. If it goes to rebid, Embraer may be in a better position by the time a re-bid happens. As mentioned in the article Boeing's marketing clout and service support could give the KC390 a shot for NZ's tactical lift requirement.

 

[ngatimozart]

Given the C-17 option is more or less gone, the A400M is really the only viable strategic lift option and should have been eligible for a sole source but its troubled development prevents that IMO. From my perspective the MPA choices are interesting and the RCAF may be forced to consider the two mentioned in the article, the Seaherc and the Saab/Bombardier, as the government here likely won't fund P-8s. Both have merits, the former has synergies with are current C-130J fleet and the latter, cost along with Bombardier content.

It willl be interesting to see a KC390 proposal. As you may know Leonardo is contesting Canada's FWSAR award. If it goes to rebid, Embraer may be in a better position by the time a re-bid happens. As mentioned in the article Boeing's marketing clout and service support could give the KC390 a shot for NZ's tactical lift requirement.

Whilst I am of the opinion that the C-17 option is basically gone, as an outside chance I wouldn't completely discount Boeing's improvisation capabilities. It's not over until the fat lady has sung and that's a while off yet. Even though I have some reservations about the A400, mostly around sustainment and after sales service, I think that it would have to be the probable front runner because it has the capabilities of both a tactical and strategic airlifter and has the abilities to perform the taskings that NZ require.

 

[John Fedup]

Maybe Qatar could give up a couple of their C-17s. Not sure why they bought them and given their current situation, where in the ME could they fly to?

Have to agree the A400M is a likely choice for NZ.

 

[MrConservative]

Maybe Qatar could give up a couple of their C-17s. Not sure why they bought them and given their current situation, where in the ME could they fly to?

Have to agree the A400M is a likely choice for NZ.

Boeing shareholders were happy enough though I suppose.

Qatar buying eight C-17's in my view was nothing more than an extravagant status symbol. Would international security and global HADR be as well served when of the final five remaining whitetails three would have ended up in India and two could have ended up in NZ on stabilisation and support missions within the Indo-Pacific region?

 

[ngatimozart]

Before NZ or any other nation, can acquire US defence equipment, the US Congress has to approve such an arms sale under the US ITAR regulations. For the information of posters here and other interested parties, this is the US DSCA approval review process.

Arms Sales: Congressional Review Process
Summary

This summary reviews the process and procedures that currently apply to congressional consideration of foreign arms sales proposed by the President. This includes consideration of proposals to sell major defense equipment, defense articles and services, or the re-transfer to third party nations of such military items.

Under Section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), Congress must be formally notified 30 calendar days before the Administration can take the final steps to conclude a government-to-government foreign military sale of:

- major defense equipment valued at $14 million or more,

- defense articles or services valued at $50 million or more,

- or design and construction services valued at $200 million or more.

In the case of such sales to NATO member states, NATO, Japan, Australia, or New Zealand, Congress must be formally notified 15 calendar days before the Administration can proceed with the sale. However, the prior notice threshold values are higher for sales to NATO members, Australia, Japan, or New Zealand. Commercially licensed arms sales also must be formally notified to Congress 30 calendar days before the export license is issued if they involve the sale of:

- major defense equipment valued at $14 million or more,

- or defense articles or services valued at $50 million or more (Section 36(c) AECA).

In the case of such sales to NATO member states, NATO, Japan, Australia, or New Zealand, Congress must be formally notified 15 calendar days before the Administration is authorized to proceed with a given sale. As with government-to-government sales, the prior notice threshold values are higher for sales to NATO members, Australia, Japan, or New Zealand.

Furthermore, commercially licensed arms sales cases involving defense articles that are:

- firearms controlled under category I of the United States Munitions List

- and valued at $1 million or more

must also be formally notified to Congress for review 30 days prior to the license for export being approved.

In the case of proposed licences for such sales to NATO members, Australia, Japan or New Zealand, 15 days prior notification is required.

In general, the executive branch, after complying with the terms of applicable U.S. law, principally contained in the AECA, is free to proceed with an arms sales proposal unless Congress passes legislation prohibiting or modifying the proposed sale. Under current law Congress must overcome two fundamental obstacles to block or modify a Presidential sale of military equipment:

- it must pass legislation expressing its will on the sale,

- and it must be capable of overriding a presumptive Presidential veto of such legislation.

Congress, however, is free to pass legislation to block or modify an arms sale at any time up to the point of delivery of the items involved.
Arms Sales: Congressional Review Process | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency

I note that on a Kiwi forum a couple of posters have made recent claims about the FASC and FAMC. Since the only approval for anything FASC and FAMC related is the P-8 notification, then any claims of "deals being inked", other than the P-8, are nothing but spurious and untrue. No such deal can be signed until after congressional approval has been granted and at present no such notification has been published by the DSCA.

 

[John Fedup]

Boeing shareholders were happy enough though I suppose.

Qatar buying eight C-17's in my view was nothing more than an extravagant status symbol. Would international security and global HADR be as well served when of the final five remaining whitetails three would have ended up in India and two could have ended up in NZ on stabilisation and support missions within the Indo-Pacific region?

Agree and a 2 to NZ, 2 to India, and 1 to Canada would have been even better. The 5 Canada has are working at capacity. We should have 8 like Australia.

 

[hauritz]

Agree and a 2 to NZ, 2 to India, and 1 to Canada would have been even better. The 5 Canada has are working at capacity. We should have 8 like Australia.

Boeing must be quietly regretting that they didn't build a few more white tails.

I suspect that Australia might have wanted another couple as well.

 

[rjtjrt]

Boeing shareholders were happy enough though I suppose.

Qatar buying eight C-17's in my view was nothing more than an extravagant status symbol. Would international security and global HADR be as well served when of the final five remaining whitetails three would have ended up in India and two could have ended up in NZ on stabilisation and support missions within the Indo-Pacific region?

Probably would have, but that would require the Indian and NZ governments to act decisively. Pity, but they seem to have other priorities.

 

[ADMk2]

Before NZ or any other nation, can acquire US defence equipment, the US Congress has to approve such an arms sale under the US ITAR regulations. For the information of posters here and other interested parties, this is the US DSCA approval review process.

I note that on a Kiwi forum a couple of posters have made recent claims about the FASC and FAMC. Since the only approval for anything FASC and FAMC related is the P-8 notification, then any claims of "deals being inked", other than the P-8, are nothing but spurious and untrue. No such deal can be signed until after congressional approval has been granted and at present no such notification has been published by the DSCA.

That process applies to Government to Government FMS sales. Direct Commercial Sales are a different beast...

 

[MrConservative]

If it is the acquisition of a C-130J fleet for the RNZAF then the USG is involved in approving both FMS and DCS sales. For a DCS, LM must apply to the Department of State to obtain an export license. Under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), both FMS and DCS sales must be notified to the U.S. Congress if the proposed sale meets or exceeds the statutory dollar thresholds. The C-130J if ordered to replace the five C-130H models exceeds the numerical threshold. The statutory notification requirements are essentially the same for both FMS and DCS once that threshold has been exceeded.

http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/DR/15 Chapter.pdf

A handy comparison between the FMS and DCS.

 

[John Fedup]

Boeing must be quietly regretting that they didn't build a few more white tails.

I suspect that Australia might have wanted another couple as well.

That's my view as well. Indeed, some of the A400M customers very well may of switched some or all of their orders to Boeing due to program delays. A KC390 and C-17 package would be interesting.

 

[John Fedup]

If it is the acquisition of a C-130J fleet for the RNZAF

If C-130Js are selected by the RNZAF, will this provide enough reason to consider the Sea Hercules (assuming it is available) for MPA?

 

[t68]

If C-130Js are selected by the RNZAF, will this provide enough reason to consider the Sea Hercules (assuming it is available) for MPA?

Sea Herk is still theoretical isn't it?

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Why is there such concern over a Sea Herc.. Lockheed Martin built the P3 and the Hercules. As has been stated the aircraft is the taxi for the systems. Taking the best of the systems and incorporating them into a Hercules shouldn't be an issue for LM given the AC130 conversions as combat aircraft. The synergies created by a single fleet of C130J platforms across both squadrons would be significant in both crew training and maintenance. The fifty year historical experience with the C130 would make transition time minimal. A very safe purchase for government. If it were to happen I would hope that the USMC Harvest Hawk version would be chosen. Gives a little extra combat capability if and when needed. Five Sea Herc and five KC130J-30 with added capabilities would fit the bill. Then hopefully two or three ex USAF C17 for the strategic component.

 

[ngatimozart]

If C-130Js are selected by the RNZAF, will this provide enough reason to consider the Sea Hercules (assuming it is available) for MPA?

No because the paper platform Sea Herc is just that, a paper platform. Even though the RFI states:

Defence seeks information on the platforms, equipment and services that are available, or are likely to be available, within the next decade on surveillance capability.​

the NZG are adverse to risk and the FAMC states:

The project excludes:
Solutions that are unproven (without Type Certification), highly developmental and/or unsupported by a reliable evidence base.​

Therefore we presume that a similar line will be taken with the FASC.

The Sea Herc would be far too risky because of all the capabilities that would have to be integrated into the platform. The NZG would not be keen on having to pay such integration costs, and most definitely would not want to be the launch customer.