t68
Well-Known Member
not sure why NZ needs a C2 Greyhound by that article:rotfl
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
It's part of a super secret plan so cunning that you could pin a tail on it and call it a weasel.
Link to another site publishing the story.
WORLD: New Heavy C-2 Military Cargo Plane Demonstrated By Japan - TopBreakers.com
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Japan positions C-2 transport aircraft for exports | Jane's 360
The same story reported by Janes.
Somewhere in the past week I also stumbled across a gated article speculating that Japan would try to interest the US in a small numbers to bridge the gap between C-130 and C-17. Can't find link now, but I strikes me as unlikely to be a priority for the Pentagon.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
http://airforce.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/airforce-news/afn196.pdf
Latest Air Force News is out.
It gives a breakdown of the aircraft visiting NZ for Southern Katipo 17. In addition to one drone (sorry, Remotely Piloted Air System) being contributed by the US, NZ is fielding 32 RPASs. Presumably this is a converted civilian drone being used at the platoon level or similar? I haven't seen anything detailed in writing about this anywhere.
Latest Air Force News is out.
It gives a breakdown of the aircraft visiting NZ for Southern Katipo 17. In addition to one drone (sorry, Remotely Piloted Air System) being contributed by the US, NZ is fielding 32 RPASs. Presumably this is a converted civilian drone being used at the platoon level or similar? I haven't seen anything detailed in writing about this anywhere.
There was a UAV-related article in the September Navy today which mentioned the autopilot was developed at the Defence Technology Agency - so something of that lineage perhaps.
The Air Force News linked above says the FS D’Entrecasteaux is part of the Navy contingent - a nice modern ship to check out
NZ Herald article upon the C-130 replacement: New government will have to make a call on Hercules replacement - NZ Herald. How this will progress is very dependant upon the makeup of the new govt, which we may know by the end of the week.
Just something I remember seeing and I cannot remember if it was on this site or elsewhere, is that the air force had asked Lockheed to do a fatigue assessment on our C130's. It only just occurred to me , why would they want to if they are coming up for replacement soon.
Both Graham Gilmore and Treasury state that they should have a life expectancy of more than 15 years, so this puts the the last 3 through the life extension out to 2029 to 2031. So the question must be asked are they looking at delaying the C130 replacement program.
This would allow other options to significantly mature and make them more of an option to the pollies. It appears to me that the air force is not that keen on the C130J due to the way the RFI was written and the lack of a request for congressional approval. This may be an attempt to make what they really want more palatable.
Interesting
Both Graham Gilmore and Treasury state that they should have a life expectancy of more than 15 years, so this puts the the last 3 through the life extension out to 2029 to 2031. So the question must be asked are they looking at delaying the C130 replacement program.
This would allow other options to significantly mature and make them more of an option to the pollies. It appears to me that the air force is not that keen on the C130J due to the way the RFI was written and the lack of a request for congressional approval. This may be an attempt to make what they really want more palatable.
Interesting
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
So Rob, are you suggesting maybe purchase A400 M or similar and play the waiting game for deliveries like other nations have, meanwhile as our older aircraft get retired, possibly leaving us short?
Don't get me wrong, I'm keen on its capability and the fact it's in active service now, but case in point, some countries like Malaysia have waited ten years to get their 4 planes! Airbus would really have to shift ass, in this respect.
t68
Well-Known Member
If its the capability of the A400M that is desired in the long term and if the C130H's have life out to the late 20's, it will cost a bit of money but what about running them side by side until A400M is totally mature, its a lot of money but might be an answer.
They can or have asked Lockheed or the USG for price and availability without triggering FMS. They did that when they looked at the C-17 three years ago. TBH I don't think you could get the C-130H(NZ) to last in service until 2029/30 because even if they last that long, the cost of keeping any of them in the air will be exorbitant. IMHO doing the SLEP on them was a waste of perfectly good money and we would have been more fiscally responsible going in with the Aussie C-130J acquisition. I also think that it is a bit of a reach to state that the RNZAF is not keen on the C-130J. In most, if not all aspects, the C-130J does meet the tactical requirements published in the RFI. The RFT when it is issued will be more specific. Just remember it is the tactical air mobility capability that is urgent at the moment. The strategic part of it doesn't have to be replaced until 2025/26.
Last edited:
Graham who we all no doubt have respect for his knowledge is possibly right - they may eek out a bit more out of the C-130H - but remember Graham has for number of years worn an Safe Air now Airbus hat and not an ACRDE hat and would love to see his firm very busy keeping the old birds in the air.
This does not answer the question as to why would the air force bother with a fatigue assessment if they were intent on a quick replacement. the last three C130's through the refit program have only been in the air less than 4 years and Treasury also said that the increase in life expectancy was 15 years, which I assume was how the costings were done. At the time Graham was talking to me he was under direct employment to the MOD and had come out of retirement to manage the project and was going back into retirement on completion. He would now be around 80 years old give or take and I am unaware of any SAFE connection. Remember SAFE dropped the ball after the 2nd aircraft and it was the Ministry of Defence that refitted the last 3 aircraft , not SAFE they only did number 2. Hence the delay in completion of the project as the ministry had to set up a program from scratch in number 3 hangar at Woodbourne.
Graham was GM at Safe for years but your right and I had forgotten that he did a stint back with Des Ashton as a project troubleshooter. If the C-130's can safely and with reliability can get a bit more time out of their airframes I don't have a problem with that if the evaluation results are definitive.
Agree with you on that , but caution that any delay at this time is speculation on flimsy evidence on my part.
Rolls Royce has the payback period on upgrading to the latest engine package of about 6 years. If they are being kept any longer I would like them to undergo such an upgrade for the reliability improvement alone- let alone the range/payload improvements.
Even if they made it to 2030 the choices for replacement are unlikely to change much - its slightly too early for the USAF's C-130/C-17 replacement.
Even if they made it to 2030 the choices for replacement are unlikely to change much - its slightly too early for the USAF's C-130/C-17 replacement.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Given the budget restraints the Pentagon is facing and the number of other priority projects in the pipeline, any tactical/strategic lifter replacements will likely happen post 2040.
I would hope any delay would not be out to 2030 as I hope that the replacement would give us a significant improvement in capability. Another reason for the assessment could be that if there is a significant improvement in the C130's life expectancy then they would be significantly more valuable as a salable item to purchaser.
Any extension or delay in the program wiil add to the maturity of the newer types , making them more acceptable to the pollies.
The FMS is usually triggered well before any final decision is made where there are competing items and checks are made with other governments of competing items to make sure that when the decision is made they get what they want and don't find they are blocked, This is seen in the early requests re the P8 and the Canadian F18E/F.
I disagree that the J meets all the requirements of the RFI as it misses on the large heavy load requirement, the range payload has only a minimal improvement and can hardly be called enhanced, the AAR is only available in specialist models, which decreases thejir range payload and is only a supplier not a reciever
which I would say could be more important than a tanker. It also misses on the upgrade path as it's hydro/ mechanical systems have reached the end of their development potential and to change to fly by wire /light for future upgrading would be prohibitively expensive as would the manufacture of specialist equipment to work with what would be by that stage a very uncommon type of gear to achieve an upgrade.
The FMS is triggered IF the govt decides to go via the FMS route. However if it is a direct commercial transaction between the manufacturer and the acquirer, then AFAIK FMS is not invoked.
If you note I stipulated tactical airlift so in that context it meets the requirements. The heavy load / long range is for the strategic lift component. If the KC-130J is acquired then it covers AAR and if fitted with a probe a la RAF, then it can both dispense and receive fuel. It's not a deal breaker. Also by the time a MLU is required additive manufacturing will have advanced and matured quite a bit. The RNZAF already use it.
I think that you underestimate the problems of adapting electronic, computer based control and management systems to merge with hydro mechanical systems. The problems will escalate with time as the computer based systems become more sophisticated and most of the hydro mechanical systems are phased out over upcoming years with the retirement of older aircraft. The work needed would lead you into a full flight test program to qualify the change, hardly a goer with our numbers and the integration of the systems would become a nightmare. With a more modern aircraft with fly by wire/light most of the upgrade would simply be plug and play.
The KC also with the refueling pods fitted loses some range payload and the pods take a significant period of time to fit and remove (measured in day's not hours) sothe enhanced range payload goes out the window, which given the distances we operate over is not helpful.
While I note you said tactical airlift I think that the C130's are really used in a combined tactical/strategic role in reality. However RM does like the C130J.