Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Todjaeger]

My comment regarding Air NZ earlier I believe does have a defence relationship. At 53% ownership by the NZ government they must have a say for their investment. It may not be thw PM that makes the call but someone very senior in Govt gets to have input.

The aircraft being replaced are 14 years old. Yet the RNZAF struggles to replace 50 year old aircraft. The public who travel the world via Air NZ wouldnt be too pleased traveling on 707s and DC9s but they say nothing about their servicemen and women flying 50 year old aircraft.

If the recent leak of budget information is correct then it looks like there will be movement finally on needed defence acquisitions.

Given their value to the national well being there should be no backlash except from the vocal minority.

Lets see what budget day actually brings.

That still does not create a relationship with defence. The NZG, as the majority shareholder in the publicly traded commercial airline Air New Zealand, certainly has a say in what Air NZ does, just like a majority shareholder would in any other publicly traded company. However, the funding or financing Air NZ is using to purchase the B787's is coming from Air NZ coffers, and will be getting paid for by revenue Air NZ earns/earned by providing transportation services to paying customers. That is a very different arrangement from the budgeting for a defence or air force, where the gov't is the the source of the funding raised through taxes and fees.

 

[MrConservative]

My comment regarding Air NZ earlier I believe does have a defence relationship. At 53% ownership by the NZ government they must have a say for their investment. It may not be thw PM that makes the call but someone very senior in Govt gets to have input.

The aircraft being replaced are 14 years old. Yet the RNZAF struggles to replace 50 year old aircraft. The public who travel the world via Air NZ wouldnt be too pleased traveling on 707s and DC9s but they say nothing about their servicemen and women flying 50 year old aircraft.

If the recent leak of budget information is correct then it looks like there will be movement finally on needed defence acquisitions.

Given their value to the national well being there should be no backlash except from the vocal minority.

Lets see what budget day actually brings.

The Air NZ - RNZAF relationship is close and dates back to the TEAL days when they looked after the Sunderlands and Hastings for them at WP up until the acquisition of the Orions and Hercules in the mid 1960's. In recent decades there has always been investigations surrounding hand me down aircraft. For example the outgoing Air NZ B767-219's were considered 3 years ago as a quick fix to get down to the ice without PSR restrictions but discarded due to age and condition (they were older than the B752's by some margin).

Nevertheless the current Air NZ B777-219ER's will be available by 2022/3 and will be in excellent condition and will be cheap with the current market value for a 17-20 year old B772-ER less than $20m.

However there are a couple of key points to consider.

1. Without considerable rectification only the lower hold can be used.

2. The lower hold would have to be modified to handle and store mil standard 463L pallets as opposed to ULD's. Though this is not wildly difficult according to a USAF report which considered the conversion of B777's.

3. The 463L pallets would have a height limit of 64 inches.

Nevertheless ten 463L pallets can be thus stored in the lower deck. Six forward and four aft.

The main deck cabin of the Air NZ B777's were refurbished in 2015. Though there is excess pax seating capacity for NZ Govt / RNZAF needs one of the good ideas I heard to mitigate that was with the removal of the Premium economy class area a conference / working area could be installed and or Medevac/Triage facilities. It would at least enable the aircraft to concurrently airlift pax and cargo

The other consideration regarding ex Air NZ B777's is that the Trent engines though reliable and efficient their overhaul is not cheap. One or two overhauled spare Trent's would have to be available. On the other hand the fuel burn per hour for the B772 is double that of the 752. Of course the range of the B772 is far greater than the fairly short legs of the B752 which is well less than being Trans-Pacific.

It would of course would have to be a VfM proposition in 3 or so years time whether or not ex an Air NZ B772's would be acceptable even though the airline will continue to fly the stretched 773 and would be able to service it under contract, not withstanding the final mix of both the tactical and strategic FAMC solution.

 

[Whiplash34]

Second plane sent to pick up Foreign Minister Winston Peters in Vanuatu

Here we go again.......

An RNZAF B757 broke down resulting in the second airframe having to go and pick up the Govt delegation.

I mean, I know, sh*t happens but it’s not a good look.

I wonder what it was this time....?

 

[kiwipatriot69]

In a way this happening after a bs press talking about budget spending 'taxes for tanks' as some media reported, at least this shows the real need for replacing planes in service longer now than I've been alive.Before someone gets hurt hopefully.

 

[John Fedup]

Unfortunately governments like NZ and Canada only respond to stuff actually hitting the fan. The electorates with their anally planted heads wrt to defence (and other non social benefit related needs) make this possible.

 

[Gibbo]

In a way this happening after a bs press talking about budget spending 'taxes for tanks' as some media reported, at least this shows the real need for replacing planes in service longer now than I've been alive.Before someone gets hurt hopefully.

Yeah maybe if it was a load of supplies to an HADR job or a bunch of kiwis being evac'ed out of a hot spot, but a bunch of polly's having their taxi ride home delayed doesn't rate a mention with the average NZ punter... most would shrug their shoulders & suggest it couldn't have happened to a 'nicer' person! Whereas we can all see it as clearly symptomatic of a much greater problem.

I'm actually feeling confident a C-130H replacement will be announced soon - this Govt (all 3 components) understand HADR & the 'utility' of the Herc fleet for softer roles better than what we tend to give them credit for.

 

[Todjaeger]

Yeah maybe if it was a load of supplies to an HADR job or a bunch of kiwis being evac'ed out of a hot spot, but a bunch of polly's having their taxi ride home delayed doesn't rate a mention with the average NZ punter... most would shrug their shoulders & suggest it couldn't have happened to a 'nicer' person! Whereas we can all see it as clearly symptomatic of a much greater problem.

I'm actually feeling confident a C-130H replacement will be announced soon - this Govt (all 3 components) understand HADR & the 'utility' of the Herc fleet for softer roles better than what we tend to give them credit for.

Based off past RNZAF experiences, a cancelled mission to evac Kiwis from an unstable hotspot due to equipment failure leaving no RNZAF transport aircraft available would not result in much interest or generate much of a reaction from the NZ public.

 

[Rob c]

In a way this happening after a bs press talking about budget spending 'taxes for tanks' as some media reported, at least this shows the real need for replacing planes in service longer now than I've been alive.Before someone gets hurt hopefully.

The chances of someone getting hurt in our older aircraft is no higher than in the more modern aircraft as the the air force maintains them to a high standard and all parts essential for flight are on a regular repair and reconditioning schedule so that the chance of a failure of these parts is very slim to non existent and is no higher than in a new aircraft. The parts that do fail are generally not essential for flight items and this happens in all aircraft as those of us that have been delayed by technical problems at an airline gate know. Possibly just a radio wont work or a gauge failure, or the aircon was not cool enough for Winny. No need for the emotional inputs, our air forces aircraft are very well looked after.

 

[ngatimozart]

The chances of someone getting hurt in our older aircraft is no higher than in the more modern aircraft as the the air force maintains them to a high standard and all parts essential for flight are on a regular repair and reconditioning schedule so that the chance of a failure of these parts is very slim to non existent and is no higher than in a new aircraft. The parts that do fail are generally not essential for flight items and this happens in all aircraft as those of us that have been delayed by technical problems at an airline gate know. Possibly just a radio wont work or a gauge failure, or the aircon was not cool enough for Winny. No need for the emotional inputs, our air forces aircraft are very well looked after.

I would be very careful about making that claim. The RNZAF that you and I were in is not the RNZAF of today with the demands and under resourcing that todays RNZAF faces. Just look at the SH-2G(NZ) Seasprite saga of high demands in taskings causing deferred maintenance because of low aircraft acquisition quantity, resulting in high numbers of AOG due to technical failures and the platforms having to be replaced substantially earlier than planned. The inputs on the forum about this issue aren't emotional because the longer the C-130H(NZ) replacement is delayed, the probability of one falling out of the sky increases. The aircraft airframes and components haven't been thoroughly upgraded since their original build. They also cost a lot to operate now because of their age and if the Clark Labour govt hadn't been so stingy during the SLEP we could've had upgraded fuel efficient engines, significantly reducing operating costs. The way things are going if NZ7001 - 03 are still operated by the RNZAF in 2030, they'll qualify for Winston's gold card entitling to free travel on public transport. In 2025 they'll be entitled to draw their pension from the GSF.

 

[Xthenaki]

I would be very careful about making that claim. The RNZAF that you and I were in is not the RNZAF of today with the demands and under resourcing that todays RNZAF faces. Just look at the SH-2G(NZ) Seasprite saga of high demands in taskings causing deferred maintenance because of low aircraft acquisition quantity, resulting in high numbers of AOG due to technical failures and the platforms having to be replaced substantially earlier than planned. The inputs on the forum about this issue aren't emotional because the longer the C-130H(NZ) replacement is delayed, the probability of one falling out of the sky increases. The aircraft airframes and components haven't been thoroughly upgraded since their original build. They also cost a lot to operate now because of their age and if the Clark Labour govt hadn't been so stingy during the SLEP we could've had upgraded fuel efficient engines, significantly reducing operating costs. The way things are going if NZ7001 - 03 are still operated by the RNZAF in 2030, they'll qualify for Winston's gold card entitling to free travel on public transport. In 2025 they'll be entitled to draw their pension from the GSF.

Very true. I think you should email the last paragraph to Ron Mark and see if you get a response - could be a cracker!

 

[Novascotiaboy]

There is no good reason for any government to subject military members, government officials or the general public to aircraft of this age regardless of the quality of the maintainers or maintenance schedules. The decision to upgrade nearly forty year old aircraft was an absolute waste of resources. But what can we expect from a government that kept Bell 47 helicopters in service for 50 years.

Lets hope that in 24 hours there will be a new direction for acquisition for the NZDF that makes sense financially and operationally.

Politics aside the people of New Zealand deserve better of their government when deciding military matters. Bi partisan support for defence as a basic responsibility is imperative as our world changes not for the good of your country and its dependencies.

 

[John Fedup]

@Novascotiaboy There is another 5eye member that kept helicopters in service for 50 years and pissed away far more money in maintenance and additional hundreds of millions in cancellation penalties. When it comes to cluster $&@?, NZ is a distant second place to us.

 

[Rob c]

I would be very careful about making that claim. The RNZAF that you and I were in is not the RNZAF of today with the demands and under resourcing that todays RNZAF faces. Just look at the SH-2G(NZ) Seasprite saga of high demands in taskings causing deferred maintenance because of low aircraft acquisition quantity, resulting in high numbers of AOG due to technical failures and the platforms having to be replaced substantially earlier than planned. The inputs on the forum about this issue aren't emotional because the longer the C-130H(NZ) replacement is delayed, the probability of one falling out of the sky increases. The aircraft airframes and components haven't been thoroughly upgraded since their original build. They also cost a lot to operate now because of their age and if the Clark Labour govt hadn't been so stingy during the SLEP we could've had upgraded fuel efficient engines, significantly reducing operating costs. The way things are going if NZ7001 - 03 are still operated by the RNZAF in 2030, they'll qualify for Winston's gold card entitling to free travel on public transport. In 2025 they'll be entitled to draw their pension from the GSF.

While you are correct that the RNZAF has changed since I was an aircraft tech, I do however understand the servicing systems that are used, What you must understand is that there is routine servicing that is to keep the aircraft fit for service and for it to carry out its normal functions and there is fatigue monitoring and reconditioning that ensures that the critical for flight functions are are at a safe level. Delayed servicings do not involve the delaying of work to critical flight functions only to non critical functions. In the C130 and the P3 the structures have been upgraded with both types having new wings and centre sections ( C130 more than once and the P3's are on P3 C wings now) and fatigue prone parts in the fuselages replaced, any parts that were showing signs of corrosion replaced, tailplanes replaced vertical stabiliser replaced in the P3 and reworked in the C130. the engines are reconditioned when engine performance parameters are not met. Flight controls and other essential for flight items are regularly serviced. there is very little that is original left on our C130's and P3's as they are rather like grandads old axe with 3 new handles and a new head, but still grandads axe. I did have the pleasure of spending time with Graeme Gilmore at the C 130 rebuild a few years back and understand level of work and what this means to the life of the aircraft more than most on this site. While I fully support the replacement of these aircraft as their capabilities are less than desired and for this reason would prefer a better option than the C130J I am still of the opinion (backed by tech experience ) that jumping on the safety band wagon is simply an emotional response. The reason that need to be replaced is they cannot do their job well enough and that reliability issues with some of the (not essential for flight) systems are a problem. The AOG problem with any aircraft is simply because the government are to stingy to buy sufficient spares and usually involves mission equipment, not essential for flight parts. For instance if the pilots display fails you cannot fly, but if it fails in fight the Co pilots or backup will get you on the ground ok. Talk of falling out of the sky is in my opinion emotional. however there is a remote chance of any aircraft falling out of the sky eg New Max 8's I will restate that I do believe that the aircraft do need to be replaced and that C130 J's around 2005 would have been my preference, but not now. ( think i will be disappointed in this )
A final word, mission essential equipment is not necessarily Flight essencial.

 

[MrConservative]

C-130J-30 Super Hercules is it for the Tactical solution.

Super Hercules selected as preferred option | Scoop News

No final contract decision has been made, on either platform numbers, detailed costs, or funding and Budget implications. A Project Implementation Business Case is scheduled to be progressed to Cabinet next year, where these matters will be considered. The Defence Capability Plan 2019 noted that the estimated cost would be more than $1 billion.


There you go all settled!!

 

[Todjaeger]

While you are correct that the RNZAF has changed since I was an aircraft tech, I do however understand the servicing systems that are used, What you must understand is that there is routine servicing that is to keep the aircraft fit for service and for it to carry out its normal functions and there is fatigue monitoring and reconditioning that ensures that the critical for flight functions are are at a safe level. Delayed servicings do not involve the delaying of work to critical flight functions only to non critical functions. In the C130 and the P3 the structures have been upgraded with both types having new wings and centre sections ( C130 more than once and the P3's are on P3 C wings now) and fatigue prone parts in the fuselages replaced, any parts that were showing signs of corrosion replaced, tailplanes replaced vertical stabiliser replaced in the P3 and reworked in the C130. the engines are reconditioned when engine performance parameters are not met. Flight controls and other essential for flight items are regularly serviced. there is very little that is original left on our C130's and P3's as they are rather like grandads old axe with 3 new handles and a new head, but still grandads axe. I did have the pleasure of spending time with Graeme Gilmore at the C 130 rebuild a few years back and understand level of work and what this means to the life of the aircraft more than most on this site. While I fully support the replacement of these aircraft as their capabilities are less than desired and for this reason would prefer a better option than the C130J I am still of the opinion (backed by tech experience ) that jumping on the safety band wagon is simply an emotional response. The reason that need to be replaced is they cannot do their job well enough and that reliability issues with some of the (not essential for flight) systems are a problem. The AOG problem with any aircraft is simply because the government are to stingy to buy sufficient spares and usually involves mission equipment, not essential for flight parts. For instance if the pilots display fails you cannot fly, but if it fails in fight the Co pilots or backup will get you on the ground ok. Talk of falling out of the sky is in my opinion emotional. however there is a remote chance of any aircraft falling out of the sky eg New Max 8's I will restate that I do believe that the aircraft do need to be replaced and that C130 J's around 2005 would have been my preference, but not now. ( think i will be disappointed in this )
A final word, mission essential equipment is not necessarily Flight essencial.

The issue I have with the above, is that the RNZAF actually had to scrub a planned C-130H Hercules flight to Thailand to evac Kiwis caught there during one of the periods of instability. I forget exactly what year it was and which event, but IIRC at the time the RNZAF only had a single C-130H available for flight duties, and not long after taking off had to return and land in NZ due to some sort of systems error or failure. Now, the aircraft/crew might not have been directly threatened, but it is absolutely possible for casualties to occur because a needed extraction or resupply did not take place due to a system being down. By the same token, directing a military aircraft to continue operating when not all on board systems are fully operational increasing the risk of mission failure as well as the loss of the aircraft and crew, especially if the aircraft has to fly into dangerous airspace or a hazardous LZ. Just imagine what could happen in a C-130H if there was an altimeter failure, causing the the pilots to think the aircraft's altitude was higher than it actually was, during a night time mission or landing... The risk might be minimal if the mission was over NZ or other friendly land, but it had to overfly or land in less than friendly territory...

 

[Rob c]

The issue I have with the above, is that the RNZAF actually had to scrub a planned C-130H Hercules flight to Thailand to evac Kiwis caught there during one of the periods of instability. I forget exactly what year it was and which event, but IIRC at the time the RNZAF only had a single C-130H available for flight duties, and not long after taking off had to return and land in NZ due to some sort of systems error or failure. Now, the aircraft/crew might not have been directly threatened, but it is absolutely possible for casualties to occur because a needed extraction or resupply did not take place due to a system being down. By the same token, directing a military aircraft to continue operating when not all on board systems are fully operational increasing the risk of mission failure as well as the loss of the aircraft and crew, especially if the aircraft has to fly into dangerous airspace or a hazardous LZ. Just imagine what could happen in a C-130H if there was an altimeter failure, causing the the pilots to think the aircraft's altitude was higher than it actually was, during a night time mission or landing... The risk might be minimal if the mission was over NZ or other friendly land, but it had to overfly or land in less than friendly territory...

What I was talking about was flight safety and not mission success. Systems that are essential for flight eg altimeters have multiple backups and in our case were replaced with modern units at the aircraft rebuilds. The comment you made about the mission failure to evacuate in Thailand was due to not enough aircraft in the air forces inventory as at that time one was in rebuild , one was on a major servicing and the rest were elsewhere. the age had little to do with it . At my time in base Auckland working on Herk's when they were only 2 to 5 years old ,I remember two such incidents where there was a failure on humanitarian missions. One was a mission to Bangladesh during the split from Pakistan for food distribution( due to widespread famine), it had a significant failure on the way and had to be replaced. On the replacements return due to major servicing problems caused by the operating situation (Monsoon rain combined with flour and rice getting into everything and causing major failures). The designated replacement then failed on the way there. We then had a team of us (me included ) who pulled a Herk out of a major servicing. then spent 5 days working 18 hours plus a day to get it back up to Bangladesh. (I slept a straight 36 hours after that) and this happened when the aircraft were very new. The problem is that there are not enough aircraft and the government does not allow for the holding a spares inventory to cover for everything. In my 20 years in the air force we often flew aircraft that were not fully mission capable but could do what we wanted at the time while we waited for the spares to arrive. for example a Skyhawk with a dud gunsight is ok for normal flight training or no pressurization is ok for low level flight training. Modern aircraft are very complicated and having non fight safety niggles is quite common.

 

[Whiplash34]

Sooooo, what’s going to replace the Seasprite?

Maritime NH90s?....are they too big for that particular role (ASW / ASUW) ..can you launch ordnance off them (?) - you would get commonality with 3Sqn. OK Disregard - Googled and saw that there is the NFH - NATO Frigate Helicopter - so definitely an option.

MH-60 Seahawks?...proven maritime helo...commonality with Aussie airframes and can cross train / use their simulator (I ASSume they have a sim). Probably my preference.

Something else......?

I still would love to see a couple of CH47’s in our inventory somewhere....yeah,yeah...I know...another ‘type’ and only a couple would have some downsides but those things would add some real capability across a lot of mission templates.

 

[Redlands18]

Sooooo, what’s going to replace the Seasprite?

Maritime NH90s?....are they too big for that particular role (ASW / ASUW) ..can you launch ordnance off them (?) - you would get commonality with 3Sqn. OK Disregard - Googled and saw that there is the NFH - NATO Frigate Helicopter - so definitely an option.

MH-60 Seahawks?...proven maritime helo...commonality with Aussie airframes and can cross train / use their simulator (I ASSume they have a sim). Probably my preference.

Something else......?

I still would love to see a couple of CH47’s in our inventory somewhere....yeah,yeah...I know...another ‘type’ and only a couple would have some downsides but those things would add some real capability across a lot of mission templates.

At this time there would be 3 contenders, the NFH-90, MH-60R and AW-159 Wildcat. The NFH-90 has commonality with the NH-90s already in service, the MH-60R would be a pretty straight forward FMS buy and fit in well with both the USN and RAN.

 

[ngatimozart]

Sooooo, what’s going to replace the Seasprite?

Maritime NH90s?....are they too big for that particular role (ASW / ASUW) ..can you launch ordnance off them (?) - you would get commonality with 3Sqn. OK Disregard - Googled and saw that there is the NFH - NATO Frigate Helicopter - so definitely an option.

MH-60 Seahawks?...proven maritime helo...commonality with Aussie airframes and can cross train / use their simulator (I ASSume they have a sim). Probably my preference.

Something else......?

I still would love to see a couple of CH47’s in our inventory somewhere....yeah,yeah...I know...another ‘type’ and only a couple would have some downsides but those things would add some real capability across a lot of mission templates.

The NFH definitely would be in the frame and by the time the RFT is issued - currently planned for 2024, the current issues surround the NFH hopefully should be solved. The MH-60 Romeos yes they are also quite viable, however in USN service the Romeo is due to be replaced and if we went down that path we would be acquiring a platform near or close to the end of its life, similar to the SH-2G(NZ) Seasprite situation when we acquired them. One issue I can see with the NFH is whether or not it would fit in the ANZAC FFH hangar.

 

[ngatimozart]

At this time there would be 3 contenders, the NFH-90, MH-60R and AW-159 Wildcat. The NFH-90 has commonality with the NH-90s already in service, the MH-60R would be a pretty straight forward FMS buy and fit in well with both the USN and RAN.

Am a bit wary about the Wildcat because I've heard some unflattering things about it through back channels.