Royal New Zealand Air Force

[RubiconNZ]

RNZAF Project Updates

Just an update for those who don't rss defense news
Updates on the Orion's & Hercs projects

Good progress on the Hercules with 2 down 3 to go, Orion's not so much but it seems to be coming together nicely now with the Prototype nearing completion, and the 2nd aircraft

Good news all round, though to add to the discontent, I can't believe they didn't buy the C130-J's when they should of.

 

[Gibbo]

Advanced Trainer options

So the talk is that RNZAF may look at something like the Piltaus PC-9 to replace the B200 in the Adv. Pilot Training role. Subject to a study yet so I guess any talk of specific types is speculative - but with a $75M budget (DWP supporting docs) I guess it's going to be a similar sized (x5) fleet as the B200 fleet.

So what advantage does something like the PC-9 give over the B200/B350 types? Obviously the PC-9 has greater speed - although not that much more:
• PC-9M Max. = 593km/h
• B350 Max. = 583km/h
• B200 Max. = 536km/hr

Am I right in thinking the (assumed) greater manouvrability combined with that little extra speed forces the trainee to think & react quicker? ie: better pilots!!!

Obviously the fact that the PC-9 or similar types offer the option of weapons training although I suspect the RNZAF is unlikely to ever the new platform for that role.

Other advantages I guess is that air & ground-crews get re-acquainted in working with ejector seats - which must be an important consideration!?!

Whilst I'd dearly love to see the Aermacchi's back in service, that's all but impossible now it seems. Whilst I couldn't see the PC-9 or similar types being any use to RNZN for training - I guess RNZAF could use them to give the pilots of the other types (choppers incl.) a little bit of experience with avoiding 'hostile' a/c - does RNZAFdo that sort of training? If not then shouldn't it be?

I also assumed that something like the PC-9 wouldn't be much use for JTAC training with NZ Army - but how wrong I was - look at this story (see link)... if the US can do it then so an we. At least that would allow us to (partially at least) fill one gap created by the loss of the ACF.

USAF Uses Pilatus PC-9s to Train JTACs | Air Force News at DefenseTalk

I guess though that a small fleet won't offer too much flying time to assist other services - although at least they'll not have to perform those few hours per year of VIP work.

Thoughts?...

 

[RegR]

I would have thought PC9 would be better suited to a CT4 replacement/augment due to its single engine rather than B200 as the king airs are used for multi engine conversion training prior to the Hercs, Orions etc.

I think the touted short range surveillance and tactical transport AC would take up the B200 role and maybe along with PC9 bridge the advanced pilot training gap through a graduated system ie CT4 - PC9 - CN235(hopefully). The PC9 seems to be economically filling the aermachhi/jet void. Will be interesting to see the final outcome also good news on that JTACs option also, would somewhat alleviate a deficiancy if used.

 

[RubiconNZ]

I would have thought PC9 would be better suited to a CT4 replacement/augment due to its single engine rather than B200 as the king airs are used for multi engine conversion training prior to the Hercs, Orions etc.

I think the touted short range surveillance and tactical transport AC would take up the B200 role and maybe along with PC9 bridge the advanced pilot training gap through a graduated system ie CT4 - PC9 - CN235(hopefully). The PC9 seems to be economically filling the aermachhi/jet void. Will be interesting to see the final outcome also good news on that JTACs option also, would somewhat alleviate a deficiancy if used.

I suppose without much knowledge of the cockpit of the respective aircraft the CT-4 is the basic air trainer, the P-C9 would teach the more advanced avionics and navigation systems, especially if they are fitted for a JTAC role, this would make it much easier to transition to the Q-300 or CN-235 then after reaching a required the required hours in the twin engine be transferred into the big birds. As new pilot you would certainly get some hours up doing an NZ EEZ patrol, lot of water to fly over.

 

[Todjaeger]

Given some of the recent discussions going on between the Aussie and Kiwi DefMins, I am posting some of what I have been thinking over regarding NZ airlift.

I am very much for some form of joint/common airlift scheme between the RAAF and RNZAF. One area which I have been thinking over, is about a possible additional C-17 buy from the RAAF, with a fractional RNZAF buy-in. Given the cost (~US$200 mil. flyaway IIRC) I cannot reasonably forsee a Globemaster with a Kiwi roundel in service. However, I could see one or more Globemasters entering service with 'Roo roundels, purchased and maintained with some funding and personnel from the NZDF.

The NZDF does have a heavy lift requirement, but IMO is going to be somewhat limited in terms of need. After all, how often are the NZLAV's going to need to be flow into or out of an area? With that in mind, I have to question whether or not it would be worthwhile for the RNZAF to purchase the A400M @~130 mil. €.

What might be a better path, assuming it is a viable plan (big assumption, I acknowledge that) would be to purchase something like 6 C-130J Herc II's, and with the balance of the funding, which would be sufficient to purchase ~1 A400M, contribute that to a RAAF C-17 buy. This would give the RNZAF a ~two-thirds ownership stake in a C-17, this stake, coupled with ongoing funding/contributions for maintenance, ops and upgrades, could provide the NZDF with C-17 flight hours when needed, while potentially boosting the RAAF airlift fleet. One potential advantage here, for both parties, is that with a larger fleet overall, the Kiwis have a less concern about aircraft availability due to maintenance. Similarly, the RAAF will have an extra C-17 when needed, assuming it is not undergoing maintenance or service the NZDF at the time. The main area of concern I would have would be how decisions are resolved on providing Globemaster flight hours if/when both countries need heavy lift.

Or as an alternative, assist the Oz company HeavyLift Cargo Airlines in the purchase of additional large cargo lifters, for use as needed.

At present, my 'dream' RNZAF airlift fleet would be look like this.

Joint RAAF/RNZAF C-17 Globemaster III
KC-130J (or -30) Hercules II
C-27J Spartan*

The joint C-17 would operate as I indicated above.

The KC-130J Hercules II would be able to tie-in with the RAAF and USAF logistics train. Additional (and this is why I went with the -K) being an AAR would allow the RNZAF to engage in in-flight refueling, either for other RNZAF assets, or allow AAR to allied/coalition aircraft. As has been observed with lift and other support assets, tanking is one of those things which you cannot have too much of.

the C-27J Spartan is where things begin to look a bit different. The idea I have in mind is essentially what is being done with the HC-144A Ocean Sentry version of the CN-235MPA. The real difference is just that the underlying airframe is the C-27J/G.222 instead. This would mean that any RNZAF Spartans would need to be fitted with radar and E/O systems, as well as having the appropriate wiring loom to support mission system pallets. This would provide the RNZAF with a capable small/medium lift aircraft, which could also fufill the multi-engine and short/medium-ranged MPA requirements. In addition, there would be some avionics and systems commonalities between the C-130J and C-27J, as well as potential to slot into US JCA programme logistics, as well as that of the RAAF if they also select the C-27J to replace the DHC-4 Caribou.

I have specifically not touched upon the B757 so far this post. My feelings on those particular aircraft are that they should be kept in service, at least until the C-130H Hercules replacement reaches IOC. Once that occurs, NZ should begin shopping around for a buyer for them, with the sale occurring on or before the aircraft requires a MLU. Once they are struck from Kiwi service, they should either be replaced with additional examples of in-service military airlifters, or in-production civilian aircraft, with the type set based upon the predominant aircraft mission. In this regard, I would not consider one or two A330 MRTT out of bounds (except perhaps in price) for the RNZAF. OTOH if the role is going to be more of VIP transport, and State visits to foreign countries, then perhaps something much smaller, but with longer legs like a Gulfstream G550 might be in order.

-Cheers

 

[Trackmaster]

The joint purchase of an ANZAC C-17 was flagged in Aviation Week mid 2010. Sourced out of Long Beach, so it won't be a surprise. The story also talked about a separate purchase for the RAAF.

 

[t68]

I am not really in favour of a buy in of equipment shared between two nations, taking on an order to achieve cost saving yes, but no shared inventories.

Take the situation Australia and New Zealand found themselves in regards to Iraq, Australia joined the coalition but New Zealand did not. Australia might need the extra capacity but will New Zealand stand in the way and revoke the authority to use it because they also own the equipment, a lover spate if you will looks good up front but will lead to a messy divorce in the courts sooner or later.

I’d like a HSV but can only afford a commodore; you buy what you can afford.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I am not really in favour of a buy in of equipment shared between two nations, taking on an order to achieve cost saving yes, but no shared inventories.

Take the situation Australia and New Zealand found themselves in regards to Iraq, Australia joined the coalition but New Zealand did not. Australia might need the extra capacity but will New Zealand stand in the way and revoke the authority to use it because they also own the equipment, a lover spate if you will looks good up front but will lead to a messy divorce in the courts sooner or later.

I’d like a HSV but can only afford a commodore; you buy what you can afford.

Australia has never deployed it's full capacity. You can't. The "raise, train, sustain" mantra, isn't just given lip service. it is an essential part of ensuring your force can meet it's mission.

If Australia and NZ went halves on a C-17 and Australia wished to deploy C-17's to a war that NZ didn't agree with, then the Joint C-17 would be remaining at home fulfilling domestic taskings whilst our assets are deployed where we wish.

I cannot imagine that any such deal would be concluded where we would agree to forgoe any sovereignty over our own assets...

 

[Sea Toby]

The Embraer KC-390 is expected to fly in 2014, with deliveries starting most likely during 2016. It will make a better airlifter and a better air tanker, not to mention cheaper and easier to maintain than both the Poseidon and Hercules. Considering New Zealand won't order Orion and Hercules replacements until much later, it would be a good idea to wait to purchase this plane to do airlifting, tanking, and possibly sea search as well...

Embraer is lining up customers fast... Columbia, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Portugal, Czech Republic, and very likely South Africa... Sweden and France have hinted about buying this aircraft if Brazil buys their fighters. And Boeing has shown an interest of license production, a possible link to a Super Hornet purchase, a reckoning Lockheed Martin wishes to avoid...

Simply put, the sixty year old Hercules is no match....

 

[MrConservative]

Given some of the recent discussions going on between the Aussie and Kiwi DefMins, I am posting some of what I have been thinking over regarding NZ airlift.

I am very much for some form of joint/common airlift scheme between the RAAF and RNZAF. One area which I have been thinking over, is about a possible additional C-17 buy from the RAAF, with a fractional RNZAF buy-in. Given the cost (~US$200 mil. flyaway IIRC) I cannot reasonably forsee a Globemaster with a Kiwi roundel in service. However, I could see one or more Globemasters entering service with 'Roo roundels, purchased and maintained with some funding and personnel from the NZDF.

The NZDF does have a heavy lift requirement, but IMO is going to be somewhat limited in terms of need. After all, how often are the NZLAV's going to need to be flow into or out of an area? With that in mind, I have to question whether or not it would be worthwhile for the RNZAF to purchase the A400M @~130 mil. €.

What might be a better path, assuming it is a viable plan (big assumption, I acknowledge that) would be to purchase something like 6 C-130J Herc II's, and with the balance of the funding, which would be sufficient to purchase ~1 A400M, contribute that to a RAAF C-17 buy. This would give the RNZAF a ~two-thirds ownership stake in a C-17, this stake, coupled with ongoing funding/contributions for maintenance, ops and upgrades, could provide the NZDF with C-17 flight hours when needed, while potentially boosting the RAAF airlift fleet. One potential advantage here, for both parties, is that with a larger fleet overall, the Kiwis have a less concern about aircraft availability due to maintenance. Similarly, the RAAF will have an extra C-17 when needed, assuming it is not undergoing maintenance or service the NZDF at the time. The main area of concern I would have would be how decisions are resolved on providing Globemaster flight hours if/when both countries need heavy lift.

Or as an alternative, assist the Oz company HeavyLift Cargo Airlines in the purchase of additional large cargo lifters, for use as needed.

At present, my 'dream' RNZAF airlift fleet would be look like this.

Joint RAAF/RNZAF C-17 Globemaster III
KC-130J (or -30) Hercules II
C-27J Spartan*

The joint C-17 would operate as I indicated above.

The KC-130J Hercules II would be able to tie-in with the RAAF and USAF logistics train. Additional (and this is why I went with the -K) being an AAR would allow the RNZAF to engage in in-flight refueling, either for other RNZAF assets, or allow AAR to allied/coalition aircraft. As has been observed with lift and other support assets, tanking is one of those things which you cannot have too much of.

the C-27J Spartan is where things begin to look a bit different. The idea I have in mind is essentially what is being done with the HC-144A Ocean Sentry version of the CN-235MPA. The real difference is just that the underlying airframe is the C-27J/G.222 instead. This would mean that any RNZAF Spartans would need to be fitted with radar and E/O systems, as well as having the appropriate wiring loom to support mission system pallets. This would provide the RNZAF with a capable small/medium lift aircraft, which could also fufill the multi-engine and short/medium-ranged MPA requirements. In addition, there would be some avionics and systems commonalities between the C-130J and C-27J, as well as potential to slot into US JCA programme logistics, as well as that of the RAAF if they also select the C-27J to replace the DHC-4 Caribou.

I have specifically not touched upon the B757 so far this post. My feelings on those particular aircraft are that they should be kept in service, at least until the C-130H Hercules replacement reaches IOC. Once that occurs, NZ should begin shopping around for a buyer for them, with the sale occurring on or before the aircraft requires a MLU. Once they are struck from Kiwi service, they should either be replaced with additional examples of in-service military airlifters, or in-production civilian aircraft, with the type set based upon the predominant aircraft mission. In this regard, I would not consider one or two A330 MRTT out of bounds (except perhaps in price) for the RNZAF. OTOH if the role is going to be more of VIP transport, and State visits to foreign countries, then perhaps something much smaller, but with longer legs like a Gulfstream G550 might be in order.

-Cheers

I am in agreement Todjaeger, that the best way forward would be to sell Broomstick One and Two, at the same time as the C-130H is put out to pasture. They actually only provide for airlift capability of 22.5 metric tonnes and can only lift just eleven 463L sized pallets by volume. In some ways that is quite a modest strategic lift capability – and I think that its utility has been questioned. Especially in the VfM report – it was the aircraft that a certain former PM wanted and not the outgoing CDF at the time.

However, I don’t think that the C-17 approach either via an OZ by-in or outright purchase stacks up on a business case per acquisition and WOL support costs. Also what is more of a problem is that the public would frown upon us entering into such an agreement. You see, all the news media would have to do is run headlines or TV leaders that “NZ is helping to buy the Aussies an aircraft big enough so that they can carry their tanks to War!” or “The NZ government is buying Australia new planes while public schools get under resourced.” In my view whatever strategic merits such an arrangement would have, the media politics would soon kill it. The NZ left / media cartel are obsessed with this garbage/myth about an independent Kiwi foreign policy, not being involved in other people’s wars, Australia being a deputy sheriff US puppet state, and how only they have moral authority. The pendulum is shifting back thankfully – but buying into C-17’s which will bear RAAF roundels and be based there would setback the process and some who are dead against it will leap at the chance to derail the positive steps taken through ideology.

That would mean if we looked at a sole C-17 as a contribution into an ANZAC Airlift Program then we then have the large acquisition costs and also the on-going contribution of support costs into the program. As we know it is not a cheap aircraft to operate as the UK MOD estimated to the House of Commons that the C-17 was in reality costing GBP42000 per flight hour. (As a note the UK MOD estimated that the cost of a C-130J was GBP12000 pfh and I have read that the A-400M possibly is 15% higher pfh, thus circa GBP14000 - which in itself is in fact cheaper than our current C-130H’s which are regarded as being 20% more expensive per hour to operate than the C-130J). When I mean business case, the crux of it is - that our economies of scale would make it the C-17 an unsustainable opportunity cost.

If we acquire the C-130J-30, that gets us a great tactical lifter. I think what makes it popular with the NZDF is that it has the volume capacity to take eight 463L pallets – something which they feel the old C-130H lacks and has restrained them and lead to times of over-tempo tasking, and the reason why old Sea Toby won’t sell us some of his nice C-390’s unless he can fit eight 463L’s in somehow. But we would have to also buy another aircraft that can do the (Quasi) strategic airlift requirement, which I think was defined by the NZDF back in 2003 as the ability to put 20 metric tonnes over least 5000km’s (which was pretty much Darwin). The mantra basically was - a tactical load over a strategic distance. That’s where a MRTT maybe useful. But it could be argued that it is too big and too expensive and each time the PM gets on it the media will say their goes the PM on his umpteen gizzillion dollar huge luxury jet. (A smaller used VIP aircraft with sufficient range to get to SP states and Canberra that can double as a Medevac, owned by the NZ Govt flown by RNZAF pilots, support contracted out to a commercial operator would be better vfm.)

Which presently leaves me arriving back at the only current viable option – the A-400M – in particular the ones now considered excess to the Germans requirements. Those for which production slots have come available and would mean that we can get them in the time frame as the C-130H and B757 replacement. It out-performs the range of the Broomsticks when moving a tactical load of 20 metric tons over a strategic distance. In fact it helpfully can airlift its max payload of 37mt the 3000k’s to Rarotonga or Apia if we were really needed to push the outside of the envelop. It can offer A2AR which a KC-130J also offers. It can take that extra 463L pallet than the J-30, and only two short of the Broomstick. But the pallets themselves can take a far greater weight as the 11 pallets on the Broomstick can only average a 2000kg dispursed payload.

As for the rationale about involvement in a proposed Anzac Airlift Program - I think that we don’t have to be entirely focus centric on the whole C-130J/C17 airframe solution. In some ways what may be just as valid, is if we came to the party with 6 x A400M’s to replace the 2 x B757 / 5 x C-130H it would in my view provide for a level of flexibility due to a broader fleet range options slotting in between the C-130J-30 and the C-17. The forecasted budgeted contingency for the future airlift replacement is NZ$1.6b using the middle pathway per the DWP supporting docs. The higher pathway budget for this project is a further NZ$200m on top. A smaller multi-role aircraft (i.e a Coastal Patrol – Light Tactical Transport mix) such as the C-295M (lower purchase operating costs or C-27J can take three 463L pallets but pfh only 30% lower than the 130-J) would provide for the lower end of our requirements.

 

[Todjaeger]

However, I don’t think that the C-17 approach either via an OZ by-in or outright purchase stacks up on a business case per acquisition and WOL support costs. Also what is more of a problem is that the public would frown upon us entering into such an agreement. You see, all the news media would have to do is run headlines or TV leaders that “NZ is helping to buy the Aussies an aircraft big enough so that they can carry their tanks to War!” or “The NZ government is buying Australia new planes while public schools get under resourced.” In my view whatever strategic merits such an arrangement would have, the media politics would soon kill it. The NZ left / media cartel are obsessed with this garbage/myth about an independent Kiwi foreign policy, not being involved in other people’s wars, Australia being a deputy sheriff US puppet state, and how only they have moral authority. The pendulum is shifting back thankfully – but buying into C-17’s which will bear RAAF roundels and be based there would setback the process and some who are dead against it will leap at the chance to derail the positive steps taken through ideology.

That would mean if we looked at a sole C-17 as a contribution into an ANZAC Airlift Program then we then have the large acquisition costs and also the on-going contribution of support costs into the program. As we know it is not a cheap aircraft to operate as the UK MOD estimated to the House of Commons that the C-17 was in reality costing GBP42000 per flight hour. (As a note the UK MOD estimated that the cost of a C-130J was GBP12000 pfh and I have read that the A-400M possibly is 15% higher pfh, thus circa GBP14000 - which in itself is in fact cheaper than our current C-130H’s which are regarded as being 20% more expensive per hour to operate than the C-130J). When I mean business case, the crux of it is - that our economies of scale would make it the C-17 an unsustainable opportunity cost.

If we acquire the C-130J-30, that gets us a great tactical lifter. I think what makes it popular with the NZDF is that it has the volume capacity to take eight 463L pallets – something which they feel the old C-130H lacks and has restrained them and lead to times of over-tempo tasking, and the reason why old Sea Toby won’t sell us some of his nice C-390’s unless he can fit eight 463L’s in somehow. But we would have to also buy another aircraft that can do the (Quasi) strategic airlift requirement, which I think was defined by the NZDF back in 2003 as the ability to put 20 metric tonnes over least 5000km’s (which was pretty much Darwin). The mantra basically was - a tactical load over a strategic distance. That’s where a MRTT maybe useful. But it could be argued that it is too big and too expensive and each time the PM gets on it the media will say their goes the PM on his umpteen gizzillion dollar huge luxury jet. (A smaller used VIP aircraft with sufficient range to get to SP states and Canberra that can double as a Medevac, owned by the NZ Govt flown by RNZAF pilots, support contracted out to a commercial operator would be better vfm.)

Which presently leaves me arriving back at the only current viable option – the A-400M – in particular the ones now considered excess to the Germans requirements. Those for which production slots have come available and would mean that we can get them in the time frame as the C-130H and B757 replacement. It out-performs the range of the Broomsticks when moving a tactical load of 20 metric tons over a strategic distance. In fact it helpfully can airlift its max payload of 37mt the 3000k’s to Rarotonga or Apia if we were really needed to push the outside of the envelop. It can offer A2AR which a KC-130J also offers. It can take that extra 463L pallet than the J-30, and only two short of the Broomstick. But the pallets themselves can take a far greater weight as the 11 pallets on the Broomstick can only average a 2000kg dispursed payload.

As for the rationale about involvement in a proposed Anzac Airlift Program - I think that we don’t have to be entirely focus centric on the whole C-130J/C17 airframe solution. In some ways what may be just as valid, is if we came to the party with 6 x A400M’s to replace the 2 x B757 / 5 x C-130H it would in my view provide for a level of flexibility due to a broader fleet range options slotting in between the C-130J-30 and the C-17. The forecasted budgeted contingency for the future airlift replacement is NZ$1.6b using the middle pathway per the DWP supporting docs. The higher pathway budget for this project is a further NZ$200m on top. A smaller multi-role aircraft (i.e a Coastal Patrol – Light Tactical Transport mix) such as the C-295M (lower purchase operating costs or C-27J can take three 463L pallets but pfh only 30% lower than the 130-J) would provide for the lower end of our requirements.

I had forgotten some of the potential political aspects which could 'kill' a joint ANZAC airlift element if it went with RAAF-flagged C-17's.

From a requirements standpoint, it is a balancing act, where determinations need to be made as to how much lift, both in terms of cargo weight/tonnage, and pallets is needed, and over what distance. On top of this, then decisions need to be made on the amount of out-sized cargo (NZLAV, etc) lift and over what distance.

As for suitability for the A400M... It is hard for me to say. If Germany, or one of the other early Euro customers would be willing to either 'sell' some of their production slots to NZ, and/or sell the initial production aircraft to NZ, then the RNZAF might be able to meet the in-service date requirements. One must keep in mind though, that under the current Airbus production scheme, the first full capable A400M is not expected to finish production until 2018, with prior batches not being fully capable until Airbus goes back and updates them.

Two other areas where I have reservations on are some of the estimates for capability and cost. The initial programme was intended to product an airlifter with~37 ton capacity. Given the amount overweight the A400M has been, the capacity IIRC is now reduced to 30 tons. Between that estimate being off, as well as the purchase cost and timeframe, I do not expect that operating cost estimates are going to be particularly accurate at present either. Time will tell.

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

Re: above discussions.

The A-400 appears to be a good option that can provide NZ with the heavy lift it requires, however I do have some concerns (although these concerns may or may not be an issue, it's just that I don't have all the info to comment authoritively on the subject etc).

* The A-400 timeframe (in terms of production, acceptance etc) and whether the timeframe will meet NZ's needs (as Defmin was hinting NZ may need to replace the C-130H before 2020).

* The A-400 being another first-of-type with the usual bedding in problems (think NH-90, Project Protector etc), so does NZG wish to potentially be in the same situation or purchase off the shelf eg C17 which is a known quantity?

* I read elsewhere someone questioning whether the A-400 dual-rail system is compatible with the USAF's and thus RAAF (C-17, C-130J etc)? Can any defpros comment? If it's an issue then surely that will kill off NZ acquiring A-400's if it becomes alogistical headache when inter-operating with Aus and US aircraft/loading ops etc? (OTOH surely Airbus and Boeing/LM work to some international standard)?

Some background reading on the 463L cargo system (pg 11):
http://library.enlisted.info/field-manuals/series-2/FM17_18/APPA.PDF

As for public opinion, I don't see the public getting ratty apart from the usual handful of suspects who complain about anything militarised etc. Frankly the C-17 or A-400 will do good across the whole-of-govt spectrum and anyone complaining about that can easily be dissmissed in the court of public opinion!

Whilst the C-17's higher operating costs will be a factor (and we'd need ADF comparative figures, which Defence will have), remember any NZ/Aus C-17 joint purchase will not neccessarily see the NZ side of the C-17 arrangement flying lots of hours in NZ when not required to - most flying could be done with new NZ C-130J's surely (saving the C-17 for "special" ops eg Antarctic resupply - which Antarctic NZ can contribute towards; airlifting the Army to exercises or deployments overseas, tac transport exercises within NZ and Pacific cyclone relief etc).

 

[Todjaeger]

Whilst the C-17's higher operating costs will be a factor (and we'd need ADF comparative figures, which Defence will have), remember any NZ/Aus C-17 joint purchase will not neccessarily see the NZ side of the C-17 arrangement flying lots of hours in NZ when not required to - most flying could be done with new NZ C-130J's surely (saving the C-17 for "special" ops eg Antarctic resupply - which Antarctic NZ can contribute towards; airlifting the Army to exercises or deployments overseas, tac transport exercises within NZ and Pacific cyclone relief etc).

One other thing regarding cost, is that cost is not just a matter of cost per flight hour, but also cost per kg/km, or cost per pallet/km. The C-17/A400M I would expect to be roughly even when operating costs those ways, assuming both aircraft routinely flew full load for a given range. An area which both the US and UK have had concerns about, is flight efficiencies when a less than full load is needed.

This is an area where the strategic airlifters can really start to lose out. The A400M and C-17 can both carry 11+ pallets over long distances, but what about when only 3-4 pallets are needed? Both the USAF and RAF have been finding that in many cases, there is a demand for small amounts of cargo to be flown, and either due to distance, or just the (lack of) aircraft available, cargo planes are flown while mostly empty.

Given the tight NZ defence budget (both in acquisitions and operating expenses) such unused/needed capacity, and the operating costs which go with it, should IMO be minimized if at all possible.

On a related note, does anyone know the operating costs for the Broomsticks? I mean both annual and pfh operating expenses?

Incidentally, I have been attempting to get a tighter estimate on the flyaway costs for the A400M. Unfortunately, no such luck. There is such a range of figures out there, and that an estimate I would consider 'reliable' is rather hard to come by. The latest estimate I have puts the per aircraft purchase cost at ~139 mil € or ~NZ$250 mil, os ~US$188 mil. That last figure I included, because the similar cost for US airlifters like the C-130J is ~US$67 mil. or the C-17 is ~US$200 mil.

What might be a 'better' option if NZ can arrange it, would be to purchase a number of smaller airlifters, like the CN-235/-295, and/or C-27J, to cover short to mid-ranged lift roles for the C-130H, and either extend the like of the -H, or allow their retirement while 'buying time' for more information to come in on costs for the A400M as well as a serious rethink of NZ airlift requirements is had.

-Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

The diagrams I looked at have the A-400M carrying nine 463L pallets and the C-17 18 463L pallets. The Broomsticks carry 11 but the total payload is just 22.5mt which is not much more than the j-30 total payload just shy of 20mt.

I think that the A400M is configured dual rail wise with the Mark V 463L pallet so I dont think their are issues. Not 100% on that, but since the RAF is going to operate the C-17 and A400, as well as a Nato member joint C-17 fleet it would seem that it would logically be compatible.

If we were to operate the C-17 and the J-30 or just an A400 fleet we are going to have to rethink not just the platform but also how Output M22 is delivered in respect of tactical and strategic transport.

The Broomsticks provide for 1400 hours to the NZDF per year. The three operational Hercules have been putting around 2100 hours. Thus the aircraft are averaging about 700 hours each. Total output costs are NZ$244m. This means that the 3500 hours that the fixed wing output of the are in reality are costing us nearly 70K an hour. LucasNZ should weigh in on this stuff wearing his accountants hat because costing models can get all over the place.

Nevertheless, Todj you are right that a rethink is needed - but how we deliver that Air Transport Output on a basing and support level might need to be factored in as well as the platform.

 

[Todjaeger]

Nevertheless, Todj you are right that a rethink is needed - but how we deliver that Air Transport Output on a basing and support level might need to be factored in as well as the platform.

Agreed. That is why I have been banging my head against a wall:hitwall trying to determine requirements and priorities. Okay, I admit I also like to hear the sound my brain makes when it rattles around as well...

As I see it, some estimates are needed in terms of cargo weight and size (dimensions and/or pallets), as well as peronnel lift, with all that including the move distances as well. What I suspect would be found, is that much of the time, smaller cargoes need to be moved over relatively short distances. Where it gets sticky is when larger cargoes need to be moved, and/or the lift is over a long distance. The question there is just how often those situations are going to be encountered, and when they occur, how much has to be lifted.

If large and/or long-distance lifts are going to be regular occurances, then more examples of strategic lift might be called for, than smaller and shorter-ranged aircrafts.

Another possibility is that the operating costs for smaller and larger aircraft could be quite similar. In which case it might be sensible to purchase the larger (and presumably more expensive) aircraft, since that could provide significantly greater capabilities without an equivalent coresponding rise in operating costs.

In the immediate to short-term, it might be a very good idea for the NZDF to get off its duff and start acquiring multi-role short/mid-ranged lift, MPA and multi-engine training aircraft. Having such aircraft like the CN-235/-295 or C-27J can ease some of the burden on the C-130H Hercs, particularly for the smaller and shorter-ranged lifts, potentially buying additional time to make choices regarding the -H replacement.

On a side note, apparently the USCG had their HC-130H MPA refitted with the FITS/MSP system which is used in the HC-144 Ocean Sentry version of the CN-235 MPA. This could mean that MPA versions of the C-130J could be had as well, with a respectable sensor suite and avionics fitout. Just thought I would throw that idea into the mix, to make it even more confusing

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

Been looking on the Airbus site for more details of its cargo handling system, can't find any decent facts on figures on their site, simply the following statement:
"The Cargo Handling System allows for pallets and containers to be loaded/unloaded by a single loadmaster without assistance from ground".
Capabilities

Global Security have a write up of the 463L pallet cargo system:
463L Pallet Cargo System
No mention of A-400 adopting the same standard (but then again A-400 is relatively new so perhaps that's not unusal that it isn't noted at the moment).

As Mr C says, the RAF were planning to operate A-400's alongside their C-130J's and C-17's, so perhaps it might not be an issue? Might need to wait for a defpro expert to confirm etc.

I suppose we need to look into the C-27 and CN-235/295 in relation to the cargo system as well. Not that one necessarily must have the 463L standard but it would be important when working with other nation's airlift (which wouldn't necessarily be the case with C-27 or CN-235/295 for NZ anyway seeing they won't venture far, although the French have the CN-235 based in New Caledonia).

 

[MrConservative]

I wonder Todj if they are waiting for the lead of the ADF in terms of the Caribou replacement. That is a C-295M and C-27J run-off isnt it?

The Baby J can do that 3 pallet tasking you have highlighted - but the C-295M is a known quantity as a Coastal patrol platform.

Question - to save me hunting for it - can FITS per the MPS be easily adapted for the C-27J so as to do EZZ patrolling?

I think Copewell on their website mention the A-400M with the Mark V dual rail.

 

[Lucasnz]

The diagrams I looked at have the A-400M carrying nine 463L pallets and the C-17 18 463L pallets. The Broomsticks carry 11 but the total payload is just 22.5mt which is not much more than the j-30 total payload just shy of 20mt.

I think that the A400M is configured dual rail wise with the Mark V 463L pallet so I dont think their are issues. Not 100% on that, but since the RAF is going to operate the C-17 and A400, as well as a Nato member joint C-17 fleet it would seem that it would logically be compatible.

If we were to operate the C-17 and the J-30 or just an A400 fleet we are going to have to rethink not just the platform but also how Output M22 is delivered in respect of tactical and strategic transport.

The Broomsticks provide for 1400 hours to the NZDF per year. The three operational Hercules have been putting around 2100 hours. Thus the aircraft are averaging about 700 hours each. Total output costs are NZ$244m. This means that the 3500 hours that the fixed wing output of the are in reality are costing us nearly 70K an hour. LucasNZ should weigh in on this stuff wearing his accountants hat because costing models can get all over the place.

Nevertheless, Todj you are right that a rethink is needed - but how we deliver that Air Transport Output on a basing and support level might need to be factored in as well as the platform.

I have crunched some numbers, without reading to many notes I might add and provide these details on the operations of the Transport Fleet in New Zealand.

Total revenue for 2010 on cost output expense 13 (Transport Fleet) were 228,783 of which $.799 million was from other sources besides the crown. The total budget covers the operation of the B757 and C-130H under the following: Output 13.1 for the B757: 120,666,000 and Output 13.2 for the C130: 112,357,000. There was an operating deficit of 5,901 for the 2010 year.

Capital Charge amounted to $43.696 million or 19.10% of budget. Depreciation accounted for another $40.023 million or 18.81% of budget, though I seem to recall this maybe actually funded. In total 37.90% of the budget goes towards accounting entries besides receivables and payable's. If I recall rightly there was a change in accounting policy about 2 years ago and GST in no longer shown in the costs outputs. The standard accounting treatment of treating income and expenditure as net of GST was applied. If you accept that the balance of the budget is cash, which it may not be: hourly operating costs are $50,341.60 across the fleet. For the C-130 including capital charge and depreciation the hourly cost gives an operating cost of $64,498 per flight hour. For the B757 the hour costs are $111,521.26 per flight hour - Scrap em.

Hours flown were 1,742 for the C-130 – This is the total number of hours that could have being flown for a reduced fleet with 2 aircraft not operational at any one time. So 580.66 hours for each aircraft. Hours for the B-757 were 1,082. So 541 hours for each aircraft. The notes also indicate a shortage of legacy spare parts for the C-130

The B757 was required to cover 70 VIP hours while the King Air was required to cover 100 hours. No VIP hours were allocated to the C-130. The C-130 was also expected to cover 16 hours of SAR time.

As a side note the infamous Wikipedia gives the unit cost $US of C-130J as $62 million and once converted $184,021 million for the A400M. I would suggest that as cost is king in NZ the up front cost winner will be the C-130J.

 

[MrConservative]

Well done Lucas - that is the sort of analysis we are after. The figure you gave for the Broomsticks does it for me. Your right scrap em. That sort of detail is great because it means with the Broomsticks gone the scope is possibly there for us to operate in some way a C-17.

Roughly speaking we have then about 1000 hours p.a of Strategic Airlift as a baseline if we cut out the VIP stuff (70 hours only - thats an ANZ job from now on imv). I think that with the same sort of funding operating a C-17 is possible. Before this analysis I did not think it was.

What this means is that it could be possible to acquire and fiscally operate a C-17 and the C-130J. That would be a good result. The Broomsticks replaced by a C-17A and the 5 C-130's replaced with 5 C-130J's.

I just got out the calculator and refering to the latest sterling rate - the Broomstick costs us GBP52,000 phfr. That is quite a bit more than the C-17's the RAF are operating some GBP42000 per flight hour.

 

[Lucasnz]

What this means is that it could be possible to acquire and fiscally operate a C-17 and the C-130J. That would be a good result. The Broomsticks replaced by a C-17A and the 5 C-130's replaced with 5 C-130J's.

I just got out the calculator and refering to the latest sterling rate - the Broomstick costs us GBP52,000 phfr. That is quite a bit more than the C-17's the RAF are operating some GBP42000 per flight hour.

The critical issue with the flight hours for the B757 is the capital charge. The charge is levied on the value of the asset so given the 757 is newer the hourly cost is I think inflated with regards to the Capital Charge, which is an unusual best in government circles. Depreciation you would have to wear under NZIFRS or any accounting standard. I haven't being able to break that cost down by aircraft type and the fixed asset register isn't detailed enough.

I maybe wrong, but I seem to recall reading a UK budget document that showed capital charge so the comparison is likely close, however I couldn't find any reference during a quick search just now. Given the higher cost of C-17 and the lower operating per hour cost I would venture, without detailed analysis (which is where the juice is), there is an economy of scale issue both at the service level and aircraft operating level. If that were the case RNZAF Operation of the C-17 would be cost prohibitive. We would be better off with more C130J.