Royal New Zealand Air Force

[chis73]

What about a twin engine turboprop? Say a modernised Pucara with PT6A engines. Could be built locally by PAC (which would fulfill that contract they are pushing for with the NZDF). A twin would give longer range with drop tanks & a reasonable weapons / sensor load for training, better handling (less torque on takeoff / landing), great rough field performance, more room for growth etc.

If we could then upgrade such a trainer with a FLIR we would really be cooking. eg:
- a coastal maritime surveillence role
- a SAR aircraft with longer range, longer loiter time & much cheaper to operate than any helo
- a light CAS / COIN role (with excellent short / rough field performance) for East Timor / Solomons -type missions. If we could integrate LGB and Maverick - well the mind boggles! (at least until any AAA / ManPads show up).

Anybody know if the Argentines are looking for a new model Pucara?

Chis 73

 

[MrConservative]

What about a twin engine turboprop? Say a modernised Pucara with PT6A engines. Could be built locally by PAC (which would fulfill that contract they are pushing for with the NZDF). A twin would give longer range with drop tanks & a reasonable weapons / sensor load for training, better handling (less torque on takeoff / landing), great rough field performance, more room for growth etc.

If we could then upgrade such a trainer with a FLIR we would really be cooking. eg:
- a coastal maritime surveillence role
- a SAR aircraft with longer range, longer loiter time & much cheaper to operate than any helo
- a light CAS / COIN role (with excellent short / rough field performance) for East Timor / Solomons -type missions. If we could integrate LGB and Maverick - well the mind boggles! (at least until any AAA / ManPads show up).

Anybody know if the Argentines are looking for a new model Pucara?

Chis 73

No. This is purely due to economics. Where are the tens of millions going to come from to able to firstly buy the license and IP, then modernise the design, test the prototype, manufacture it, certify it, market it and hopefully have sufficient buyers out there for such a plane in what is a very competitive and crowded market to make it viable? Not the NZ taxpayer via the Government we are not and never should be in the aviation manufacturing business. Secondly, how long do we have to wait until the project goes from green light to the delivery of the first aircraft? Well we have actually until July 2012 when the B200 lease ends. To attempt the above it would mean months for PAC (who would not touch this anyway nor their bank) to produce a prospectus to raise the millions of extra capital on the open market ….. and years later ….

 

[chis73]

No. This is purely due to economics. Where are the tens of millions going to come from to able to firstly buy the license and IP, then modernise the design, test the prototype, manufacture it, certify it, market it and hopefully have sufficient buyers out there for such a plane in what is a very competitive and crowded market to make it viable? Not the NZ taxpayer via the Government we are not and never should be in the aviation manufacturing business. Secondly, how long do we have to wait until the project goes from green light to the delivery of the first aircraft? Well we have actually until July 2012 when the B200 lease ends. To attempt the above it would mean months for PAC (who would not touch this anyway nor their bank) to produce a prospectus to raise the millions of extra capital on the open market ….. and years later ….

OK - fair point on the economics if we developed such an aircraft ourselves, but I was thinking more of tapping into any future Argentine program (on reflection, I didn't make that clear in my previous post).

I was looking for an aircraft (from a theoretical point of view) that would combine the roles of a PC-9 single-engine turboprop trainer, the B200 & perhaps the Mb339 in a single airframe. A modernised Pucara was the best I could come up with.

I feel a (probably unarmed) trainer like a PC-9 / Tucano just doesn't offer enough versatility for NZ. It would only make sense if we had a squadron of more advanced single engine jet trainers for it to lead into - such as the Hawk LIFT or T/A-50 - and currently there is no political will to bring back the ACF.

I don't see that there needs to be any rush for a new turboprop trainer. We've been without the MB339 for 10 years already. We could continue to lease B200s.

Chis73

 

[htbrst]

I wonder if PAC's experience with the CT-4F model fitted with the avionics from the T-6 could sway things towards the T-6.

Combined with a T-6 purchase, and since the CT-4F is essentially of-the-shelf, perhaps we could upgrade the CT-4E's to F's, easing transition onto the T-6's and streamlining avionic parts requirements. (plus political points for providing PAC some work)

With this approach, pilots would then be able to go the whole way through t the C-130's, P-3's and 757's etc with a glass cockpit ...

There is a good writeup on the CT-4F in the Australian Aviation magazine article provided on PAC's website under /aircraft/ct-4-airtrainer/multimedia/media (sorry dont have permission to post links yet)


Of course i'd rather they bought PC-9's or T-6's rather than opting for the cheaper option CT-4's with hardpoints! (which has been done before :duel)

 

[MrConservative]

The CT-4F can only get up to the 220kts mark yet is happy being thrown around. The B200 is still not quite fast enough for the advanced syllabus at around 290kts yet hates to be thrown around.

That is the inherent issue – speed and manoeuvrability. The RNZAF wants the capability of an aircraft which can train pilots who can get down low and get down fast and throw it around a bit whilst also having the ability to accurately navigate and complete a mission task. This is a core skillset that C-130 and P-3 pilots need to operate effectively within a combat environment. It is a skill set they really do not want to have to develop in pilots on aging, expensive, complicated, large aircraft. It is not just about the cockpit it is about the flying competence.

 

[chis73]

Just a brief follow-up to my previous message, suggesting a modernised pucara:

It seems the Argentines have already started on this (thanks to AviacionArgentina.net & Google Translate!).

A three-step programme (radio upgrade, nav systems upgrade, followed by fitting the avionics - including the HUD - from the Pampa & re-engining with P&W PT6's or Honeywell [Garrett?] TPE-331's) is underway to create a new IA-58E Super Pucara. The new aircraft is expected to be in service by 2013.

Unfortunately it's only a modification to existing airframes, rather than a complete new build, as they consider the airframe still has plenty of fatigue life left. With the re-engining, they are looking to modify as little as possible - as the airframe has the same issues as the RAF Nimrods.

Well, you learn something new everyday I guess.

Chis73

 

[dave_kiwi]

RNZAF has received it's first A109LUH. Cannot post links to another forum, but a local NZ forum shows photos of the A109 being "un-boxed" at Ohakea.

Googlefu 'Wings Over New Zealand' -- RNZAF threads.

Also in the same site, photos (RNZAF Offical) of the first RNZAF NH-90 painted and being test flown.

 

[htbrst]

P-750

There (was - seems to have disappeared but still in their search results) an interesting article on flightglobal yesterday relating to the PAC-750.

One interesting part was PAC had won the US Air Force's light-lift requirement in Afghanistan for an initial 26 aircraft + 60 options - but I havent seen anything elsewhere in the meantime (perhaps why the article was pulled?)

Anther part mentioned the potential trials with the RNZAF. While looking for more info about the above I stumbled across the "P-750 XSTOL Demonstration Test Report" written by the NZDF- it turns out at least some of the trials have already occured including input from RAAF, police and fisheries.

The document gives a clear report of what NZDF is interested in, and the advantages and disadvantages of using the P-750 in those roles. As we have discussed previously, one of the arguments for the use of the P-750 could be to reduce helo hours and the relative economics of operation vs helos. Of particular interest regarding this is the appendix comparing the comparitive operational costs of various platforms:

Comparative Operational Costs Per Flight Hour (US$)

• P-750 XSTOL $235
• Cessna Caravan $300
• Twin Otter 400 $660
• A109LUH $1,100
• EC135 $900
• NH90** $15,000​

** Based on Australian Strategic Briefing Institute figures of Seahawk AUD$45,317 and Blackhawk
AUD$20,659 per flight hour.

Quite a difference between the A109 and the P-750 (and the NH-90)

 

[htbrst]

Link to the report: http://www.aerospace.co.nz/9F0A8E50-450F-11E0-9ED1000000000000

 

[recce.k1]

Very interesting report, one area that stands out is the ISR evaluation for inshore patrolling (pp20-22 & 23) and a number of others highlighted in the discussion and conclusion (eg usefulness in carrying smaller loads, including EOD robot, comparisions with helos, ability to carry external loads and sensors and its performance itself etc).

Apart from the report itself, does anyone have a view that this should remain primarily an air force role or could these roles be carried out by reservists in a territorial AF/air national guard type capacity?

 

[CJohn]

For those interested,
a good article on the time line and history of the NZAF's selection of the NH90 and the A109 helos up to the present.
Here

 

[RegR]

I see the aussies have purchased a 5th C-17 due to more use of its capabilities lately and to increase availability. Would have been great if NZ could have purchased one under a ANZAC deal as the benefits to both countries would have been a added bonus. I suppose the CHCH quake has definately quashed any idea of that now due to no spare funds in the kitty sad really since they were actually quite useful during the disaster and now I see they are helping in Japan with their quake, very useful peice of kit Govt hint hint.

 

[Kirkzzy]

This has been going on for a while, but I thought I might as well say.

How can a joint C-17 be a bonus for both sides? When Australia which if push came to shove could buy another by herself and have full control over it. As opposed to go halves on one, that may probably be based in New Zealand and not be able to use it some of the time due to political disagreements. That means we just payed half the price of something that can give us extra lift but only some of the time. Wouldn't it just be easier just to buy another C-17 and crew it ourselves?

 

[Todjaeger]

This has been going on for a while, but I thought I might as well say.

How can a joint C-17 be a bonus for both sides? When Australia which if push came to shove could buy another by herself and have full control over it. As opposed to go halves on one, that may probably be based in New Zealand and not be able to use it some of the time due to political disagreements. That means we just payed half the price of something that can give us extra lift but only some of the time. Wouldn't it just be easier just to buy another C-17 and crew it ourselves?

From the ADF perspective, a joint Oz-Kiwi C-17 purchase could be a 'plus' because it gets more C-17 lift for the RAAF, without the ADF needing to spend the full amount to purchase it.

Now, as with such situations which is itself hypothetical, the devil is in the details. This details would cover such things as operational costs and availability, who gets use of the joint C-17 when and under what conditions it can/must be operated in. It would also cover things like the initial uptake costs, which means that the ADF might not need to pay for half the aircraft.

Of course, if it were a jointly owned aircraft, the RAAF would not have full use and control of it which is a negative, but it would not have had to spend ~US$200 mil. to get it either. It is something which needs to be balanced against service wants, needs and what is acceptable politically and economically.

-Cheers

 

[AnthonyB]

Surely it would make more sense to have NZ buy it outright but base it with the Australian ones. In return for infcreasing the pool of planes, Australia could then offer NZ use of one of ours when theirs is in for repairs.

NZ get permanent access to a C-17 for the price of one plane. (Always an issue when buying 1 piece of hardware).
Assist Australian assistance coming to NZ (both humanitarian and the very unlikely need to defend NZ)
Basing in Australia would make most places that it is going to be sent to closer then NZ.
Show an increased commitment to Australian defence (Yes I know we Australians are slightly paranoid about invasion) but it would be useful kit in getting NZ troops/defence resources to assist in responding to any threat.
Puts real substance into joint ANZAC response capabilities.
Show an increased commitment to FPDA, giving NZ greater ability to respond with forces into the Malay penisula, if that was ever needed.
NZ politicians can sell it NZ public it as cheifly humanitarian response asset, pointing out the use these planes were in responding to CHC and Japanese tsunami. Budget freeze could be sidestepped by arguing this is a part of disaster response planning.

Aus gets an increase in the pool of C-17 to 6 and therefore should be able to leverage savings per plane in logistic, training. Increasing NZ ability to assist us both in Australia and regionally to respond to situations.

 

[Bonza]

Yes I know we Australians are slightly paranoid about invasion

Speak for yourself mate, I think any such convictions are exactly as you called them, paranoia...

 

[Kirkzzy]

Don't get me wrong I am not completely opposed. As even AnthonyB's idea was pretty good (from an Aussie's perspective- but..), but the problem I see is how would the pollies or public in NZ for that matter like the C-17 being based in Australia. It would also mean to get to NZ's objective it would have to fly from Aus to NZ and then to wherever in the world its destination is. People would not like this, maybe they would if we paid half for it, but they would still like it to be based in NZ. As NZ could definitely use the capability more.

 

[RegR]

This has been going on for a while, but I thought I might as well say.

How can a joint C-17 be a bonus for both sides? When Australia which if push came to shove could buy another by herself and have full control over it. As opposed to go halves on one, that may probably be based in New Zealand and not be able to use it some of the time due to political disagreements. That means we just payed half the price of something that can give us extra lift but only some of the time. Wouldn't it just be easier just to buy another C-17 and crew it ourselves?

Don't get me wrong Im not advocating we go halves, if NZ were to go down this track than buy one outright and just buy into Aus support infrastructure otherwise we would just stick to current policy of hiring the antonovs, avoids that whole conflict of interest in what area of unrest mess.

Aus can and did buy an additional frame but 6 is always going to be better then 5 and so on, and no one is saying these AC(Aus or poss NZ) have to be used in theatres that our 2 countries have different policies on. We both/jointly operate in many more places around the world with similar goals and outcomes militarily along with the various disaster and humanitarian assistance, pacific, local support and co-operative exs yet people seem to focus on operations such as Iraq where our two stances differed, therefore seen as a negative.

If Aus did not have an extra C-17 in kiwi colours then they would still just have the 5 to deploy from so what harm would a 6th present when the vast majority of other uses(including more frames for training, maintanence downtime etc) could and would be covered jointly as the AC would be based in Aus with the rest of the squadron but obviously a frequent visitor home for big tasks.

NZ could pay an agreed share for support and provide additional personnel to augment (pilots, maintainers etc) a true ANZAC venture, which has actually already been mooted by both countries in some form, so why not an extra proven plane wich has already shown its superior capabilities. Its not as if we can provide a fast jet squadron so this would at least be a tangible form of support which can be useful to both countries in one way or another. Example the NZ AC could have supported the CHCH quake freeing up the Aus AC to concentrate on Japan, Afghan, maintanence etc etc but even then would not have mattered which plane or quake exactly as both our govts wanted to support both efforts regardless, however the availability to cover one or all is automatically there, its not all about the conflicts we don't see eye to eye on but the activities we both have common goals in which in my veiw is alot more.

 

[RegR]

Don't get me wrong I am not completely opposed. As even AnthonyB's idea was pretty good (from an Aussie's perspective- but..), but the problem I see is how would the pollies or public in NZ for that matter like the C-17 being based in Australia. It would also mean to get to NZ's objective it would have to fly from Aus to NZ and then to wherever in the world its destination is. People would not like this, maybe they would if we paid half for it, but they would still like it to be based in NZ. As NZ could definitely use the capability more.[/QUOTE

I don't think public opinion will be a factor if it is seen to benefit both countries, we had some of our skyhawks based in Nowra for years until the brains in Wellington took out the axe. Tested RAN ships defences and perfected RNZAF maritime strike capabilities, win win, or was.

 

[Hoffy]

"I don't think public opinion will be a factor if it is seen to benefit both countries, we had some of our skyhawks based in Nowra for years until the brains in Wellington took out the axe. Tested RAN ships defences and perfected RNZAF maritime strike capabilities, win win, or was."

This was all fine because the Kiwi military asset was just that - it was owned by NZ.
I hate to dissuade all the wishfull thinking being expressed here , but there is no way we could have agreement to have "shared" ownership of an extra C17.

Too many potential issues , and too many potentially competing interests and priorities. A suggested ready reaction ANZAC force doesn't mean shared ownership of military assets.

Whilst NZ & Australia have a shared military tradition , remember we are still separate sovereign nations & this includes our military forces and hardware.

I guess it comes down to doing this the old fashioned way - NZ will need to buy their own...now there's a good idea!