Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Todjaeger]

Do you think the hours are due to reliability, distance(ie too short to warrent), type of cargo or running costs. They would only suit a number of jobs(but do them well ie pure pax) and if they are U/S(alot more nowadays) then the Hercs take up the slack therefore are credited the hours. The 757 is not the newest jet out there so there are better (more reliable/efficient) options. We have operated jets for quiet awhile now(incl 727) and now because times are tight they're out the door. What apart from money has changed? the jobs are still there, more even with Afghan rots.

So what you are saying is that the king air replacements cannot be leased if we want to modify them for MP so therefore could now end up with 3 types to cover multi engine, MP and transport? The fleet is beginning to look larger 5 king airs to???

Yes Oz operates a Q300 type, not too fussed about the rest they are a bigger beast with alot more worries.

The B757's were purchased to replace the old B727's, and were bought on the secondary/second-hand market, after the B757 production line had closed. Having said that though, it appears that the B757's purchased could/would have ~10-15 years of useful life left in them at the time of purchase.

Unfortunately, because B757's are civilian airliners, they run into a few service limitations. The first is that they lack(ed) any sort of integrated self-defence systems. I believe this has been remedied to a degree, or is perhaps in the process of being remedied, but as a result, the B757's AFAIK have not been used flying into or out of Afghanistan. That means one of the things which they would be reasonably decent at, long-ranged high speed passenger transport, has not been occuring for NZDF deployments. Instead, they were used for VIP transport, flying the PM into and out of Europe IIRC.

The second thing which they lack as a result of being a fomerly civilian airliner (and not even an -F variant or conversion) is the ability have Roll-on, Roll-off cargo. While they are able to carry palletized cargo, there is no rear loading ramp and not even a starboard cargo door like on Freighter conversions. This means there is a size limit to the pallets.

Further, since the airliner was not intended to carry freight, the cargo deck has a max load limit which IIRC means that the loaded pallets have to each weight 2,000 lbs or less, with room for ~11 pallets.

What all this means is as follows. The B757's, being jet airliners can only fly into and out of airports, airbases, and airfields, they cannot safely takeoff or land on rough fields (or perhaps even damaged/poorly maintained runways...). Additionally, they are restricted to flying into/out of 'safe' areas where the security situation is benign. Lastly, due to the restrictions on size and weight of cargo, the B757's are limited in terms of what military equipment they are able to transport, and how much of it they can move. In short, while the B757's are fine for VIP/Gov't/diplomatic transport, they are not particularly suitable for transporting or supplying a NZDF deployment.

It is not a question of whether the RNZAF has the skills required to operate jet aircraft. It is a question of just how appropriate the aircraft in question is to the sort of lift missions the NZDF needs to perform, the frequency the B757's can be tasked for the flight ops which they are suitable for, and the cost of the entire support and logistics train required to allow the B757's to continue RNZAF operations for the missions which they are suitable for.

-Cheers

 

[RegR]

Yes understand the 75s only fly to staging point in the MEAO and then herc into Afghan but the fact is we do do that so obviously someone deems a need for it otherwise they would just jack the soldiers over(heads don't care they're usually advance party anyway so civi) and fly them direct in the back of a herc and sell off the boeings, but again that is only one job they have so do not just focus on combat zones and then again Afghan is the only deployment that does this task this way (that is established).

Timor for example(now that it is ongoing and set up) is perfect for the boeing, coy- lift, comfort, speed, personal kit+,(BTW the 75s do have a cargo door that fits standard pallets, yes not oversize but is that always an issue anyway). Yes there is merit in AirNZ running a charter for RNZAF but then at the end of the day they are still a buisness and we may not always be first priority when we need to be, similar to the arguments for our own heavy(er) lift vs chartering antonovs, Can usually be done but can't bet the farm as with our own organic assets when the ship hits the fan. I actually do not mind Govt using military assets for diplomatic reasons, represents NZ and is why they get some of those operating funds anyway, next we'll have them using taxi chits for formal occasions, not quite the image we want to potray.

So if we are going with bigger king airs and the regional transports are now part of the Herc/B757 replacement then will there even be a requirement? That is still along time away(classic NZDF aquisition process) and we would have survived 5+ years min without them so not a good argument for a 'needed role'.

 

[ngatimozart]

Yes understand the 75s only fly to staging point in the MEAO and then herc into Afghan but the fact is we do do that so obviously someone deems a need for it otherwise they would just jack the soldiers over(heads don't care they're usually advance party anyway so civi) and fly them direct in the back of a herc and sell off the boeings, but again that is only one job they have so do not just focus on combat zones and then again Afghan is the only deployment that does this task this way (that is established).

Timor for example(now that it is ongoing and set up) is perfect for the boeing, coy- lift, comfort, speed, personal kit+,(BTW the 75s do have a cargo door that fits standard pallets, yes not oversize but is that always an issue anyway). Yes there is merit in AirNZ running a charter for RNZAF but then at the end of the day they are still a buisness and we may not always be first priority when we need to be, similar to the arguments for our own heavy(er) lift vs chartering antonovs, Can usually be done but can't bet the farm as with our own organic assets when the ship hits the fan. I actually do not mind Govt using military assets for diplomatic reasons, represents NZ and is why they get some of those operating funds anyway, next we'll have them using taxi chits for formal occasions, not quite the image we want to potray.

So if we are going with bigger king airs and the regional transports are now part of the Herc/B757 replacement then will there even be a requirement? That is still along time away(classic NZDF aquisition process) and we would have survived 5+ years min without them so not a good argument for a 'needed role'.

We have done without the light / med tactical airlifter since the Andovers were retired in the 1990s for what reasons I am unsure of. It was a good aircraft and would have been only reaching a total in service time of 30 years (both RAF & RNZAF). So we have been short handed since then, more like 13 - 17 years. What our problem is, is the 3 year election cycle, the lack of a cross party political will to formulate a long term NZDF acquisition plan AND public apathy towards defence. I am a member of the RSA and to my shame I don't see the RSA out standing up for NZDF. Nor the RNZAF Association for the RNZAF.

No we don't need for RNZAF to go down the airliner track again. If such a thing is needed then NZG buys it and runs out of its general account not Vote: Defence. It can run as has been suggested previously with NZG painted on the side and it can have the latest self protection gear with NZDF using it for troop rotations when needed. Afghan is not going to go on forever as far as NZ is concerned. we will have other deployments but if an airliner requirement is needed let whole of government pay for it not Defence. It is not our core business ferrying pollies around unless as deck cargo on a submarine.

 

[RegR]

We have done without the light / med tactical airlifter since the Andovers were retired in the 1990s for what reasons I am unsure of. It was a good aircraft and would have been only reaching a total in service time of 30 years (both RAF & RNZAF). So we have been short handed since then, more like 13 - 17 years. What our problem is, is the 3 year election cycle, the lack of a cross party political will to formulate a long term NZDF acquisition plan AND public apathy towards defence. I am a member of the RSA and to my shame I don't see the RSA out standing up for NZDF. Nor the RNZAF Association for the RNZAF.

No we don't need for RNZAF to go down the airliner track again. If such a thing is needed then NZG buys it and runs out of its general account not Vote: Defence. It can run as has been suggested previously with NZG painted on the side and it can have the latest self protection gear with NZDF using it for troop rotations when needed. Afghan is not going to go on forever as far as NZ is concerned. we will have other deployments but if an airliner requirement is needed let whole of government pay for it not Defence. It is not our core business ferrying pollies around unless as deck cargo on a submarine.

Agree with you there Ngati we probably should not have done away with the andovers(or that capacity) in the first place and would have avoided alot of issues at least regionally although they did get to Somalia and the like so again quite a useful capability. Would have also releived alot of pressure off the Hercs and the LEP would not be so much of a headache.

If the 2 boeings equate to one more A400 on the books then I would see that as a gain otherwise its just another lost capability in our dwindleing DF, could potentialy be 4-5 then(hopefully for availability sake), sure I read somewhere $1.4b allocated for C130/B757 replacement but if that also includes regional transport then numbers would get alittle thin on the ground.

Either way the time it takes to roll a ball in this government I should'nt see anything major in my lifetime and even then who knows what issues we will be faceing.

 

[Gibbo]

....The light-medium transport requirement is going to be part of the Future Airlift Project. Two platforms are going to cover the Airlift Spectrum from Light Tactical to Strategic – that has emerged from the documents so far. ...

I don't read it that way - unless you have background info!?! It says the new capability must have the ability to perform all tasks - it says nothing specifically about two platforms to cover the spectrum. Having said that common-sense would dictate 2 types.

B350CER won't be adequate for Future Airlift Project defined transport role but certainly will be for MEPT & SR-MPA. WRT the latter - the only stores it needs to drop is life-saving gear - they'll be in a strictly civvy-support role. As they won't be tasked with APT then I think we'll be lucky to get more than 3 - given that there'll be a lot less call for MEPT hours than APT hours. I guess too that SR-MPA work can be combined with aspects of the MEPT syllabus!?!

 

[RegR]

I don't read it that way - unless you have background info!?! It says the new capability must have the ability to perform all tasks - it says nothing specifically about two platforms to cover the spectrum. Having said that common-sense would dictate 2 types.

B350CER won't be adequate for Future Airlift Project defined transport role but certainly will be for MEPT & SR-MPA. WRT the latter - the only stores it needs to drop is life-saving gear - they'll be in a strictly civvy-support role. As they won't be tasked with APT then I think we'll be lucky to get more than 3 - given that there'll be a lot less call for MEPT hours than APT hours. I guess too that SR-MPA work can be combined with aspects of the MEPT syllabus!?!

Yes I didnt get that the future airlift project will include short range transport either, just that it will replace the C130s and Boeings with a like or better option and be able to cover the roles they already have, however nothing saying it won't be 2 types as it is replacing 2 types anyway just not sure it specifically refers to short range being 1. Always thought all this talk about MPA and short range transport came about around the same time as the king air lease(current multi engine and local VIP) came up for renewal so the talk was to add/combine roles if at all possible.
Again yes an option to civilianise the SR MPA was considered so explains the type of patrols it is intended for ie leave the warry spec to the orions, Johnny fishman poacher smuggler customs SAR etc may well be spotted by SR MPA therefore nowhere near as gucci required, orion will still do these just takes some of the local/regional pressure off and negates costs somewhat.

APT is a seperate type of 6-7 PC type aircraft whilst MEPT will need to obviously be at least a king air type equalling a CT4 to PC to multi engine/helo training regime similar to the Canadian model in the dummy guide.

 

[MrConservative]

I don't read it that way - unless you have background info!?! It says the new capability must have the ability to perform all tasks - it says nothing specifically about two platforms to cover the spectrum. Having said that common-sense would dictate 2 types.
!

I don't have any special access to important people telling me secret things Gibbo.
That said I do have a few mates who are quite happy to talk openly about things within the rules and with discretion. Background info is all there if only one asks the right questions to the right people at the right time and of course after reading all that is publicly available. There is no secret or mystery stuff. Your right - common sense is starting to prevail.

 

[MrConservative]

Yes I didnt get that the future airlift project will include short range transport either, just that it will replace the C130s and Boeings with a like or better option and be able to cover the roles they already have, however nothing saying it won't be 2 types as it is replacing 2 types anyway just not sure it specifically refers to short range being 1.

Short range transport is a misnomer. Light - Medium Tactical is what you must mean. Effectively this is what Mapp describes as the lost "Andover" capability and will be considered as part of the solutions that cross the capability spectrum from Light Medium through to Strategic. The getting back of the Andover capability has been one of the live issues following on from the Public Submissions and meetings. When Dr Mapp and his policy guy Stu Boag talk about getting back lost capabilities it is the light tactical transport capability and not A-4's.

 

[recce.k1]

Now that we have an inkling of Defence/NZG thinking the two-types scenario makes more sense.

Perhaps budgetary pressures have ruled out a one-type to cover the MEPT, VIP, L-M Tactical Transport (let's call that LMTT?) and SR-MPA:

*Such as a CN-235/295 type? (Perhaps not optimal for MEPT but possible? Overkill for VIP, considering VIP in NZ nowadays mainly means flying a handful of Cabinet Ministers around the country? Gone are the days of VIP aircraft specially fitted out for the Queen's visit etc. Presumably the GG uses commercial flights mostly nowadays. But excellent for LMTT and SR-MPA).

*Such an ex-Air NZ Q300 type? (Probably ok but slightly overkill for MEPT? Probably overkill for flying a few VIP Cabinet Ministers's around the country although more comfortable than a CN-235? Inadequate for LMTT apart from troop-lift but what about the troop equipment? Excellent for SR-MPA).

Although the above is said without knowing the comparative operating and support costs etc. And without looking at the DWP I thought there was some $200M+ earmarked for this project, but I wouldn't be suprised if the final figure was much higher to cover the various requirements (and probably an ever-changing area in terms of the MPA-modular options as technology evolves). Presumably the solution being proposed now will be relatively inexpensive (less than $100M)?

So perhaps Defence have been wise, ask for something along the size of the Beechcraft which covers MEPT and VIP (those occassional handful of cabinet ministers) and inshore SR-MPA (primarily for Whole-of-Govt tasks not necessarily military or offensive maritime patrol) rather than say an (ex-Air NZ) Q300 which may have been a "jack of all trades but master of none" solution especially the LMTT area etc).

Also a smaller (Beechcraft type) solution means RNZAF has further options for personnel/career development (as opposed to civilianising aspects of the SR-MPA role as in Australia) and gets additional experience on other survellience systems - useful for planning future/layered requirements for NZG military/EEZ civil etc?

Then towards the future, with a name like "Future Air Mobility" project that indicates there are wider plans afoot, which potentially could mean future CN-235/295/C-27J's in the mix. The one obvious disappointment is the NZDF not having something in the sorely missed LMTT role now(ish).

Mr C, any ideas whether a future CN-235/295/C-27J type could also fulfill a future air patrol type project (the project looking at the P-3 replacement and UAV's)? Perhaps this is another reason to acquire something smaller a la Beechcraft type now and look at these issues later as the UAV and aircaft modular survellience technology evolves? Presumably this is an "interesting" growth area technology wise, when one thinks about the ongoing piracy problem, cyber warfare and assymetrical warfare/terorrism issues that aren't going to go away any time soon. (Also perhaps a wise area for NZG to invest superannuation funds into rather than those nasty bombs which the Gweens detest ).

 

[MrConservative]

Mr C, any ideas whether a future CN-235/295/C-27J type could also fulfill a future air patrol type project (the project looking at the P-3 replacement and UAV's)? Perhaps this is another reason to acquire something smaller a la Beechcraft type now and look at these issues later as the UAV and aircaft modular survellience technology evolves? Presumably this is an "interesting" growth area technology wise, when one thinks about the ongoing piracy problem, cyber warfare and assymetrical warfare/terorrism issues that aren't going to go away any time soon. (Also perhaps a wise area for NZG to invest superannuation funds into rather than those nasty bombs which the Gweens detest ).

Well I have heard nothing concrete put it that way Recce and did not expect to as planning for that capability project is still at the early scoping stage. At least nothing other than noting that OZ is heading along the P-8 and Global Hawk route and that the general envisaged platform mix is top end and low end. That is beared out by the Ministers press releases, public comments, and the released DWP Cabinet Doc's.

One thing I do want to make clear is that the 350CER is what I believe is on the cards for MEPT and SRMP - that it is pointing in that direction. However I have been close enough to pollies and understand well enough that Cabinet can shoot down years of officials advocating and planning. Even when the lead minister is singing from the same songsheet. Defence is known as an area that last minute surprises can happen at the Cabinet level. The Holyoake moment of "they have asked for 18 give them 14" moment when we bought the A-4's is the classic example.

Personally, I would be very cautious about any NZ Govt Super Scheme investing into high-end def/sec tech unless it is a precise niche area that precludes the economies of scale that the major industrial players can be bothered with.

 

[recce.k1]

Cheers Mr C - it's early days as you say on that front (CN-235 etc MPA).

Agree that Cabinet can change defence plans at the last minute (hence why I'm not suggesting the B350 is a dead certainty, for after all this is still at an early stage in the project process and anything else could happen once the manufacturers respond).

Agree with your investment/niche sentiments (but I was meaning NZG invest in the global giants if possible, although probably not realistic of course for various reasons)!

 

[MrConservative]

Reece - my view is that if they go with the 350 (more probable than possible) that will be the low end MPA platform with the P-8 at the high end. I don't see a place for the CN-235MP as an in-betweener because a spec'ed up 350 has impressive loiter and range characteristics and general capability for the roles that are envisaged for her and is considerably cheaper to operate - it will be an EZZ bird.

Superfund investments in any multi-national will always bring out the handwringing lefties. My view is that if a company is operating above board and within the rules and making a good consistent return - invest in it.

 

[RegR]

One thing I do want to make clear is that the 350CER is what I believe is on the cards for MEPT and SRMP - that it is pointing in that direction. However I have been close enough to pollies and understand well enough that Cabinet can shoot down years of officials advocating and planning. Even when the lead minister is singing from the same songsheet. Defence is known as an area that last minute surprises can happen at the Cabinet level. The Holyoake moment of "they have asked for 18 give them 14" moment when we bought the A-4's is the classic example.

Do you honestly think it will be the air forces idea to go with the smaller cheaper less capable aircraft? I read on another link that ex CAF lintott said he did not feel the king airs provided enough of a challenge for transitioning to the C130s and P3Ks.
They would have made their suggestions and Govt will always go for the most 'cost effective' option that does the job not nesscessarily the best as they have final say(and pick up the tab) or are you suggesting that they will go even lower then 350?

 

[MrConservative]

Do you honestly think it will be the air forces idea to go with the smaller cheaper less capable aircraft? I read on another link that ex CAF lintott said he did not feel the king airs provided enough of a challenge for transitioning to the C130s and P3Ks.
They would have made their suggestions and Govt will always go for the most 'cost effective' option that does the job not nesscessarily the best as they have final say(and pick up the tab) or are you suggesting that they will go even lower then 350?

I don't know what you mean by a smaller cheaper less capable aircraft RegR. They will not go any smaller than a current B200 Reg.

AVM Lintotts comments refer to the B200 being used as an advanced training aircraft and not as a MEPT. B200's and 350ER's are becoming the MEPT of choice around the world. However they are not advanced trainers and that was Lintotts point.

Using the B200 as an APT is an example of those sought of silly cabinet decisions that I talked about. Senior RNZAF Officers have been advocating for either Macchi's back or a proper APT platform for a number of years.

 

[RegR]

I don't know what you mean by a smaller cheaper less capable aircraft RegR. They will not go any smaller than a current B200 Reg.

AVM Lintotts comments refer to the B200 being used as an advanced training aircraft and not as a MEPT. B200's and 350ER's are becoming the MEPT of choice around the world. However they are not advanced trainers and that was Lintotts point.

Sorry MrC I still do not understand how a single engine plane such as PC21(a machhi even more) that you can throw around at low levels and do loops in helps you fly a lumbering Herc any better than a multi engine?? I would understand if we were eventually leading into jets but for a heavy? I know Herc/orion pilots fly abit harder than your average airliner pilot but still.

 

[Gibbo]

...Agree that Cabinet can change defence plans at the last minute ...

Yes and Mapp retiring at this election bothers me WRT defence - he's been somewhat of a champion for defence. I don't see any other national MP's likely to fill his shoes - meaning the new DefMin might be a damned site easier for cabinet to rollover:wah

 

[MrConservative]

Sorry MrC I still do not understand how a single engine plane such as PC21(a machhi even more) that you can throw around at low levels and do loops in helps you fly a lumbering Herc any better than a multi engine?? I would understand if we were eventually leading into jets but for a heavy? I know Herc/orion pilots fly abit harder than your average airliner pilot but still.

To train a military pilot who is likely during the course of their career be either in an actual or even simulated combat zone needs to have and maintain combat flight skills. This is irrespective of whether they end up being posted to fly C-130's or Orions or indeed the Seasprites. Military pilots need to learn how to throw it around, go low and go fast. That is why the B200 was a failure as an advanced trainer - something it was never designed for - it could not do those things required for the advanced curriculum very well at all. But actually is a great multi-engine training platform as used by many nations ... heck the Yanks even use it as their MEPT.

 

[MrConservative]

Yes and Mapp retiring at this election bothers me WRT defence - he's been somewhat of a champion for defence. I don't see any other national MP's likely to fill his shoes - meaning the new DefMin might be a damned site easier for cabinet to rollover:wah

Yes he has been a champion. He has had a passion for the Defence portfolio. I gather there are some who are interested in the portfolio (probably without Wayno's passion for it) but a couple of the names I have heard are definitely not pushovers.

Of course the current Govt has to win on 26 November democracy and all that. If not we will probably have opposition spokesperson Chris Hipkins as the Defence Minister. How about that for inspiring confidence?

I'm joking .... It will probably be Lees Galloway

 

[recce.k1]

Whilst not a pilot myself and therefore not an authorative source, a quick look at some RNZAF links gives one an idea of why a single-engine pilot training aircraft needs to have highly capable performance (and over and above a multi-engine pilot training aircraft).

From here where it talks about "basic training role" (flying the CT-4):

The Airtrainer phase is 34 weeks of lectures and flying, including 108 hours dual instruction and 38 hours solo consolidation. During the Airtrainer phase students learn basic flying techniques and are taught general handling, aerobatics, spinning, instrument flying, night flying, formation flying and medium/low level (250ft above the ground) navigation.

Then from the MoD's PTC (Pilot Training Capability) RFI (note for the acquisition of a single-engine PC-9/T-6 type etc, not a Beechcraft type acquisition which is a seperate project) where it talks about the inadequacies of the B200 in the "advanced training role":

Capability Gap
16.
The CT-4E Airtrainer has been assessed as being suitable for basic flying training. However, the B200 King Air, although an excellent multi-engine lead-in and consolidation flying platform, has been assessed as being an unsuitable aircraft for advanced flying training, principally due to limitations in its capabilities and performance, such as limited manoeuvrability, limited visibility from the cockpit, limited excess power, sensitivity to turbulence and relatively low speed.

Then from other MoD PTC documents, the proposed "advanced training" aircraft (again a PC type not the current B200 type) must be capable of these (as well as other functions):

41.
The training solution shall enable the NZDF to produce NZDF pilots with the knowledge, skills and attitude necessary to:

g. undertake single pilot operations in tactical3 roles.
(3 Tactical roles include scenario based training that either replicates or mimics how operations are completed on Force Element aircraft; e.g., a low-level navigation training sortie with a time-on-target and simulated ‘drop zone’ mimics that of a C-130 Force Element tactical mission profile).

h. undertake single pilot operations in aerobatic manoeuvres.4
(4 Aerobatic training has the effect of teaching pilots to operate aircraft to the limit of the flight envelope and at a range of aircraft attitudes and orientations outside the normal flight regime. This has the dual effect of enhancing pilot confidence and competence in aircraft handling, whilst also preparing the pilot for tactical military manoeuvring (e.g. evasive manoeuvres in response to a ground threat). Aerobatic training remains a core competency of all overseas military flying training).

n. produce pilots with the cognitive ability and judgement to operate aircraft in a fast moving spatial environment.7
(7 Fast moving spatial environments are generally created through the use of ‘high’ aircraft speeds at low level (down to 250 – 1500 feet above ground level). For the purposes of NZDF PTC requirements, ‘high’ aircraft speeds for pilot training are required to ‘bridge the gap’ between common basic training aircraft speeds (120-150 KIAS cruise), and the higher speeds of FE aircraft (e.g. P-3K2 300-400KIAS)).

So the RNZAF wants a fit-for-purpose high performance type (single engine) for the advanced training role (rather than the current multi-engine B200's or even new B350's as they aren't meant to be thrown around). However a B350 or similar will be required for the multi-engine pilot training (which is also currently undertaken by the same B200).

Also from the PTC RFI:

19.
An NZDF Training Needs Analysis recommends a three phase approach to NZDF pilot training. The three phases are:
a.
Phase One: Primary Pilot Training – The aim of this phase is to teach basic flying skills (80 – 100 flying hours).
b.
Phase Two: Advanced Pilot Training – The aim of this phase is to consolidate flying skills and teach core military flying skills, such as low level flying, advanced manoeuvring and formation flying (80 – 100 flying hours). At the completion of Phase Two, pilots have completed the ‘Wings’ Course.
c.
Phase Three: Operational Crew Training – The aim of this phase is to teach pilots how to cope with operational missions. Phase Three applies the military flying skills to the tactical and operational military mission environment (30 – 50 flying hours). This phase will be completed on a multi-engine fixed-wing aircraft and Training/Light Utility Helicopter. (Note, Phase Three is mentioned here for context; the NZDF is not seeking information for a solution to this phase as part of this RFI.)

Phase 1 is obviously CT-4, phase 2 is something proposed like a PC-9/T-6 (or long shot - MB339's) and phase 3 appears to be a B350 type (or AW109 if taking the rotary career path), I presume, as opposed to directly moving onto the C-130 or P-3 although I'm not entirley clear eg would a B350 MEPT also fit into phase 2? (Also see figure 1 on page 6 of PTC RFI).

 

[RegR]

Another option for the replacement of the 757s and Orions could be the A319/320 family, in particular the A319 MPA.

A-319

If we ditched the boeings and went lease/ borrow/ user pays from Air NZ then the A/C would most likely be an A320 to keep fleets simple as they have a few already in their inventory so whats 1 or 2 more for leaseing, therefore if we went with A319 MPA as the orion replacements it would streamline rating and operation and could even have shared maintanence, parts, tech expertise etc with Air NZ as a bonus efficiencies.

So say 4-5 A319s(+ the UAVS) along with Air NZ owned RNZAF crewed A320(s) in a plain NZ/Govt livery and then we have another option(albeit diminished capacity and range). I suppose same could be said for the P8(which I also like) however ANZs 737s are on the way out and their other Boeiing A/C are 767/787/777s so abit overkill and rating dependant and Airbus seems to be the better partner AirNZ aircraft wise for ease of operation.

Although A319 is still in its infancy and requireing users by the time we realistically start replaceing in a decade or so(sigh) it should be sorted. RNZAF pilots already do stints with Air Nelson so getting onto the A320s could be a similar set up for rating/training/exposure as the 757s are due to be retired before the Orions.

The other added bonus would be if we did eventually go A400 and CN type then its all one big happy Airbus family so must be some same same benefits to be had.