Royal New Zealand Air Force

[KH-12]

The number of P-8 airframes (4) planned circa 2009 through the released Cabinet doxs is offset by the UAV system, which may well end up being the Triton platform (3) with the rationale that they are the platforms our strategic partners (USN/ADF) in the Broad Maritime AOI Surveillance and alphabet soup will be using. It is geo-politically vital we dont go "blind" and not be able to operate at that level as a valued contributor and quickly become a 2nd tier client.

The UAV / P-8 mix will have different tasking dynamics than what the P-3s tasking are used for. Thus the numbers game is somewhat different. Simply put the UAV/Triton is the finder and the P-8 is the keeper.

I like the idea of the P8/MQ4 Triton mix, the disturbing thing is the cost of the UAV is not much less than the manned aircraft despite being based on an existing airframe (GlobalHawk) , hopefully we would get a significant discount on price more in line with the Indian price rather than the Australian the airframe is nothing special so the cost has to be in the sensors/communications system. I would expect that mission availability ratio for the UAV would be superior to the manned platform, giving more patrol time per airframe at a reduced direct operating cost, as long as the Broadband data rate is not excessive !

 

[ngatimozart]

I like the idea of the P8/MQ4 Triton mix, the disturbing thing is the cost of the UAV is not much less than the manned aircraft despite being based on an existing airframe (GlobalHawk) , hopefully we would get a significant discount on price more in line with the Indian price rather than the Australian the airframe is nothing special so the cost has to be in the sensors/communications system. I would expect that mission availability ratio for the UAV would be superior to the manned platform, giving more patrol time per airframe at a reduced direct operating cost, as long as the Broadband data rate is not excessive !

If you are talking about the P8I as in the Indian variant of the P8, it is dissimilar to the P8A. That is why it is cheaper.

 

[KH-12]

If you are talking about the P8I as in the Indian variant of the P8, it is dissimilar to the P8A. That is why it is cheaper.

I was mainly referring to the MQ4C which I suspect will be fairly standardized, inferring that the Indians can probably negotiate a better bargain than the Aussies !

The Indian P8 has some features which could certainly increase the cost such as the MAD and different refueling system versus the standard probe.

 

[ngatimozart]

I was mainly referring to the MQ4C which I suspect will be fairly standardized, inferring that the Indians can probably negotiate a better bargain than the Aussies !

The Indian P8 has some features which could certainly increase the cost such as the MAD and different refueling system versus the standard probe.

I'm actually impressed that the P8 went through considering the vast bureaucracy that exists in the Indian defence procurement process. They are difficult to negotiate with as many have found out so they would have got the best deal they could have for what they wanted.

We will have to wait and see what's on offer BAM UAV wise closer to the time. Hopefully the price will come down.

 

[ngatimozart]

I have stated many times that the Air Transport Review is occuring now and will finish next year in time to inform the 2015 DWP. This assertion is based on the below excerpt of a 2012 letter I received from the Minister of Defence in February last year in response to some queries I had.

An Air Transport Review will begin this year, to assess future air transport needs and the potential options available to meet those needs. This review will consider options for replacing the C-130 Hercules, including with smaller aircraft. The conclusions will inform the 2015 Defence White Paper.
Letter dated 14/2/2012 from Jonathan Coleman Minister of Defence.

Recently I emailed the Minister regarding some questions I had one of which was about the Air Transport review. Below is the reply I received.

Work on a replacement air transport capability is not yet underway. Consideration is being given to the future airlift requirement for the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) in the form of an Airlift Review. This work will inform an Air Transport Replacement Project, scheduled to commence after the next Defence White Paper in 2015. This will look at a number of options, including those raised in your letter.
Email dated 22/7/2013 from Defence Private Secretary, Office of the Minister of Defence.

Having read that,I emailed back asking for some clarification with the below being part of my email.

... that the C130H(NZ) Hercules are, as far as I am aware, currently programmed for retirement commencing in 2018, and that any Air Transport Replacement Project starting in 2015 will be cutting things extra fine timewise, reducing options for NZDF and creating situations where substantial extra expenses could be incurred. For example the Airbus A400M has some production slots available in 2018 and that is for currently placed orders. Lockheed Martin C130J Hercules would still have significant lead time from adding slots to its current production schedule until delivery. Then there is the time required to induct the new aircraft into RNZAF / NZDF service.

So if the Air Transport Replacement Project goes ahead after the 2015 DWP it's still dependent upon mundane minor things such as the 2014 election, and / or earthquakes and other natural hazards. However what concerns me the most is that the timing is now critical and what happens if the pollies decide to delay it further - which wouldn't surprise me. But that would leave NZDF and the RNZAF up the proverbial creek in a barb wire canoe.

 

[John Newman]

I have stated many times that the Air Transport Review is occuring now and will finish next year in time to inform the 2015 DWP. This assertion is based on the below excerpt of a 2012 letter I received from the Minister of Defence in February last year in response to some queries I had.

Recently I emailed the Minister regarding some questions I had one of which was about the Air Transport review. Below is the reply I received.

Having read that,I emailed back asking for some clarification with the below being part of my email.

So if the Air Transport Replacement Project goes ahead after the 2015 DWP it's still dependent upon mundane minor things such as the 2014 election, and / or earthquakes and other natural hazards. However what concerns me the most is that the timing is now critical and what happens if the pollies decide to delay it further - which wouldn't surprise me. But that would leave NZDF and the RNZAF up the proverbial creek in a barb wire canoe.

Ng,

Good questions to ask, can I assume you are yet to receive a reply for your clarification email?

And can I ask how long it took for a reply to your first email? Days, weeks, months?

 

[ngatimozart]

Ng,

Good questions to ask, can I assume you are yet to receive a reply for your clarification email?

And can I ask how long it took for a reply to your first email? Days, weeks, months?

No probs John, about three weeks for this years one. I sent it on 3/7/2013 and reply came back 22/7/2013. I sent the clarification request on 25/7/2013 so I would expect reply sometime around mid August.

 

[John Newman]

No probs John, about three weeks for this years one. I sent it on 3/7/2013 and reply came back 22/7/2013. I sent the clarification request on 25/7/2013 so I would expect reply sometime around mid August.

Thanks for that. I was thinking it would have been a lot longer.

I remember many many years ago I sent a letter (snail mail) to one of the previous Australian Def Mins, from memory it was at least 3 to 4 months or more before I received a reply in the post.

I'd almost forgotten about what the hell I asked by the time I received the very brief and 'not to the point' reply.

So three weeks is pretty quick, even if you only get a 'politician' answer anyway, look forward to hearing the answer you receive!

 

[40 deg south]

Thanks for that. I was thinking it would have been a lot longer.

I remember many many years ago I sent a letter (snail mail) to one of the previous Australian Def Mins, from memory it was at least 3 to 4 months or more before I received a reply in the post.

I'd almost forgotten about what the hell I asked by the time I received the very brief and 'not to the point' reply.

So three weeks is pretty quick, even if you only get a 'politician' answer anyway, look forward to hearing the answer you receive!

Just out of interest, letters to the Minister are known in the public service as 'ministerials'. I have replied to hundreds at other departments, and the process is probably similar at Defence.

On receipt at Parliament, the letters are divided by the Ministers' office into two streams. Purely 'political' ones (e.g. 'Why haven't you delivered election promise #2097?') are handled by staff at the Minister's office.

'Operational' ones ('What the hell is going on with ...?') are transferred to the ministry/department and farmed out to the bureaucrat best placed to answer by a small 'ministerial services' team. Depending on the department, these could either come electronically or via a paper system, or both. There is a strict timelimit to draft a response, usually 10 working days, with severe arse-kicking for late delivery. Where there are a lot of identical letters, a standard response will be developed and each correspondent will get the same letter back.

The draft response is usually peer-reviewed by a colleague, approved by the line manager, and pushed upwards. A more senior manager will glance over ones on topics that are likely to be controversial, then the response is transferred back to the Beehive. Here it will be reviewed by the Minister's staff and placed in a pile for signature.

Ministers vary in how much attention they give to the responses - most will give at least a cursory glance to anything they sign, and a surprising number read the whole thing in detail and sometimes send it back for re-draft with annotated comments.

Ministers also vary in how much detail they are prepared to give out, and how formal or informal the response is. Every department has a few weeks of trying to strike a suitable tone whenever a new minister arrives.

People generally underestimate the volume of ministerial letters - a typical Minister might deal with a hundred or so a week, but this can leap into the thousands if an issue is in the media, or someone is running a campaign encouraging voters to write in (environmentalists kill a lot of trees by this tactic!).

Public servants generally resent the time taken to these responses, but I've always considered it an important part of the democratic system.

Notwithstanding the system described above, every now and then letters get lost in the system, resulting in much waving of arms and shouting at the unfortunate person deemed responsible. I have no idea how it works in Australia, but taking months to get a reply should be very much the exception in NZ.

Sorry for the long response, but people generally have no idea about the inner working of government departments. And of course, the system described here takes up a fair bit of time and money to maintain.

 

[kiwi in exile]

NH90 training

FYI

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeWVhKrWcc0"]NH90, meet Waiouru. Waiouru, meet NH90. - YouTube[/nomedia]
Things seem to be progressing nicely.

Also, another chance also to see the new army uniforms (briefly)

 

[MrConservative]

Just out of interest, letters to the Minister are known in the public service as 'ministerials'. I have replied to hundreds at other departments, and the process is probably similar at Defence.

On receipt at Parliament, the letters are divided by the Ministers' office into two streams. Purely 'political' ones (e.g. 'Why haven't you delivered election promise #2097?') are handled by staff at the Minister's office.

'Operational' ones ('What the hell is going on with ...?') are transferred to the ministry/department and farmed out to the bureaucrat best placed to answer by a small 'ministerial services' team. Depending on the department, these could either come electronically or via a paper system, or both. There is a strict timelimit to draft a response, usually 10 working days, with severe arse-kicking for late delivery. Where there are a lot of identical letters, a standard response will be developed and each correspondent will get the same letter back.

The draft response is usually peer-reviewed by a colleague, approved by the line manager, and pushed upwards. A more senior manager will glance over ones on topics that are likely to be controversial, then the response is transferred back to the Beehive. Here it will be reviewed by the Minister's staff and placed in a pile for signature.

Ministers vary in how much attention they give to the responses - most will give at least a cursory glance to anything they sign, and a surprising number read the whole thing in detail and sometimes send it back for re-draft with annotated comments.

Ministers also vary in how much detail they are prepared to give out, and how formal or informal the response is. Every department has a few weeks of trying to strike a suitable tone whenever a new minister arrives.

People generally underestimate the volume of ministerial letters - a typical Minister might deal with a hundred or so a week, but this can leap into the thousands if an issue is in the media, or someone is running a campaign encouraging voters to write in (environmentalists kill a lot of trees by this tactic!).

Public servants generally resent the time taken to these responses, but I've always considered it an important part of the democratic system.

Notwithstanding the system described above, every now and then letters get lost in the system, resulting in much waving of arms and shouting at the unfortunate person deemed responsible. I have no idea how it works in Australia, but taking months to get a reply should be very much the exception in NZ.

Sorry for the long response, but people generally have no idea about the inner working of government departments. And of course, the system described here takes up a fair bit of time and money to maintain.

Further to 40 degree Souths excellent synopsis of the ministerial process with regard to dealing with (to) questions from the general public, I should add that Defence has always been traditionally guarded about the release of details and specifics with their letters than most other departments. Especially around acquisitions or operations. Answers will always err on the side of caution and be in broad strokes. You might remember the scene from (MrC's all time favourite TV show) Yes Minister where Sir Humphery explains to Bernard that nothing is official until it appears officially in the official cabinet minutes. That might be a comic scene but it reeks of how things are approached. Ministers will open up if they are on safe ground and do say something for political reasons, revealing a tidbit or two, but generally staff have to play it mum and will be vague until something or some policy gets the tick from Cabinet.

 

[40 deg south]

I should add that Defence has always been traditionally guarded about the release of details and specifics with their letters than most other departments. Especially around acquisitions or operations. Answers will always err on the side of caution and be in broad strokes. You might remember the scene from (MrC's all time favourite TV show) Yes Minister where Sir Humphery explains to Bernard that nothing is official until it appears officially in the official cabinet minutes. That might be a comic scene but it reeks of how things are approached.

Always good to meet another Yes Minister fan, Mr C. I've always viewed it more as a documentary than a comedy! I've not overlapped enough with Defence professionally to have a feel for how they manage Ministerials, but it stands to reason that they would be very guarded. MFAT are notoriously tight-lipped about their work, regarding the most mundane information as some sort of national secret.

To be fair, in the procurement game nothing is certain until a contract is signed and sealed, and no one likes to show their hand when negotiating. So I can understand a blanket 'no commnet' policy until the new equipment is completely sewn up, as per the recent Seasprite deal. Frustrating though that may be to us outsiders.

 

[John Newman]

A couple of months back we were discussing Airbus Military's reported push to sell A400M's and C295's to New Zealand.

And I remember at the time I mentioned that Germany was planning to sell off 13 A400's, well it appears that the German's are not the only ones going to sell off aircraft that they are committed to buying, see below:

Spain Approves Extra

It now appears that Spain is also going to sell off 13 aircraft that they are committed to buy too.

Below is an interesting comment from Airbus Military:

"Contractually, Spain has to take all of the 27 A400Ms it has ordered,” a spokesman for Airbus Military told defense-aerospace.com July 29, “but if it wants to sell some of them, we have nothing to say.” He also said that the first 14 aircraft are due to be delivered by 2020, and that a decision to sell off the aircraft on will not be taken until after then, “so it’s still some time off.” He added that Spain’s final 13 A400Ms would be delivered in an austere configuration, without many mission systems, to reduce cost.

Certainly a softer line from Airbus Military (Compared to the statements that Alenia made about the possible sale of second hand US C27J's and that they wouldn't support them).

So it looks like, maybe somewhere around the early 2020's, there will now be 26 'new second hand' A400M's for sale.

With that many airframes coming onto the market maybe there might be a few bargains to be had!

 

[ngatimozart]

A couple of months back we were discussing Airbus Military's reported push to sell A400M's and C295's to New Zealand.

And I remember at the time I mentioned that Germany was planning to sell off 13 A400's, well it appears that the German's are not the only ones going to sell off aircraft that they are committed to buying, see below:

Spain Approves Extra

It now appears that Spain is also going to sell off 13 aircraft that they are committed to buy too.

Below is an interesting comment from Airbus Military:

"Contractually, Spain has to take all of the 27 A400Ms it has ordered,” a spokesman for Airbus Military told defense-aerospace.com July 29, “but if it wants to sell some of them, we have nothing to say.” He also said that the first 14 aircraft are due to be delivered by 2020, and that a decision to sell off the aircraft on will not be taken until after then, “so it’s still some time off.” He added that Spain’s final 13 A400Ms would be delivered in an austere configuration, without many mission systems, to reduce cost.

Certainly a softer line from Airbus Military (Compared to the statements that Alenia made about the possible sale of second hand US C27J's and that they wouldn't support them).

So it looks like, maybe somewhere around the early 2020's, there will now be 26 'new second hand' A400M's for sale.

With that many airframes coming onto the market maybe there might be a few bargains to be had!

Looks interesting John and would be around the timeline that NZG would be looking. The last two leagcy C130Hs are going thru the LEP to C130H(NZ) at the moment. the work is being done by safe Air at Woodbourne, Blenheim. I am a great fan of the A400M and think it would be an ideal aircraft for NZ service. Unfortunately we have pollies to deal with.

NZDF is getting a bit of a battering from the NZ Herald at the moment as the Herald goes on its usual anti defence tirade. Unfortunately that is also been caught up with the spy agency scandal in parliament because in 2003 a NZDF security manual stated that some journalists were to be regarded as subversives. Some idiot leaked a copy of this manual to an anti defence writer by the name of Nicky Hager.

 

[Cadredave]

Some idiot leaked a copy of this manual to an anti defence writer by the name of Nicky Hager.

Don't believe it was some idiot, try an ex 3 star it was deliberate IMHO

 

[ngatimozart]

Don't believe it was some idiot, try an ex 3 star it was deliberate IMHO

One who jumped one field grade and on who'se watch there was a significant loss of capability in his service?

 

[40 deg south]

Looks interesting John and would be around the timeline that NZG would be looking. The last two leagcy C130Hs are going thru the LEP to C130H(NZ) at the moment. the work is being done by safe Air at Woodbourne, Blenheim. I am a great fan of the A400M and think it would be an ideal aircraft for NZ service. Unfortunately we have pollies to deal with.

NZDF is getting a bit of a battering from the NZ Herald at the moment as the Herald goes on its usual anti defence tirade. Unfortunately that is also been caught up with the spy agency scandal in parliament because in 2003 a NZDF security manual stated that some journalists were to be regarded as subversives. Some idiot leaked a copy of this manual to an anti defence writer by the name of Nicky Hager.

Two points.
Firstly, Airbus Military and their various flat-stony-broke European clients are clearly manoevering for position - i suspect we ain't seen nuthin yet!. A lot of water will go under the bridge by 2020, so there isn't much point getting fixated on any particular element of the saga. One thing we can be pretty sure of - the challenge for NZ will be finding the money to pay for a new transport fleet, not finding someone willing to cut us a sharp deal on aircraft.

Secondly, the military has shot itself in the foot by inappropriate/clumsy/paranoid (take your pick) wording in a manual. NZDF generally has a reasonable relationship with the NZ media, so this was stupid and unnecessary. Talk about an own goal. Of course, the manual was drafted a decade ago under a much more left-leaning government, which may or may not limit impact on the existing govt. But it won't help NZDF-media relations.

 

[RegR]

Two points.
Firstly, Airbus Military and their various flat-stony-broke European clients are clearly manoevering for position - i suspect we ain't seen nuthin yet!. A lot of water will go under the bridge by 2020, so there isn't much point getting fixated on any particular element of the saga. One thing we can be pretty sure of - the challenge for NZ will be finding the money to pay for a new transport fleet, not finding someone willing to cut us a sharp deal on aircraft.

Secondly, the military has shot itself in the foot by inappropriate/clumsy/paranoid (take your pick) wording in a manual. NZDF generally has a reasonable relationship with the NZ media, so this was stupid and unnecessary. Talk about an own goal. Of course, the manual was drafted a decade ago under a much more left-leaning government, which may or may not limit impact on the existing govt. But it won't help NZDF-media relations.

Always thought Spain would end up offloading now just depends if we will make the financial commitment to take advantage of these 'excess' A400s or pass it up, smells of a similar sweet F16 deal to be had therefore no doubt we will mess it up and regret it later.

To be honest the media has always either made a mole hill or greatly underestimated anything military depending on what sounds better to average joe public as most times actual fact is barely worth mentioning and deemed boring. Controversy sells and normal is stagnent in a reporters eyes so guess which wins and is therefore elaborated on from their (civilian) perspective? sometimes a version of the truth but whos?

 

[ngatimozart]

Always thought Spain would end up offloading now just depends if we will make the financial commitment to take advantage of these 'excess' A400s or pass it up, smells of a similar sweet F16 deal to be had therefore no doubt we will mess it up and regret it later.

To be honest the media has always either made a mole hill or greatly underestimated anything military depending on what sounds better to average joe public as most times actual fact is barely worth mentioning and deemed boring. Controversy sells and normal is stagnent in a reporters eyes so guess which wins and is therefore elaborated on from their (civilian) perspective? sometimes a version of the truth but whos?

And all the Aucklanders and half the country read the NZ Herald who have a large anti NZDF attitude. The NZ media are not as professional as they used to be, in that they don't appear to research basic common facts, for example when doing a military story. Even a quick search of wikipedia would give them the basics and maybe an appropriate photo. One of my most common beefs about NZ media is that it has followed the American model of dumbing down the content because they think that the great hairy unwashed (general public) are to thick to figure things out for themselves. Whilst the American media may utilise a model that they feel appropriate for the US, it does not necessarilly meet the requirements of Kiwi audiences who are reasonably well educated. The NZ media dumbing down the content and how they present said content, just shows their arrogance.

 

[MrConservative]

And all the Aucklanders and half the country read the NZ Herald who have a large anti NZDF attitude. The NZ media are not as professional as they used to be, in that they don't appear to research basic common facts, for example when doing a military story. Even a quick search of wikipedia would give them the basics and maybe an appropriate photo. One of my most common beefs about NZ media is that it has followed the American model of dumbing down the content because they think that the great hairy unwashed (general public) are to thick to figure things out for themselves. Whilst the American media may utilise a model that they feel appropriate for the US, it does not necessarilly meet the requirements of Kiwi audiences who are reasonably well educated. The NZ media dumbing down the content and how they present said content, just shows their arrogance.

Don't stress too much Ngati, the Herald, Press, the Dom, TV3 and TVNZ are actually stalling or worse and their influence is waning, and they do not have the readership/viewer market penetration or numbers of the late 1990s. Plus their Ad revs and Ad buy prices are down. Plus they have awful demographics against them and the public are now considering them a joke. The opinion shifters are rapidly becoming Blogs and Social media - the 5th Estate. The top couple of blogs in NZ are now cleaning their clocks and beginning to rival them in influence. The educated Kiwi taxpayers are flocking to blogs and social media, and NZ business is bit by bit beginning to boycott the likes of the Herald and TVNZ with respect to ad buys - them not being able to cater to their target market who have left them for new media and secondly, - frankly some NZ Business owners loathe their editorial tone of late. At least the US media still has a top end with reasonable talent, intellectual and quality - it is not all Fox.