Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Stuart Mackey]

The beauty of the UH-1 is that its a tough old bird. I still think there is a place to have roomy unsophisticated and cheap chopper to do a bit of the donkey work or dirty jobs within the NZDF. Basically a flying Hilux ute where as the AW139 is more a late model Holden Crewman. Sometimes the flash kit is unnecessary for certain tasks.

True, but it must be said that the RNZAF is an armed service, and the helicopters that it gets to support a battalion group in combat needs to be able to survive in a modern war zone and ill a 'cheap and cheerfull' helicopter do that?

As for future naval helicopter operations the NFH-90 will possibly emerge some time mid next decade to operate on an Danish Absalon / Patrolship type vessel as the Anzac Frigate supplement initially and then laterly their replacement. The Sprites will be unsustainable in 10 years, but their 15 years service onboard is still a fairly good lifespan for a Naval helicopter considering the harsh environment.

The Danish way eh? have you heard something?

 

[Tasman]

As such I would imagine that if something like the 139/49 were brought then we would see the SH2G replaced, eventually, by the naval edition of NH90 (would there be space issues on the frigates OPV's for that type I wonder?).

The question raised about space for an NH-90 in the Anzac hangar is an interesting one as I expect that both New Zealand and Australia may eventually look at using the navalised NH-90 in the future to replace its Seasprites (both navies) and Seahawks (RAN). The RAN operates Seahawks successfully from its Anzacs but the NH-90's folded dimensions are slightly larger than that of the Seahawk. It would be great if someone could provide an answer. I've tried to find out about the hangar dimensions but I've had no success. Does anyone know how much 'spare room' there is in the hangar when a Seahawk is stowed or does anyone know the hangar dimensions of an Anzac frigate (I'm not sure I'd get away with running a tape measure around during the next Hobart port visit by an Anzac )?

Tas

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Im no expert but do we need the flashest Rotary wing on the block?
I just cant understand why we are buying Euro and why buy the most teched up when we can buy American for a good price and its battle-proven?

Because the armed forces are supposed to operate in a modern conflict {at least on paper so a pretense must be kept up for the gullible voters.)

Even guys at Safe-Air are asking why are we buying so few.

Because the government underestimated the cost and the public has no idea of the implications of having so few, but does understand the idea of old and unreliable being replaced by new and reliable.

While labour has to be commended for at lest spending some dosh on the military I think its choices aint the best.

Irrc most of the money came out of the armed forces depreciation account, so a good chunk is not actually additional spending.

The LAVs were a silly expensive choice when a complete up-grade of the M-113s would have done the job,

No, the LAV3 buy was a result of a change in army doctrine and the 113 was not considered capable of performing the range of functions that army saw itself performing for the forseeable future or on an economical basis (not counting internal army politics). That is not to say that a tracked fighting vehicles are not of value to NZ, but the budget just does not allow for it.

The Skyhawks.... no need to go there and the list goes on, we need to keep it simple, leave the high tech gear to the ozzies

What does Australia have to do with it? Is NZ not an independent nation?

and keep the the NZ military a tough, robust simple fighting force that is was once known for

That might have been acceptable when fighting in Korea, Vietnam and over the period of the cold war when we always had the assured logistical support, access to munitions/weaponry, and sheer political clout and firepower of the US when we needed it, and the Empire before that.
That situation no longer exists, so we have to do it for ourselves. Its one of the prices we must pay for the independence we declared in 1985.

 

[MrConservative]

The thinking behind the UH-1 Huey continuance is that it would be useful in the low level Chapter 6 operations that could pop up in the South Pacific such as in the Solomons or Tonga, whilst the NH-90's are used on higher level Chapter 6 senario's as they arise. It would be useful for humanitarian missions in the area as well. We don't necesarily want to keep a $95 million rotary asset tied up in Honiara for six months or for a six week post hurricane mission in the Cooks and in that environment the NH-90 might be over-sophisticated.

The Danish Absalon approach interests me greatly as it is brings together the attributes of a Frigate and a Sealift ship. It's purely my opinion after talking to an ex-Danish navy bloke who I ended up chatting to last summer. The Absalon platform is to be extended next decade into a "Patrol Ship" concept. The term used so not to frighten the Danish public with words like frigate. The utility of the vessel is impressive for a small Navy which I think looking ahead 10 years out may well be the right sort of vessel for the RNZN equiped with the NFH-90.

 

[recce.k1]

I think that to describe the NH90 as a huey replacement is a bit much given its capacity, and the A109 is a bit light for the duties of the UH1 as well, although excellent as a LUH and for use in the internal counter-terrorism role, if another five or six are purchased. I would submit that what is required is 'another' UH1 perhaps something like the AW139?

That would be a good idea maybe the AW149 for abit more capacity, the only issue would be that the NZDF would be operating 4 helicopter types, although as long as the cockpit configs were relatively similar transition between types may not be a big issue.

Agreed, the NH90 is far more capable that a UH-1 (and more capable than the UH-60) hence as you guys are pointing out there appears to be room for something inbetween the NH90 and A109 - be that UH-1/60, AW139/149 etc.

In terms of potentially operating more types, I presume the advantage the AW139/149 may have is a certain amount of commonality with the A109, in design, support and possibly cockpit layout etc, which would be helpful for NZ. (Rationalising helicopter types will always be a good thing for NZ but even as the Australians would probably agree with their Air 9000 project, getting that figure down to three types is near impossible in the short term).

Because the government underestimated the cost and the public has no idea of the implications of having so few, but does understand the idea of old and unreliable being replaced by new and reliable.

Your analogy has concisely hit the nail on the head! This explains alot (eg the Govt saying the Frigate Canterbury would be replaced by a multi-role vessel. Public perception, 1 for 1 replacement. Our perception here, err a MRV isn't a Frigate despite them both being tasked for patrol duties)!

Hell, I think if the Govt thought that it could get away with buying only 2 or 3 new A109's they probably would have got away with it as the public would be none the wiser (except that if someone then pointed out the air force does actually have 5 Sioux training helos, people might then remember the maths they learnt in School Cert, that actually 2 or 3 doesn't equal 5. Nevermind the Govt will have that sorted in a few years time as the NCEA generation become established in the work force)

The thinking behind the UH-1 Huey continuance is that it would be useful in the low level Chapter 6 operations that could pop up in the South Pacific such as in the Solomons or Tonga, It would be useful for humanitarian missions in the area as well. We don't necesarily want to keep a $95 million rotary asset tied up in Honiara for six whilst the NH-90's are used on higher level Chapter 6 senario's as they arise. months or for a six week post hurricane mission in the Cooks and in that environment the NH-90 might be over-sophisticated.

Actually this makes alot of sense.

* We know the A109 will primarily be used for training and LU duties - in NZ. I'm hazarding a guess that the A109 will not be deployed overseas much, possibly only for the likes of cyclone relief and maybe for keeping the peace in areas with minimal armed "resistance" eg Solomons, Tonga etc. Although the A109's can and will be deployed on the new OPV's and MRV (where as the UH1 won't). But there's been no mention of the A109's having counter measures fitted unlike the NH90 when their order was announced last year etc, so the A109 is not likely to end up in East Timor (or Afghanistan) for example.

* We know that 8 NH90's "isn't enough" to cover overseas deployments, NZ use (SAR, counter terrorism etc), maintenance, conversion training and having a couple on standby in case in an internal or external emergency. Thus having the A109 will help the NZDF meet local SAR and counter terrorism thus freeing up the NH90's for the all important overseas missions in conflict areas.

But some/most of us agree that the A109 is not quite the same as a UH-1 and the A109 will not always be an ideal backup for the NH90. Thus I agree now that retaining some UH-1's would be a good solution in the short term.

* Because the Govt is not likely to want to buy the AW139/149 in the short term (and this current Labour Govt would not be interested in ex-ADF UH-60's, judging by their track record of missed opportunities).

* To buy AW139/149's would firstly require more funding that simply "isn't there" and secondly be an admission that the 8x NH90 & 5x A109 mix will not be practical (a policy failure).

I would hazard another guess that the RNZAF proposal to retain 6x UH-1's (that Jase clarified as coming from the RNZAF) was there all along from the time the MOD/NZDF/Govt worked out that they could only afford 8 operational NH90's for $770M.

Incidentally 8x NH90's + 6x UH1's = 14 (precisely the numbers of UH1's the RNZAF operate now - but the bonus is the NH90 is far more capable). Also 5x A109's is also the precise numbers of Sioux the RNZAF operate now (but the bonus again is the A109 is far more capable - which is just as well and can be justified as the NZDF are at their busiest since Korea etc). But maybe it's an accounting type issue - the rules only allow for a 1 for 1 replacement and no more, unless there are exceptional and compelling reasons!

So the RNZAF/NZDF/MOD will save the Govt's bacon (politically) if the Govt agrees to retain 6x UH1's. From an operational perspective I hope the Govt does agree to retaining 6x UH1's then. The NZDF needs as many practical helo assets as it can (in these uncertain times and with the new Navy patrol vessels etc).

The UH1 retention option would be the most cost effective option (as opposed to buying more A109's - perhaps another reason why only 5x A109's will be ordered? And as opposed to buying AW139's or whatever (sorry guys they gotta keep some $$$ for next years election kitty)) ).

It's cost effective because the NZDF already have the UH-1's and they have been paid off (a bit like the MB339 reactivation possibility), the NZDF has the spares, it has the training programme in place, the support and maintenance ground crew and experienced pilots. Apart from operational and some refurbishment costs (although there are plenty of second hand UH1's out there) it won't cost the Govt zip. Now compare that with acquiring another type, the training and costs for spares etc.

Incidentally 6x UH-1's would most likely be the absolute minimum the RNZAF could operate (or gain sign off from the Govt) eg 4x for operations and 2x undergoing maintenance. I probably would have wanted say 8 minimum (allowing for overseas deployments of 2-4 and having another 2-4 for local use across the country (and maint) but I suppose the RNZAF or MOD etc couldn't make the numbers stick due to the more than capable 13 new helos arriving in 2010.

 

[recce.k1]

The question raised about space for an NH-90 in the Anzac hangar is an interesting one as I expect that both New Zealand and Australia may eventually look at using the navalised NH-90 in the future to replace its Seasprites (both navies) and Seahawks (RAN). The RAN operates Seahawks successfully from its Anzacs but the NH-90's folded dimensions are slightly larger than that of the Seahawk. It would be great if someone could provide an answer. I've tried to find out about the hangar dimensions but I've had no success. Does anyone know how much 'spare room' there is in the hangar when a Seahawk is stowed or does anyone know the hangar dimensions of an Anzac frigate (I'm not sure I'd get away with running a tape measure around during the next Hobart port visit by an Anzac )?

Tas

Well I do not know for sure but this might help. The RNZN's new OPV's and MRV "helicopter facilities have been designed to replicate those of the RNZN ANZAC frigates" according to the Tenix proposal http://www.tenix.com/PDFLibrary/239.pdf (see the MRV and OPV sections). So presumably that also means the dimensions are the same (and the OPV is smaller than an ANZAC, so the OPV isn't likely to have a larger hanger).

We know that the MRV has been designed to store 4x NH90's so to state the obvious, the NH90 will need to be wheeled out of their storage area, thru the hanger and onto the flight deck to take off etc. Thus presumably height and width is the same, although we can't sure of the hanger depth.

But the NH90 fuselage length is supposed to be 16m (or 19m rotors turning) or 13.5m folded according to NHI http://www.nhindustries.com/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?arbo=3&noeu_id=10012&lang=EN Note: delete the DT redirection in the URL and the correct page will then display ie Homepage->The NH90->Main Data.

And from the RAN website the S-70 is 19.8m long (with rotors?) http://www.navy.gov.au/aircraft/seahawk.html and for a comparison the SH-2 is 16m long http://www.navy.gov.au/aircraft/seasprite.html

Height and width of the NH90 and Seahawk are very similar so it appears that a NH90 or NFH90 can fit into an ANZAC hanger(?).

BTW those ship hangers are very high (maybe 6m??), even if you managed to sneak a tape measure on board you would need somewhere discrete to hide your ladder on your personage

 

[Tasman]

And from the RAN website the S-70 is 19.8m long (with rotors?) http://www.navy.gov.au/aircraft/seahawk.html and for a comparison the SH-2 is 16m long http://www.navy.gov.au/aircraft/seasprite.html

Height and width of the NH90 and Seahawk are very similar so it appears that a NH90 or NFH90 can fit into an ANZAC hanger(?).

Thanks Recce.k1.

The folded length of a Seahawk is about 1m less than a folded NH-90 so it looks like the NH-90 should fit in an Anzac's hangar if required, providing it is not too long.
.
http://www.navalhelicopterassn.org/helo page/sh60b.htm and

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/sh-60b-specs.htm

Cheers

Tas

 

[recce.k1]

C130 Life Extension Progress

Press release from Defence Minister on C130 life extension upgrade progress. Didn't we hear recently that the life extension was now only going to provide 10 years of useful life instead of 15 or so etc? Mr Goff says here "a major structural upgrade of the wings and fuselage will guarantee the integrity of the aircraft beyond 2017"! All good if this is the case



http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=31197

5/11/2007

$250 million investment produces “new” C-130s

Defence Minister Phil Goff met with senior executives of L3 Spar Aerospace in Edmonton, Canada, today and examined the progress being made in rebuilding the Royal New Zealand Air Force’s C-130 Hercules fleet.

Phil Goff is leading a trade mission in Canada and the United States this week and marking the inaugural direct Air New Zealand flight between Auckland and Vancouver.

“The decision to invest $250 million in the life extension and technical upgrade of the C-130 fleet is a critical one,” Phil Goff said.

“For more than 40 years the C-130 Hercules have been the workhorses of the RNZAF and Defence Force, They have carried New Zealand forces to places as diverse as the Antarctic, the Pacific, and Afghanistan.

“The upgrading will convert the 1950’s technology of the cockpit into Twenty First Century technology.

“More than 50 miles of wiring is being replaced in each C-130, and a major structural upgrade of the wings and fuselage will guarantee the integrity of the aircraft beyond 2017,” Mr Goff said.

“In addition, we have made the decision at the same time to provide a new self protection system for the C-130s. That will provide necessary protection against man portable surface to air missiles, essential when operating in environments such as Afghanistan.”

“Two C-130s are currently receiving the life-extension upgrade in Edmonton, with the first estimated to return to service in New Zealand by April 2008.

“The upgrade of systems mean the C-130s will now comply with mandatory global air management regulations and will be able to operate worldwide.

“The upgrade will vastly improve the reliability of the aircraft, reduce downtime for repairs and maintenance, improve safety standards, and ensure interoperability with other military forces and other units within the New Zealand Defence Force.”

“I am pleased with the progress being made and look forward to the final three aircraft being upgraded in New Zealand by Safe Air, in partnership with L3 Spar,” Mr Goff said.

 

[Aussie Digger]

“The upgrading will convert the 1950’s technology of the cockpit into Twenty First Century technology.

“More than 50 miles of wiring is being replaced in each C-130, and a major structural upgrade of the wings and fuselage will guarantee the integrity of the aircraft beyond 2017,” Mr Goff said.

“In addition, we have made the decision at the same time to provide a new self protection system for the C-130s. That will provide necessary protection against man portable surface to air missiles, essential when operating in environments such as Afghanistan.”

“Two C-130s are currently receiving the life-extension upgrade in Edmonton, with the first estimated to return to service in New Zealand by April 2008.

“The upgrade of systems mean the C-130s will now comply with mandatory global air management regulations and will be able to operate worldwide.

“The upgrade will vastly improve the reliability of the aircraft, reduce downtime for repairs and maintenance, improve safety standards, and ensure interoperability with other military forces and other units within the New Zealand Defence Force.”

“I am pleased with the progress being made and look forward to the final three aircraft being upgraded in New Zealand by Safe Air, in partnership with L3 Spar,” Mr Goff said.

$250m for a cockpit from the 21st Century with a lift capacity from the 1950's...

What a bargain!

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[t68]

Are you suggesting that no country should fly a C130H or below because it has 1950's lift capacity or is this just an "Australia is better than NZ" insult? (I had thought you were better than that - but i've been wrong before

Hi guys


NO i dont think he was insulting you about that if he was i think insulting you about the nz rugby league team whould have been enough :nutkick

But it is like puting all the mod cons in a fj holden and expect it to Handel like a holden crewman.

But you got to make do with what the powers to be give you


REGARDS

TOM

 

[barra]

Are you suggesting that no country should fly a C130H or below because it has 1950's lift capacity or is this just an "Australia is better than NZ" insult? (I had thought you were better than that - but i've been wrong before)

I thought that Australia flies 3 or 4 c130s below C130J standard (we have 5). Maybe even the US flies a few. Other countries as well. Are you calling for your government and others to scrap them or do you say they should continue without upgrades? The "$250m" includes a life extension upgrade.

I don't think AD's intention was to insult Kiwi's but to suggest whether it was value for money. If it is a short term fix until new A400's become available then it is not a bad investment, but if it is instead of purchasing larger A400's then it is not a good investment.
The Australian, and I guess NZ, experience with Hercs is that it is a good tactical airlifter but we are just to far away from the action for it to be a useful strategic link. Its payload is to small, range to short and flies to slow to be a link between NZ/Aust. and its deployed forces in A'stan/Iraq.
The RAAF still operates 12 C-130H AFAIK, the number was to be cut to 6 after the C-17's arrived I am unsure if this has happened yet. The -H models have been great workhorses and will continue to be so. No-one is having a go at the Kiwi forces, your politicians though are fair game(like everyone else's)

Cheers, Barra

 

[MrConservative]

$250m for a cockpit from the 21st Century with a lift capacity from the 1950's...

What a bargain![/QUOTE

Are you suggesting that no country should fly a C130H or below because it has 1950's lift capacity or is this just an "Australia is better than NZ" insult? (I had thought you were better than that - but i've been wrong before)

I thought that Australia flies 3 or 4 c130s below C130J standard (we have 5). Maybe even the US flies a few. Other countries as well. Are you calling for your government and others to scrap them or do you say they should continue without upgrades? The "$250m" includes a life extension upgrade.

Unlike other so called NZers on this board I do not accept being insulted over the capability of the NZ defense force. I'm proud to be a New Zealander and do not spend my time running our country down.

Why are you even posting on this thread if you only provide sarcastic, non constructive comment?

I am looking forward with great interest, no doubt along with the other "so called" New Zealanders on this site, to a detailed and fascinating appreciation of the New Zealand Defence Force as it heads into the next decade from our friend Mr/Ms Investigator. In particular a strategic risk assessment, a capability analysis and a subsequent procurement programme. Or if that is too time consuming or troubling for him maybe just a quick stocktake / orbat per 2015 will suffice. Possibly it might provide the opportunity to for AD to unleash some constructive comments on as well if he is not to busy moderating this thread and other threads.

Actually one could argue that it is insulting to New Zealanders and New Zealand service personnel that they are to continue to use aircraft purchased in the mid 1960's and are at technically well over design hours to settle for a patch up job when there is well and truly enough money in Mr Cullen's "Kitty" to have purchased C-130J-30's now like the Norwegians have elected to do when faced with the same problem. With a historically high New Zealand dollar relative to the US at present it would have been a golden opportunity to at this stage to buy 4 C-130J-30's (The Norwegians have paid US350m for 4 recently). Indeed a far more fiscally prudent purchase over the long term as they would have lasted another 40 years and the FMS repayment package would have worked out fairly cost neutral on a per annum basis.

By the way the great thing about liberal democracies, which I might add on this Armistice Day is significant, is that the freedom of speaking out against mediocrity, ineptitude and things such as thin skinned immature nationalism is one of cornerstones of a civilised society. If that doesn't sink in maybe that Defence is spelt with a 'C' and not with the letter 'S' when using New Zealand English. Possibly that doesn't matter so much with the NCEA exams your probably sitting at the moment.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Are you suggesting that no country should fly a C130H or below because it has 1950's lift capacity or is this just an "Australia is better than NZ" insult? (I had thought you were better than that - but i've been wrong before)

What I am suggesting is that for a fleet of 5x aircraft, investing so much in an airframe that is increasingly obsolecent for a mere 10 years of service, seems like a waste of money.

As pointed out by others ( thanks guys ) Norway just ordered a brand NEW fleet of 4x C-130J-30's for instance for $300m. An increase in capacity, an increase in range, better cruise speed, better reliability and 30 - 40 years of operational service compared to 10, for $50m more than your Government has decided to spend on it's C-130H's.

On top of which the US has allowed Norway to take it's aircraft from the USA's own production slots, meaning the Norwegians will probably have all 4x of their airlifters before you guys are even halfway through your upgrade program...

Who has chosen better?

My comments had nothing to do with denigrating the NZDF or NZ itself for that matter, but rather those that look at and CHOOSE cheap, short term solutions, to large problems.

An operational perspective shows this decision in a different light. Your NZDF is, like most other modern forces, increasing in "weight" and "size" as a necessity to surviving on the modern battlefield.

Can your C-130H's deploy an NZLAV or an NH-90 for instance? Technically perhaps. In reality? No. These platforms are too big and too heavy to be deployed by a C-130 a meaningful distance, irregardless of how advanced the aircrafts cockpit may be.

For a country so far away from everywhere as NZ, this IS an issue. Want your special forces to have an integral helicopter capability in Afghanistan for instance? Time to charter a, Antonov and all the attendant cost and risk that goes along with it.

Want to deploy armour or helo's to somewhere in the South Pacific?

Hopefully the MRV is not undergoing a scheduled maintence period the next time a crisis hits or hopefully someone ELSE has some spare capacity (yeah right!)

Want to buy a new airlifter in 2017? Gee I hope the A400M is still in production or someone else has created a tactical/strategic airlifter of equivalent capability (not likely)...

I thought that Australia flies 3 or 4 c130s below C130J standard (we have 5). Maybe even the US flies a few. Other countries as well. Are you calling for your government and others to scrap them or do you say they should continue without upgrades? The "$250m" includes a life extension upgrade.

Australia operates 12x C-130J-30, a larger version of the "standard" C-130. We also operate the C-130H in the same basic layout as the NZDF C-130H, 12 in total, however we are retiring them and have already announced a successor: the C-17 Globemaster, with perhaps additional orders of C-130J-30's and C-17's to come.

Unlike other so called NZers on this board I do not accept being insulted over the capability of the NZ defense force. I'm proud to be a New Zealander and do not spend my time running our country down.

Why are you even posting on this thread if you only provide sarcastic, non constructive comment?

If I feel something is due for criticism, and feel interested enough in the topic, then, criticise I will. I live in a democratic society as do you. Stop oppressing me!

The post I submitted before this one, was critical of the Australian M113AS3/4 upgrade program and hopefully you can detect a similar theory behind my criticism of both projects...

Tell you what. Here's a constructive comment. NZ should scrap it's current C-130H upgrade program and replace it with a more simple, service life extension program that will get NZ's airlifter fleet 4-6 years more life, enough to allow it to reach the point where it can be replaced entirely by something better.

NZ should order the A400M NOW and hopefully receive some industrial benefit in addition to the operational benefit of ordering a more capable aircraft than your C-130H's will ever be.

A reduced fleet should even be possible, meaning only 3-4 A400m aircraft would be needed but would still exceed what you currently possess and are planned to possess to 2017, in terms of lift capacity and range...

However I get the idea that your idea of a constructive comment and mine seem to differ.

I get the impression that if I don't show overwhelmingly enthusiastic support for the ideas of your ruling Government, I doubt you'll see them as constructive and probably denigrate me, so I might just continue to add whatever I feel like contributing...

Cheers

AD

 

[recce.k1]

As pointed out by others ( thanks guys ) Norway just ordered a brand NEW fleet of 4x C-130J-30's for instance for $300m. An increase in capacity, an increase in range, better cruise speed, better reliability and 30 - 40 years of operational service compared to 10, for $50m more than your Government has decided to spend on it's C-130H's.

Tut tut, everyone here is sooo naughty. We should always accept and believe what politicians say without question (any & all politicians). They speak the truth and they know what is right whilst we the public must accept their wisdom.

For example: NZ defence minister at the time of the announcement of NZ's C130H upgrade (& C130J cancellation) said the C130J is far too expensive - over $1000m for 5 aircraft (clearly Norway are getting 1:2 half size scale model replicas at $300m for 4 aircraft) and the C130J has recognised operational shortfalls (clearly Australia made a bad decison to buy 12+ C130J's).

It's true ... I read it here http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=15498 this is what we the public are told and here is the quote.

The upgrade of the C-130H Hercules

Q. Why upgrade the C-130H?

A. Defence commissioned an independent contractor to conduct a Life-of-Type Study (LOTS) on the feasibility and cost of upgrading the C-130H fleet to extend its service life and improve availability and reliability. The LOTS concluded that a 15-year life extension was feasible, for a reasonable cost, and would significantly improve the availability and reliability of the fleet.

Q. What will happen to the option to purchase C-130 ‘J’ model aircraft?

A. New Zealand has the option to purchase new C-130J aircraft as part of a contract that Australia has with the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin. New Zealand will be declining that option. Five replacement aircraft would cost over $1 billion. They are a new aircraft and have a number of recognised operational shortfalls. They are not an appropriate investment at this time, given that upgrading the current C-130H fleet is both feasible and affordable.

Q. How long will the upgrade work take?

A. Depending on the work programme undertaken as each aircraft is taken out of service, the entire programme will take 2.5 to 4 years and will start in 2004, following the completion of the cargo capability modifications to the two 757s.

Q. Why will it take so long?

A. Each aircraft requires significant structural work and the replacement of outdated systems.

Q. What will be the implications of having aircraft out of service?

A. There may be some limitations on the deployment of C-130H aircraft for overseas operations during the upgrade period. This impact will be reduced by the availability of the modified 757s.

Q. What is Australia planning to do with the option to purchase the C-130J?

A. Australia already has twelve C-130J aircraft. Whether Australia will purchase additional aircraft is up to the Australian government.

 

[Tasman]

Tut tut, everyone here is sooo naughty. We should always accept and believe what politicians say without question (any & all politicians). They speak the truth and they know what is right whilst we the public must accept their wisdom.

For example: NZ defence minister at the time of the announcement of NZ's C130H upgrade (& C130J cancellation) said the C130J is far too expensive - over $1000m for 5 aircraft (clearly Norway are getting 1:2 half size scale model replicas at $300m for 4 aircraft) and the C130J has recognised operational shortfalls (clearly Australia made a bad decison to buy 12+ C130J's).

It's true ... I read it here

Do I detect just a little bit of cynicism in your post Recce?

Obviously the NZ Defence Minister knows things about the C-130J that countries like the USA, UK, Australia and others do not!

I don't necessarily think NZ should buy the C-130J but, as others have said, it is a lot of money to be spent on old aircraft. IMO, your neighbours across the Tasman have started to run into problems from keeping some aircraft in service too long. The upgrade programs for the F111C and Hornet seemed like good ideas at the time but, with the benefit of hindsight, earlier replacement with new aircraft may have been better options. NZ could learn from this. Like AD, I believe the option of a more austere life extension program, just sufficient to take them through to the A-400M being available, may have been a better approach.

Tas

 

[gf0012-aust]

Are you suggesting that no country should fly a C130H or below because it has 1950's lift capacity or is this just an "Australia is better than NZ" insult? (I had thought you were better than that - but i've been wrong before)

I suspect that you've misunderstood AD's pitch. The way I read it was a questioning of value for money - which incidentally is a common theme for a lot of us. If you have a look at the history of comment from people like AD, AGRA, Magoo, barra, McTaff, myself etc... the willingness to criticise our own procurement processes on some platforms is clearly in the open.

IMV, AD was exercising the same robust interrogation that is required in this kind of debate.

edit.

just read the other posts, so mine is probably redundant!

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[MrConservative]

It will only be $520 million if ALL of the extensive add on options are purchased and fitted later if the Norwegians so wish. For the standard and extremely capable C-130J-30 it is in the US$300-350 range.

Your only justification for the C-130 patch up job is that its cheap eh!

This is not about shiny guns. This is a Transport aircraft which is probably one of the most useful and necessary pieces of NZDF equipment there is.

We are all waiting for your views on Defence. I hope you have at least some imagination to go beyond your political bias and come up with something that doesn't just parrot Labour Party press releases.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.