Royal New Zealand Air Force

[MrConservative]

Then why is Boeing, Northrup, and Lockheed afraid of this aircraft and want to join the French in developing it with Embraer? If Lockheed is afraid, maybe there is something wonderful about this aircraft. Its not like New Zealand is going to buy new aircraft within five years....

Toby as a US citizen shouldn't you be promoting a great US product like the C130 and wanting it to be sold to countries like NZ rather than NZ buy some other countries product.

As for the C27J its full load range is 1800km and yet the closest of the Cook Islands is 3000km away, Niue 2500km and Apia 3000km. A full load C27J therefore wouldn't make Sydney at 2150km and of course the other factor is Williams Field Antartica nearly 4000km away and landing on ice. Basically the C27J does not have the legs. A theoretical C390/C27J mix would be utterly useless.

Mind you buying useless things has been taken to an artform by the NZ Ministry of Defence at times.

 

[omirasdar]

hellow i m an I ndian citizen
ur country invest only 200 milli8on for that but we r investing 700 million per year

 

[Sea Toby]

Toby as a US citizen shouldn't you be promoting a great US product like the C130 and wanting it to be sold to countries like NZ rather than NZ buy some other countries product.

As for the C27J its full load range is 1800km and yet the closest of the Cook Islands is 3000km away, Niue 2500km and Apia 3000km. A full load C27J therefore wouldn't make Sydney at 2150km and of course the other factor is Williams Field Antartica nearly 4000km away and landing on ice. Basically the C27J does not have the legs. A theoretical C390/C27J mix would be utterly useless.

Mind you buying useless things has been taken to an artform by the NZ Ministry of Defence at times.

A C27J range with 22,000 lbs. of cargo is as you say, some 1852 km or 1,000 nautical miles. However, A C27J with 13,000 lbs. of cargo is 4260 km. or 2300 nautical miles.

Therefore a C27J can easily reach Williams Field, Cook Islands, and Apia with less than a full load of weight. Even a C-130J fully loaded comes up short with 35,000 lbs. of cargo reaching only 2960 km. or 1,600 nautical miles.

A C27A may not haul as much weight as far as a C-130J, but don't leave the impression it can't fly that distance. Its common sense a smaller aircraft won't carry as much as far....

Your choice, a fifty million dollar aircraft or a one hundred million dollar aircraft.

 

[MrConservative]

A C27J range with 22,000 lbs. of cargo is as you say, some 1852 km or 1,000 nautical miles. However, A C27J with 13,000 lbs. of cargo is 4260 km. or 2300 nautical miles.

Therefore a C27J can easily reach Williams Field, Cook Islands, and Apia with less than a full load of weight. Even a C-130J fully loaded comes up short with 35,000 lbs. of cargo reaching only 2960 km. or 1,600 nautical miles.

A C27A may not haul as much weight as far as a C-130J, but don't leave the impression it can't fly that distance. Its common sense a smaller aircraft won't carry as much as far....

Your choice, a fifty million dollar aircraft or a one hundred million dollar aircraft.

So your now advocating that the NZDF buys the C27J and not replace the C130H with the C130J. At least you have gone off the idea of the C390. That is progress.

Yep, sending half full small cargo aircraft long distances across the Pacific or Southern Ocean with the little but often concept of tasking is creating new levels of efficency for the NZDF. nfloorl:

As any loadmaster will tell you it is not only about weight/distance it is also volume capacity. Especially in a disaster relief mission in the islands.

 

[regstrup]

NZ is a small country, with a small defenceforce and budget like my country Denmark. So they sould in my opinion stay with one type of transportplane, that can do most transporttask in most types of terrain. Of course there will be some types of missions, they can't do in full.

The C-130J is the most versitile and flexible plane for NZ, so why not stay with 5-6 of them. That sould also be within the budget, that the politicians are ready to allocate for the defence of NZ.

Realistic I don't think, that there will be a increase in the defencebudget, so there will be money to buy several types of transportplanes or supersize to a C-17. But it is always nice to dream about it

 

[MrConservative]

NZ is a small country, with a small defenceforce and budget like my country Denmark. So they sould in my opinion stay with one type of transportplane, that can do most transporttask in most types of terrain. Of course there will be some types of missions, they can't do in full.

The C-130J is the most versitile and flexible plane for NZ, so why not stay with 5-6 of them. That sould also be within the budget, that the politicians are ready to allocate for the defence of NZ.

Realistic I don't think, that there will be a increase in the defencebudget, so there will be money to buy several types of transportplanes or supersize to a C-17. But it is always nice to dream about it

Agree that the C130J is the best option. Right now the airlift requirements are tetering on the edge. We are only operating three C130's at present and it is putting huge strain on the NZDF as there are continuing problems with the upgrade that the last Govt ordered. The first Herc went away in 2005 and is still not back. Last year it was worse when both Boeings were also out of action. According to retired CDF Air Marshal Carey Adamson in 2004, the NZDF required an air transport fleet based on tasking tempo's of 8 C130's and two Boeings. So that means we need 8 C-130's. And if anybody knows the Herc business in RNZAF service it would be Adamson as he spent a fair chunk of his 40 year career in them, tasking them, commanding, running the air force and then the NZDF.

BTW - Denmark is a real standard setter for a small defence force - we need that sort of clear headed rational approach down here!

 

[regstrup]

BTW - Denmark is a real standard setter for a small defence force - we need that sort of clear headed rational approach down here!

Don't worry, we have our defencescandals to.

By the way, the new combat kit for the NZ soldiers hos been look on with envy by danish soldiers. It is all tested of the shelf gear of good quality and no ''danish modded, we can do better'' gear

 

[moahunter]

The C-130J is the most versitile and flexible plane for NZ, so why not stay with 5-6 of them. That sould also be within the budget, that the politicians are ready to allocate for the defence of NZ.
)

I think that is probably the answer that will arise, but it may not be what the Air Force wants. I have heard some mumbling that the C-130J is not very suitable for NZ/the pacific due to the short life span of the composite prop's, which shred to pieces on gravel runways (the refurbished Hercs don't have this issue, being an earlier model).

I do though think it is worth waiting and seeing re the Embraer - it looks a terrific aircraft, and on a proven platform to.

 

[regstrup]

I have heard some mumbling that the C-130J is not very suitable for NZ/the pacific due to the short life span of the composite prop's, which shred to pieces on gravel runways (the refurbished Hercs don't have this issue, being an earlier model).

The danish C-130J fly to Station Nord several times during the summertime, which also only have a gravel runway, and I have never heard, that there sould be problem of that sort.

Actually the Danish Airforce took one of their Challenger 604 to Station Nord to test wether or not they could land there without getting gravel into the jetengines. So now the Challanger is landing on and taking off from the gravel runway at Station Nord on a regular basis without damaging its jetengines.

So when a Challenger can do that, the C-130J can most certainly do the same task, which it is constructed for, without damaging its props.

 

[moahunter]

^I heard it from somebody working on the refit. Whether it is true or not, and whether it is a significant issue, I don't know.

 

[MrConservative]

I think that is probably the answer that will arise, but it may not be what the Air Force wants. I have heard some mumbling that the C-130J is not very suitable for NZ/the pacific due to the short life span of the composite prop's, which shred to pieces on gravel runways (the refurbished Hercs don't have this issue, being an earlier model).

I do though think it is worth waiting and seeing re the Embraer - it looks a terrific aircraft, and on a proven platform to.

The Embraer is a design concept. Not proven at all. Not known if it would actually get to production. It was pointed out a few posts back that it lacks rough field capability. It is highly likely that the C130J is what the NZDF wants. Prop breakage if occurred would be covered under the contractual terms. The composite prop is not as a significant problem as is made out by some.

You must mean the unrefurbished Herc's as the two sent to L3 for refurbishing are still over there.

 

[Gibbo]

NZ Herald article re: UAV for NZDF

Interesting - especially given the Defence Ministers comment that he "did not want the White Paper turning into a shopping list". That suggests to me that we shouldn't expect to see a list of big ticket items come out if the review - more of the 'steady as we go' approach!

Spy drones on NZ defence wish list - National - NZ Herald News

 

[Twickiwi]

Back to the Future

Interesting - especially given the Defence Ministers comment that he "did not want the White Paper turning into a shopping list". That suggests to me that we shouldn't expect to see a list of big ticket items come out if the review - more of the 'steady as we go' approach!

Spy drones on NZ defence wish list - National - NZ Herald News

Wayne Mapp seems to have become a lot more parsimonious upon taking office. Who would have thought...

I have read (here I believe) the demise and non-replacement of the Andovers lamented as it filled a niche within the airlift capabilities of the RNZAF and freed the C-130s for longer/heavier duties.

The political noises made about a joint ANZAC airlift capability suggests that NZ will have to supply something to the mix, the only option being the C-130s. Sharing NZ's C-130s suggests having less operational capacity available for purely NZ tasks. In a perfect world NZ would stump up for a C-17 or two, a pack of C-130Js and there would be chips with everything. This not being a perfect world maybe a smaller platform for less demanding activities might the go.

Do people think the development of or access to a three platform airlift capability would be favourable/cost effective for NZ? ie RAAF/ANZAC C-17, RNZAF/ANZAC C-130, RNZAF smaller domestic airlift (C-27 or C295?).

 

[regstrup]

As I see it, NZ Airforce needs to get the most out of the planes, they have or will get in their inventory without getting to many different types of planes. That will make ecucation and logistic as simpel and cheap as possible with the few ressources allocated from the politicians.

The most important task for the Airforce is in my opinion transport, patrol and support to the army, navy and civilian communities of NZ and Oceania and be able to do some offensive strikes against enemy shipping before they reach New Zealand.

So here is, what I think could be a realistic proposal for the assets to do the job with the limited budget:

Long range patrol and attack on possible enemy navy vessels
5-6 P-8 Poseidon

Multimission
4-6 EADS CASA C-235, C-295, Bombardier Q200 or Q300 for domestic transport and costal patrol around the EEZ of New Zealand

Transport
4-6 C-130J + existing Boing 757

Helicopters
8 NH-90 for transport and some SAR
12 A109 LUH for training, liason, Navy operations and some SAR

 

[MrConservative]

To look to the future it is sometimes good to consider the past. My views are in the context of what should/could be done and not read in the context of what would/will be done. I hope that is understood. :devil

In the early 90's the numbers of our RNZAF fixed wing aircraft was somewhat larger. There were the 5 C-130H's and of course back then we were still flying 10 Andovers for tactical transport (though only 4 by 1998). There was also the 3 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle VIP/Trainers which were later replaced by the B200's. We also had the six Orions and they were backed up by 3 Friendships which took on both Coastal fisheries patrol duties as well as wider aircrew training. There was also the 3 Boeing 727's. In those days we kept in the air 20 A-4's and 16 Strikemasters aloft.

Thus in 1990 we possessed 30 fixed wing multi-engine aircraft;

Transport
5 x C-130H, 10 x C.1 Andover, 3 Golden Eagle and the 3 Boeings. Some 21 fixed wing aircraft.

Maritime
6 x P-3, 3 x Friendship.


By 1998 it was reduced to 21;

Transport
5 x C-130H, 4 x C.1 Andover, 4 x B200, 2 x Boeings. Thus 15 Transport Aircraft.

Maritime
6 x P-3.

Today in 2009 we are down to 17 fixed wing multi-engine aircraft;

Transport
5 x C-130, 4 x B200, 2 x Boeing 757 (11 Transport)

Maritime
6 x P-3 (6 Maritime)

So in many respects we have basically lost the Andover and Friendship capability. After the Friendships and most of the Andovers went in the early/mid 1990's the 4 remaining Andovers did a number of roles. Multi-Engine training, Tactical Lift, VIP, and Coastal Patrol. When the Andovers went in the late 1990's and were not replaced this placed more stress on the aging C-130H's and the Orions.

So in many respects the operational loss of the four Andovers is possibly just as greater a loss and degradation to the RNZAF as were the A-4's and the MB339's.

In my opinion before we settle on any of the medium term or long term replacement platforms for the C-130-H and the Orion, I would like to see the Governemnt get this missing Andover/Friendship capability back. Back in 1990 we had 13 aircraft covering the spread of roles. By 1998 we had four. It would seem that at a minimum 4-6 smaller "Andover/B200" quick change multi-mission aircraft for light tactical transport, VIP, basic Coastal Patrol, and multi-engine training are essential. Whether the platform is a C27J or CASA 235, a used ex commercial or leased Saab 2000 or Q300 quick change as long as this capability platform is returned. This along with increasing the A109LUH fleet to a minimum of 8 aircraft are the immediate short term replacement needs (Up to 10 for the medium term and possibly further numbers when the Seasprite replacement and further NH-90's are considered.)

If we are looking at the medium term post 2020 and really making the the NZDF contribution to the ANZAC Airlift wing concept work, then a 4 x C130J / 2 x C17A mix would be ideal. I would be happy with 6 x C130J's and around 4 C27's (shared power plant) in any case as long as their is no degradation of capability. Perfect world not really, more pragmatism and orthodoxy in my view. The perfect world would be 18 F/A-18E's

If I was to consider what the NZDF transport / maritime aircraft fleet eventually should look like in 15 years (2024) after a all types have been acquired and settled in, I would say a mix of 2 x C17A, 2 x B757, 4 x C130J, 3-4 C27J (note powerplant synergies) covering broadly transport duties and 2 x P8 and 4 x Global Hawk (Or GA Avenger which would offer strike capability with A/shp the next development) as part of an ANZAC BAMS component with a further 4 x C27 in maritime configuration broadly covering the EEZ patrol requirements.

In 1990 we operated 6 different types of fixed wing multi-engined aircraft. In 1998 that was down to 5. Currently in 2009 we operate four. I believe the RNZAF in the context of an ANZAC airlift wing and BAMS wing in partnership with the RAAF and the level of integration, matinence centralisation and economies of scale savings involved, we would be able to operationally cope with a mix of the C17, P-8, C130J, C27J, Global Hawk (GA Avenger) and B757 in the medium future as well. The only odd ball at that stage would be a then aging B757 (produced 89/90) which would be replaced ideally with a 737 platform (per P-8 and BBJ that the RAAF use) around mid the 2020's. We need to keep in mind that C17A's deep matinence is US based, C27J and C130J share a power plant and other systems, Air NZ CHC / Safe Air have for years handled commercial and large military aircraft servicing projects from Q300's up to 747-400's in the South Island.

 

[Lucasnz]

]So in many respects the operational loss of the four Andovers is possibly just as greater a loss and degradation to the RNZAF as were the A-4's and the MB339's.

Treason - but given the type of operations being undertaken today, you are correct.

In my opinion before we settle on any of the medium term or long term replacement platforms for the C-130-H and the Orion, I would like to see the Governemnt get this missing Andover/Friendship capability back. Back in 1990 we had 13 aircraft covering the spread of roles. This along with increasing the A109LUH fleet to a minimum of 8 aircraft are the immediate short term replacement needs (Up to 10 for the medium term and possibly further numbers when the Seasprite replacement and further NH-90's are considered.)

The way I see things heading is the RNZAF reducing back to 5 P-3 replacement aircraft (being the P8) and the introduction of a fleet of 3-5 manned or UAV aircraft picking up the EEZ responsbility of the the existing P-3 fleet. The Freindships were only had a limited survelliance capability but seemed to do the job.

Having read some of the earlier posts their seems to be a range of options in relation to Strategic and Tactical transport. The former mix of Herc's and Andovers worked well. I would suggest however that given the increasing size of some of the NZDF equipment it might
be time to deep six any consideration of the C130J and look at other options that could improve the strategic lift capability of the RNZAF.

I think the minimum number of LUH is at least 10 and more likley to be closer to 15 (5 for the RNZN / SAS, the existing 5 for training plus a further number in the South Island). I do wonder whether we've purchased enough NH-90 to support the continous operations the army is currently engaged in.

 

[swerve]

The Skyhawks & MB-339s have been sold, at last.

Radio New Zealand News : Stories : 2009 : 10 : 08 : Sale of Skyhawks gains US approval

The sale of mothballed New Zealand Air Force planes to a US company has gained final approval in Washington, says Minister of Defence Wayne Mapp.

The $155 million deal to sell the the 17 Skyhawk fighter bombers and 17 Aermacchi jet trainers, following the disbanding of the Air Force strike wing, was announced in principle four years ago.

However the sale to an Arizona-based pilot training company needed approval from the State Department and Congress.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms also needed to agree to the purchase, because the ejector seats contain explosives.

Dr Mapp says now that has been given, the company will send staff to New Zealand to check out the aircraft.

 

[MrConservative]

The Skyhawks & MB-339s have been sold, at last.

Radio New Zealand News : Stories : 2009 : 10 : 08 : Sale of Skyhawks gains US approval

Not quite sold Swerve. Just that they are now allowed to be sold. There was a 'heads of agreement' back in 2005, but this got stalled. Many felt - that "deal" did not stack up and was merely a "place holder' deal to attract training contracts and financing for better acquistitions. The government are scurrying around trying to talk it up - but there are still major issues to be resolved, firstly a bona fide buyer with a cash deposit and follow up financing in place. Very hard to do in this finance climate.

The other issue is that it will cost upwards of $20 million to put the A-4 fleet back into flight status.

The question is who would want to buy 40 year old A-4's with 8500hrs on the meter. Who would want to buy a Macchi with a poked orphan engine now unsupportable from RR with 20 year old basic avionics.:shudder

 

[jchan77]

A good plan

I have a good future plan for the RNZAF

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Force

Combat:

• 20 to 30 Modern Western Fighter Aircraft (JAS-39 NG Gripen or F-16E)
• 10 to 12 Light strike/trainer jets (BAE Hawk)


Maritime Patrol:

• 6 Maritime strike aircraft - P-3 Orion


AWACS:

• 3 Saab Erieye planes (Can be in jet or turbo prop platform)


Cargo Transport

• 10 transportation aircraft (A400M or C-130J)


VIP Transport

• 2 Boeing 757-200


Helicopter Transport:

• 12 Medium sized helicopters (NH90 )
• 16 light helicopters (A109)


Unmanned Aerial Vehicles:

• 6 remote controlled reconnaissance UAVs (MQ-1 Predator or MQ-9 Reaper --- good for maritime patrol)
• 10 Saab Skelder UAV (Good for search and rescue, detecting enemy units and peacekeeping missions)


Ground Radar

• 10 Saab Giraffe AMB radar vehicles


Other Branches of the NZDF

• Saab CEROS 200/AESA radar on every naval warships
• Saab Trackfire RWS to be fitted on every armoured vehicles/tanks in the Army.


Otherwise second hand F-16s or F-18s will be purchased instead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a group on bebo that wants its Air Force back ------------------->>>>>>>>> bebo.com - Profile from We Want Our Air Force Back <kiwiairforce>

Check out their page!

 

[Sea Toby]

A different view for increasing RNZAF patrol and transport capabilities, not necessarily Saab:

Zero fighter aircraft.
Four P-8 Poseidons and four CASA 235 patrol aircraft.
Four KC 390 and four C-27J aircraft plus the two Boeing 727 for transport aircraft.
Eight NH90s and five AB109 helicopters.
Four to six PC 9 air trainers. Use a CASA 235 for navigational training.

For overseas UN deployments, lease or buy a Boeing 747 cargo aircraft for heavy 100 tonne loads and long range. Should work well with the Boeing 727s. Keep in mind the KC 390 aircraft can used as air tankers as well.... extending the range of many aircraft....