NZDF General discussion thread

[ngatimozart]

HAHAHA - maybe RNZAF should "sub-contract" to the RAF -- it would pay for the upgrades, enhance the defense ties etc .....

There was a briefing paper on the 5 Sqn Assn. Website (New Page 3) - that detailed the P3-K2 update. Sure there was mention of LINK 16 being fitted, and by extension LINK 12 was already fitted. Unfortunately it's not there any more.

Looking through the scrapbook section, I see even the RAN's "mighty' Collins haven't completely avoided been spotted by the P3s .... though of course an exercise is just that.

Yes but exercise works both ways and no sub C.O., worth his salt is going to want be spotted. I'm ex RNZAF & RNZNVR and there is no way in Gods green earth you will get me inside a sub unless it is firmly tide up alongside preferably bolted weld and concreted to the wharf just to be on the safe side. I have be inside a sub twice. Once at Wellington 1981 a RAN Oberon and two years at Fremantle where they have an Oberon class sub, HMAS Ovens very firmly fixed to the slipway as part of the Maritime Museum. So I take my hat off to submariners. However I have difficultly understanding the concept of deliberately sinking your ship and then you might have some pugnacious idiot dropping explosive bricks on you. It's not as though you can leap over the side if it all turns to custard. Think I'd rather face a very angry battalion of Viet Cong.

 

[RubiconNZ]

UK MOD reckon they can use rotary wing assets to cover gap left by Nimrod scrapping. So maybe they enter that in Fincastle.

That or a Hercules the other aircraft to "fill" the gap.

 

[RegR]

You have picked right on the money RegR.

Cabinet Strategy Document STR Min (09) 2511 outlines the optimised
Maritime Patrol Package once the P-3K2 retires in 2025.

4 x Boeing P-8
5 x Short Range Surveillance and Tactical Transport Aircraft (Rumoured CN-235/295)
3 x Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (Rumoured RQ-4)

Plus
Sat-Com & Sat-Surv capability (Possible Multi-Agency NZGOVT).

That is good news MrC as these are surely bare minimum in terms of operational, maintanence and spare, otherwise we end up with a ANZAC type shortage resulting in a possible gap (therefore failure) depending on frigate state, 2 difficult, 3 less so, 4 covered. Any less would be a struggle to meet outputs, hopefully between now and then (2025) the numbers may improve, at the very least remain the same and not succumb to the dreaded budget axe or 'expert reveiw'.

Understood finances for aquisition and through life are some major determining factors for numbers total however less numbers of a type may well end up costing more in the long run through higher usage(therefore shorter lifespan), less operational time due to having to cover training, availability, multiple taskings etc. The defence forces new found love for simulators will go along way in combating low platform numbers and free up more 'actual' time so I guess that is something.

Just wondering if you had a link to this site as looks as though it would provide an interesting (and more definite) insight into the future NZDF in regards to frigates, army structure, air transport composition etc.

Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

That is good news MrC as these are surely bare minimum in terms of operational, maintanence and spare, otherwise we end up with a ANZAC type shortage resulting in a possible gap (therefore failure) depending on frigate state, 2 difficult, 3 less so, 4 covered. Any less would be a struggle to meet outputs, hopefully between now and then (2025) the numbers may improve, at the very least remain the same and not succumb to the dreaded budget axe or 'expert reveiw'.

Understood finances for aquisition and through life are some major determining factors for numbers total however less numbers of a type may well end up costing more in the long run through higher usage(therefore shorter lifespan), less operational time due to having to cover training, availability, multiple taskings etc. The defence forces new found love for simulators will go along way in combating low platform numbers and free up more 'actual' time so I guess that is something.

Just wondering if you had a link to this site as looks as though it would provide an interesting (and more definite) insight into the future NZDF in regards to frigates, army structure, air transport composition etc.

Cheers

Take a trip over to the MinDef site RegR and you will find it along with all the other recent documents regarding the DWP. They are now putting such Cabinet Doc's and unclassified reports up for public consumption.
Its good to get a handle of current thinking - but the spectre of Treasury will as always rear its head. Their is a lot of truth in the old adage in that a Kiwi soldiers' biggest enemy is a policy advisor at the Treasury.

 

[recce.k1]

http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/def...eview-white-paper-cabinet-combined-papers.pdf

Have a read but the summaries/graphs cut to the chase:
Pages 73,74, 79, 85 (and page 91 helps put geography in context for joe public).

Army could get alot bigger (p 79) if the funding allows (if memory serves correct, larger than the pre-ANZUS bust up figures - wasn't it 5000 plus at that time? RNZAF is still smaller than it's former self in those days, if mem is correct they were 4000+ back in the 80's and RNZN 2000+ (although the 4 Leanders then goobled up 1000 crew - Lucasnz could offer insights/corrections here).

Could be wrong but the new personnel figures in these docs probably don't reflect the VfM civilianising though...

Pity the global financial crisis came along and scuppered any plans to provide the additional tools and personnel to match the Gov rhetoric (of defending NZ & Aus).

Would have been interesting to see any other higher capability plans that allegedly Treasury knocked back for DWP10 (as alluded to in the Ewing-Jarvie docs released last year when ACT nearly imploded - pg 77 and comments in the media at the time).

In the light of the financial situation noose, I think Mapp and Heather Roy did mostly rather well with DWP (sure, grumbles aside about non-ACF & 3rd Frigate etc) in terms of retaining existing capabilities, although it is a bare minimum IMO, as some areas still allow the potential for policy failures (eg not enough Frigates, OPV's, C-130's and helos [DWP suggests 10 NH90's min], let alone any new combat kit etc).

 

[ngatimozart]

http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/def...eview-white-paper-cabinet-combined-papers.pdf

Have a read but the summaries/graphs cut to the chase:
Pages 73,74, 79, 85 (and page 91 helps put geography in context for joe public).

Army could get alot bigger (p 79) if the funding allows (if memory serves correct, larger than the pre-ANZUS bust up figures - wasn't it 5000 plus at that time? RNZAF is still smaller than it's former self in those days, if mem is correct they were 4000+ back in the 80's and RNZN 2000+ (although the 4 Leanders then goobled up 1000 crew - Lucasnz could offer insights/corrections here).

Could be wrong but the new personnel figures in these docs probably don't reflect the VfM civilianising though...

Pity the global financial crisis came along and scuppered any plans to provide the additional tools and personnel to match the Gov rhetoric (of defending NZ & Aus).

Would have been interesting to see any other higher capability plans that allegedly Treasury knocked back for DWP10 (as alluded to in the Ewing-Jarvie docs released last year when ACT nearly imploded - pg 77 and comments in the media at the time).

In the light of the financial situation noose, I think Mapp and Heather Roy did mostly rather well with DWP (sure, grumbles aside about non-ACF & 3rd Frigate etc) in terms of retaining existing capabilities, although it is a bare minimum IMO, as some areas still allow the potential for policy failures (eg not enough Frigates, OPV's, C-130's and helos [DWP suggests 10 NH90's min], let alone any new combat kit etc).

When I got out of the RNZAF in 1982 if memory serves me correctly the establishment was about 4300 active personnel.

 

[recce.k1]

When I got out of the RNZAF in 1982 if memory serves me correctly the establishment was about 4300 active personnel.

Ta. In today's environment, it is good to see Army personnel boosted, and RNZN appears about right for its current fleet .... but Govt next needs to focus attention on re-building up the RNZAF again (and I'm not neccesarily hinting ACF/training "ACF" or armed-UAV's but wouldn't that be nice), I'm simply thinking the basics eg a larger air transport fleet (5 Hercs only allow for 2 to be deployed to support NZDF overseas with 1 in NZ for civil defence emergencies), rotary needs at least a 50% increase minimum eg 8 -> 12 NH90's (ideally double so Army always has helos for critical concurrent overseas deployments eg AStan & Timor etc), more naval helos, and something needs to be done with the jet transport fleet - 2x 757's isn't cutting it due to unavailability.

Then onto what the RNZAF needs to support 21st century operations (i.e what it lacks) - much heavier airlift to move the LAV's etc, more intelligence gathering aircraft (although the 4 short range MPA's will be a help), a few non-MPA CN295 types for transport, sort out VIP - something inbetween B200 and B757, 3-4 Chooks for heavy helo lift, consider air refueling a/c if that can extend manned MPA coverage in "emergencies" (pity there's no ACF to justify them)?, advanced turbo-prop trainers to step up from the CT-4 (already underway) ... the ideal again of fast jet for navy/army training (or better) ... and in an ideal world some twin engine float-planes based in the Pacific for whole-of-govt support eg SAR, transport etc? ... and of course UAV's (coming later it seems, could do with some Heron type for AStan now though) for Army and Navy UAV's to attach to the patrol craft. That's nothing too excessive (although more excessive would be nice) - defence expenditure up from 1% to 1.25%-1.4% of gdp should cover most of this.

 

[Lucasnz]

http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/def...eview-white-paper-cabinet-combined-papers.pdf
RNZN 2000+ (although the 4 Leanders then goobled up 1000 crew).

At its height the RNZN had just about 2800 regulars and about 400 VR personnel. This was around 1982. The actual figure posted to frigates during this period was usually around 750-900 as one frigate was usually in refit, though in 1990-1991 Southland was in extended reserve due to personnel shortages.

Just after the ANZUS dispute in 1986 the personnel figures drop significantly in 1987 but seem to recover the next year. I have a graph around on some stats for the RNZN in the 1980's-1990's. I'll see if I can post them in the RNZN thread either as a doc or as the tables themselves

 

[ngatimozart]

T.... but Govt next needs to focus attention on re-building up the RNZAF again (and I'm not neccesarily hinting ACF/training "ACF" or armed-UAV's but wouldn't that be nice), I'm simply thinking the basics eg a larger air transport fleet (5 Hercs only allow for 2 to be deployed to support NZDF overseas with 1 in NZ for civil defence emergencies), rotary needs at least a 50% increase minimum eg 8 -> 12 NH90's (ideally double so Army always has helos for critical concurrent overseas deployments eg AStan & Timor etc), more naval helos, and something needs to be done with the jet transport fleet - 2x 757's isn't cutting it due to unavailability.

Then onto what the RNZAF needs to support 21st century operations (i.e what it lacks) - much heavier airlift to move the LAV's etc, more intelligence gathering aircraft (although the 4 short range MPA's will be a help), a few non-MPA CN295 types for transport, sort out VIP - something inbetween B200 and B757, 3-4 Chooks for heavy helo lift, consider air refueling a/c if that can extend manned MPA coverage in "emergencies" (pity there's no ACF to justify them)?, advanced turbo-prop trainers to step up from the CT-4 (already underway) ... the ideal again of fast jet for navy/army training (or better) ... and in an ideal world some twin engine float-planes based in the Pacific for whole-of-govt support eg SAR, transport etc? ... and of course UAV's (coming later it seems, could do with some Heron type for AStan now though) for Army and Navy UAV's to attach to the patrol craft. That's nothing too excessive (although more excessive would be nice) - defence expenditure up from 1% to 1.25%-1.4% of gdp should cover most of this.

GDP. My opinion is that NZDF should have 2% of GDP. At present IMHO it is under resourced at 1% GDP. A sudden increase from 1% to 2% would not be politically desirable nor achievable given the influence of the treasury and present economic climate. But a gradual increase of say 0.2% + inflation over a 5 year period could be achievable in that it will give NZDF time to plan for the increase. And it might be more politically acceptable.

Navy helo's. The Seasprites are good at the moment but if we are to increase number of naval helos then is it economic to buy the RAN Seasprites, upgrade some too our present fleet specs and use rest for spares? Or look at a completely new helo for the navy with larger numbers? More inportantly does the RNZN have the capability to economically utilise an increase to its helo fleet?

NH90's. If I am correct the buy is 8 helos + 1 airframe for spares. In an ideal world 12 would be nice but the question is does the RNZAF have the capability to economically utilise 12 NH90's? There is a problem at the moment with the limited capability of the NH90 on the HMNZS Canterbury in sea states of 2 or greater. So that has to be sorted before we even think about extending the purchase.

Chooks? No we can't justify a buy nor do we have the the resources to sustain the operation of a small number of chooks. It would be uneconomical to have 3 or 4 chooks because of the tech support and back up alone.

2 x 757's is limiting and maybe that is something that needs to be looked at. One short to medium term option could be a buy of 2 more 757s and upgrading them to the the status of our to present aircraft. Or look at replacing the 727 maybe with 4 x 737-700 converted along lines of what 757s have at the moment. 737-700 would give commonality with P8 as same model airframe so tech support would be more economical.

Turbo trainers. Why not build a turbo prop version of CT4? Cresco is turbo prop version of Fletcher FU24, so we can do it here and it would be a logical progression. Also could be export market to RAAF when they look at replacing the PC9s.

Air to air refueling. RNZAF already have that capability with buddy system that was used with A4K's either from another A4K or a C130. Would need fitting of receiver system to current and future aircraft though. Buddy system more economical for us than say MRTT track that RAAF following.

Short range MTAs. No reason why can't be B200s or C27s or combination of both since RNZAF will have use for both B200s (or its replacement) now and in future and C27 or similar when C130s phased out. Possible heavy lift - medium lift combo A400M / C27 or similar. A400M will take LAVs.

Intel. Suggest P3K/ P8/C27/ B200/757 combo. IMHO intel doesn't need a dedicated aircraft platform like RC135 etc. We could design a portable palettised platform that quickly installed into an airframe and utilised or in case of P3K/P8 part of sensors.

On a historical note I see on the Classic Fighters website Omaka Classic Fighters Airshow that a Mosquito will be giving a flying display at Omaka (Blenheim) this Easter before it goes to the US. It is being rebuilt /restored in Auckland. Also a FW190 will be doing an engine ground run. They have a fully flyable Sopwith Camel powered by a original Gnome Rotary engine lubricated by castor oil. I saw it flying at Warbirds Over Wanaka in 2008.

 

[MrConservative]

GDP. My opinion is that NZDF should have 2% of GDP. At present IMHO it is under resourced at 1% GDP. A sudden increase from 1% to 2% would not be politically desirable nor achievable given the influence of the treasury and present economic climate. But a gradual increase of say 0.2% + inflation over a 5 year period could be achievable in that it will give NZDF time to plan for the increase. And it might be more politically acceptable.

Navy helo's. The Seasprites are good at the moment but if we are to increase number of naval helos then is it economic to buy the RAN Seasprites, upgrade some too our present fleet specs and use rest for spares? Or look at a completely new helo for the navy with larger numbers? More inportantly does the RNZN have the capability to economically utilise an increase to its helo fleet?

NH90's. If I am correct the buy is 8 helos + 1 airframe for spares. In an ideal world 12 would be nice but the question is does the RNZAF have the capability to economically utilise 12 NH90's? There is a problem at the moment with the limited capability of the NH90 on the HMNZS Canterbury in sea states of 2 or greater. So that has to be sorted before we even think about extending the purchase.

Chooks? No we can't justify a buy nor do we have the the resources to sustain the operation of a small number of chooks. It would be uneconomical to have 3 or 4 chooks because of the tech support and back up alone.

2 x 757's is limiting and maybe that is something that needs to be looked at. One short to medium term option could be a buy of 2 more 757s and upgrading them to the the status of our to present aircraft. Or look at replacing the 727 maybe with 4 x 737-700 converted along lines of what 757s have at the moment. 737-700 would give commonality with P8 as same model airframe so tech support would be more economical.

Turbo trainers. Why not build a turbo prop version of CT4? Cresco is turbo prop version of Fletcher FU24, so we can do it here and it would be a logical progression. Also could be export market to RAAF when they look at replacing the PC9s.

Air to air refueling. RNZAF already have that capability with buddy system that was used with A4K's either from another A4K or a C130. Would need fitting of receiver system to current and future aircraft though. Buddy system more economical for us than say MRTT track that RAAF following.

Short range MTAs. No reason why can't be B200s or C27s or combination of both since RNZAF will have use for both B200s (or its replacement) now and in future and C27 or similar when C130s phased out. Possible heavy lift - medium lift combo A400M / C27 or similar. A400M will take LAVs.

Intel. Suggest P3K/ P8/C27/ B200/757 combo. IMHO intel doesn't need a dedicated aircraft platform like RC135 etc. We could design a portable palettised platform that quickly installed into an airframe and utilised or in case of P3K/P8 part of sensors.

On a historical note I see on the Classic Fighters website Omaka Classic Fighters Airshow that a Mosquito will be giving a flying display at Omaka (Blenheim) this Easter before it goes to the US. It is being rebuilt /restored in Auckland. Also a FW190 will be doing an engine ground run. They have a fully flyable Sopwith Camel powered by a original Gnome Rotary engine lubricated by castor oil. I saw it flying at Warbirds Over Wanaka in 2008.

You have really covered the full gambit of NZDF topics all in one hit there NgatiMozart. I didn't know where to start in my reply. Might be easier if you drip feed out the line in terms of topic posts rather than throwing all the bait and burley out at once.

A future increase in GDP is required BUT not for another 3-5 years will we see any movement on that front. It will be basically flatlining for awhile – which I might add in today’s GFC and MinFin budget outlook is a big win. Vote Defence will mostly avoid the razor gang in monetary terms, though there will be blood on the floor in some places in the NZDF. I doubt we would see anything beyond 1.5%GDP tops even if it gets that far (unless things do look to go seriously pear shaped). I do agree a methodical increase over a period of years is the right way.

On the MinDef website there is an audit review of all the major acquisitions over the last decade buried deep in the NH-90 buy was the optimum purchase of Huey and Sioux replacements. The 2003 study noted 10 MUH and 10 LUH. Getting 8 and 8 means we will still be pretty well catered for.

My view if Pacific Aerospace the CT-4E makers wanted to develop any sort of military product that is there right to take the risk - but it should be there risk. New Zealand is not Japan that has (and used to be able to afford) a second Zaito budget to support pet industrial products such as the F-2. If there was a market for them to develop an advanced trainer I’m sure they would have done it by now – IF they could get the money.

For the 5Sqd/42Sqd role could you clarify? I cannot see P3K2’s flying alongside proposed P-8’s for anything more than a transition/phase in-out period. The B200’s are going and will likely be replaced by an aircraft closer in size and capability to the C-27J. That has been the intention – a new Andover.

I seriously don’t think they will buy and upgrade two more B757’s. In fact I think the B757’s will go when the C-130’s go at the end of this decade. Thats just me looking at the tea leaves.... That is why the A-400M is a serious contender as it gives tactical and strategic airlift and the minor roles such as VIP can be done cheaper than the B757.

 

[ngatimozart]

You have really covered the full gambit of NZDF topics all in one hit there NgatiMozart. I didn't know where to start in my reply. Might be easier if you drip feed out the line in terms of topic posts rather than throwing all the bait and burley out at once.


For the 5Sqd/42Sqd role could you clarify? I cannot see P3K2’s flying alongside proposed P-8’s for anything more than a transition/phase in-out period. The B200’s are going and will likely be replaced by an aircraft closer in size and capability to the C-27J. That has been the intention – a new Andover.

I seriously don’t think they will buy and upgrade two more B757’s. In fact I think the B757’s will go when the C-130’s go at the end of this decade. Thats just me looking at the tea leaves.... That is why the A-400M is a serious contender as it gives tactical and strategic airlift and the minor roles such as VIP can be done cheaper than the B757.

Sorry didn't mean to overload. Just like to chuck ideas up and see what flies and what doesn't.

I agree the P3/P8 combo will just be a transition phase. Miss the Andover but not the whine of the RR Darts - bit hard on the hangover :coffee. It was a good versatile aircraft and IMHO it did for us what the Caribou did for the RAAF. Both are hard to replace. I am unsure if the C27 can be used in a multi engine training role like the B200 is at the moment, but yes in the same roles as the Andover. Having said that, from late 1970's RNZAF NATS at Wigram had a couple of F27 Friendships (ex NAC) used in the navigation training role as well as some SAR and Maritime Recon work. They had hard points fitted to the wings with permanent pylon fuel tanks to give extra range.

 

[ngatimozart]

Just had a look at the specs for the C27J and the EADS C295 on Wikipedia. Interesting that the US Coast Guard operate the EADS HC144 which is a development of the CN235. The C295 was developed from the CN235. It has been mooted that the C27J would be used in the MRP role. This is a bit convoluted. Safe Air used to fly the Chatham Islands route with the Bristol B170 Frightener. For pax comfort they had a pax pod which slotted into the aircraft and was insulated and prefitted with seats. Anyone who had the (mis)fortune of flying in the old Bristol will know it was noisy and rained inside even though the weather was fine. It also had a built in head wind.

Ok point is that instead of having a dedicated C27 type for MRP like the USCG HC144, would it be feasible to have a pod setup that would slot into the C27J fitted out for MRP? I realise external sensors would have to be fitted to the aircraft but they can be fitted as pods on external hard points. That way we could buy say extra aircraft but achieve greater fleet utilisation and economies.

 

[Lucasnz]

Ok point is that instead of having a dedicated C27 type for MRP like the USCG HC144, would it be feasible to have a pod setup that would slot into the C27J fitted out for MRP? I realise external sensors would have to be fitted to the aircraft but they can be fitted as pods on external hard points. That way we could buy say extra aircraft but achieve greater fleet utilisation and economies.

It is doable but I don't know if its cost effective, given NZ would probably have to front up with the development cost of fitting a new radar etc, when the C-295 already has a modular capability. It seems to me that the C-295 offers the most practicable and flexible solution for NZ even after looking the the ATR MP

 

[RegR]

I was under the impression C-235 had already been mooted to fill the role with 5 AC and with its modular system could cover MPA/freight/PAX/VIP and multi engine trainer. C295 is slightly larger however is that always optimal for what it is replacing or covering?

It would be cheaper(nz govt fav) than C27and offer more flexibility than Q series(tail ramp, militarized etc). C27 would have been a bonus if we took up the C130J option for commonality reasons and ANZ operates Qs so a maintanence deal may have been struck.

I beleive the mix would be 2 MPA(c/w exterior fittings), 1 PAX/VIP(interchangable) and 2 standard freight (mini-hercs) however with the pods could be tweaked alittle to suit taskings dependant on maintanence schedules. Should remain fairly constant however as this type would be a bonus on what we currently have and is just filling a niche in roles and along with providing conversion training when not on primary task is just alleviating some pressure off the big birds.

Ideally I would like to see minimum 6 AC as we currently have 5 king airs to cover multi engine trg and limited VIP minus the extra roles, unsure how worked the current squadron is but someone will have to give up hours unless a sim is part of the package. A shadow still of the days of 10 andovers.

While we are here was just wondering about the heavy transport fleet, still on the fence over C130J v A400M, both have their merits and an interesting choice to be made hopefully in the near future. I like the J as it is proven, reliable, we already have some experience and should slot in easier however the A400 offers us capabilities that would greatly benefit our forces ie heavy lift but surely things such as operating costs, through life support and maintainability etc are going to be very big deciding factors. Also if we say can only get 5 A400s against maybe 8 J models (wishful but less even worse) then is that another trade off we need to take into account? Im not sure how similar operating costs would be between the 2 (but I assume A400 to be more) so maybe this would affect future taskings and cull/combine a few minor jobs, as I guess would be the case with NH90 and A109 on some current huey tasks with NH90 too overkill and A109 too small however both twin engine.

 

[Gibbo]

It is doable but I don't know if its cost effective, given NZ would probably have to front up with the development cost of fitting a new radar etc, when the C-295 already has a modular capability. It seems to me that the C-295 offers the most practicable and flexible solution for NZ even after looking the the ATR MP

Talk from MinDef has so far explicitly referred to CN235 or Q300 as possibilities for the short-range MPA. It has a $200M budget which I assume will need to cover support etc etc, so I don't think C27 is a starter (ie: on cost grounds).

W.Mapp spoke about getting 3 airframes, DWP mentions 4 - either way I think they're after a relatively easy 'off the shelf' option. Quite poss. a 2nd hand ex-civvy a/c (there are civvy CN235's).

The big question for me is will they have a half decent sensor suite (surface search radar & FLIR) or will they be largely relying on crew's eyesight!?! Sensors of course dramatically push the price up so for $200M I suspect it isn't likely to be a high-end military type.

Having said that both the CN235 & Q300 offer damn fine off-the-shelf MPA's for the sort of role anticipated.

 

[Gibbo]

I was under the impression C-235 had already been mooted to fill the role with 5 AC and with its modular system could cover MPA/freight/PAX/VIP and multi engine trainer. C295 is slightly larger however is that always optimal for what it is replacing or covering?

It would be cheaper(nz govt fav) than C27and offer more flexibility than Q series(tail ramp, militarized etc). C27 would have been a bonus if we took up the C130J option for commonality reasons and ANZ operates Qs so a maintanence deal may have been struck.

I beleive the mix would be 2 MPA(c/w exterior fittings), 1 PAX/VIP(interchangable) and 2 standard freight (mini-hercs) however with the pods could be tweaked alittle to suit taskings dependant on maintanence schedules. Should remain fairly constant however as this type would be a bonus on what we currently have and is just filling a niche in roles and along with providing conversion training when not on primary task is just alleviating some pressure off the big birds.

Ideally I would like to see minimum 6 AC as we currently have 5 king airs to cover multi engine trg and limited VIP minus the extra roles, unsure how worked the current squadron is but someone will have to give up hours unless a sim is part of the package. A shadow still of the days of 10 andovers.

While we are here was just wondering about the heavy transport fleet, still on the fence over C130J v A400M, both have their merits and an interesting choice to be made hopefully in the near future. I like the J as it is proven, reliable, we already have some experience and should slot in easier however the A400 offers us capabilities that would greatly benefit our forces ie heavy lift but surely things such as operating costs, through life support and maintainability etc are going to be very big deciding factors. Also if we say can only get 5 A400s against maybe 8 J models (wishful but less even worse) then is that another trade off we need to take into account? Im not sure how similar operating costs would be between the 2 (but I assume A400 to be more) so maybe this would affect future taskings and cull/combine a few minor jobs, as I guess would be the case with NH90 and A109 on some current huey tasks with NH90 too overkill and A109 too small however both twin engine.

Yep CN235 has to be my favourite over the Q300 simply due to it's increased flexibilty with the ramp etc. Not sure we'll be lucky enough to get 5 though based on DWP & what MinDef has said (although he did say '3 now & poss. more later' at one stage last year before DWP was released).

The French use the CN235 very succssfully in this area - out of New Caledonia - and they seem to visit NZ couple of times a year.

 

[Todjaeger]

Talk from MinDef has so far explicitly referred to CN235 or Q300 as possibilities for the short-range MPA. It has a $200M budget which I assume will need to cover support etc etc, so I don't think C27 is a starter (ie: on cost grounds).

W.Mapp spoke about getting 3 airframes, DWP mentions 4 - either way I think they're after a relatively easy 'off the shelf' option. Quite poss. a 2nd hand ex-civvy a/c (there are civvy CN235's).

The big question for me is will they have a half decent sensor suite (surface search radar & FLIR) or will they be largely relying on crew's eyesight!?! Sensors of course dramatically push the price up so for $200M I suspect it isn't likely to be a high-end military type.

Having said that both the CN235 & Q300 offer damn fine off-the-shelf MPA's for the sort of role anticipated.

Take a look at this post I had made earlier in this thread. The USCG HC-144A Ocean Sentry version of the CN-235 MPA already has radar and EO systems fitted, and has a modular system pallet (MSP) to control the sensors, which can be swapped out for cargo or passenger space.

If Government is willing to allocate NZ$200 mil, that would likely be sufficient for 3 airframe fitted with sensors and MSP, or perhaps as many as 4 airframes and 2 MSP. That is assuming that the RNZAF went with the same exact production version as the USCG. NZ$200 mil. might be able to be stretched even further if instead of getting HC-144A versions which includes some US components and assembly, the airframes are sourced from Spain/Indonesia, since US production would likely drive the price higher.

-Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

I was under the impression C-235 had already been mooted to fill the role with 5 AC and with its modular system could cover MPA/freight/PAX/VIP and multi engine trainer. C295 is slightly larger however is that always optimal for what it is replacing or covering?

It would be cheaper(nz govt fav) than C27and offer more flexibility than Q series(tail ramp, militarized etc). C27 would have been a bonus if we took up the C130J option for commonality reasons and ANZ operates Qs so a maintanence deal may have been struck.

I beleive the mix would be 2 MPA(c/w exterior fittings), 1 PAX/VIP(interchangable) and 2 standard freight (mini-hercs) however with the pods could be tweaked alittle to suit taskings dependant on maintanence schedules. Should remain fairly constant however as this type would be a bonus on what we currently have and is just filling a niche in roles and along with providing conversion training when not on primary task is just alleviating some pressure off the big birds.

Ideally I would like to see minimum 6 AC as we currently have 5 king airs to cover multi engine trg and limited VIP minus the extra roles, unsure how worked the current squadron is but someone will have to give up hours unless a sim is part of the package. A shadow still of the days of 10 andovers.

While we are here was just wondering about the heavy transport fleet, still on the fence over C130J v A400M, both have their merits and an interesting choice to be made hopefully in the near future. I like the J as it is proven, reliable, we already have some experience and should slot in easier however the A400 offers us capabilities that would greatly benefit our forces ie heavy lift but surely things such as operating costs, through life support and maintainability etc are going to be very big deciding factors. Also if we say can only get 5 A400s against maybe 8 J models (wishful but less even worse) then is that another trade off we need to take into account? Im not sure how similar operating costs would be between the 2 (but I assume A400 to be more) so maybe this would affect future taskings and cull/combine a few minor jobs, as I guess would be the case with NH90 and A109 on some current huey tasks with NH90 too overkill and A109 too small however both twin engine.

I would plumb for 4 or 5 A400Ms rather than 8 C130Js because the A400Ms give us far greater capability, yes TOL cost will be larger but I believe benefits will out weigh costs. The A400M will lift the LAV where the C130 can't. The A400M gives us greater ability to deploy relief aid quicker which is always a favourite with politicians. It should take a NH90 and definitely multiple A109 airframes. It has just under twice the payload capacity of the C130J. By the time we get to the purchasing process the A400M should be proven and in service. C130J also would be short sighted because we would only be extending heavy lift issues we have now deploying heavy items like the LAV. I think we had to hire the USAF to do our heavy lifts into AfGhan and we've used Antonov freight to do heavy lift for us before.

Ok C27 is to expensive and CN235 seems to be the favourite especially if there are preexisting modules for it. The CN235 is a relatively old aircraft (maiden flight 1983) so by the time we come to purchase it, will it be a legacy aircraft? Will CASA/IPTN or EADS provide TOL support for it? The C295 made its maiden flight in 1998 and since it is a direct development of the CN235 the aforementioned modules theoretically should slot in. Also by the time we are in purchase window the sensors on offer will be better than previously available. Maybe off the shelf military sensor buy rather than untried new tech. As to quantity be it CN235 or C295, 5 definitely not enough, 10 would be nice but given budget and present economic climate most we could hope for would be 8 and that is wishful thinking. IMHO Q300 not an option because doesn't give cargo versatility.

With regard to the NH90 / Iroquois, the NH90 gives greater ability to do what Iroquois can't. Don't get me wrong Iroquois great helo but is past it's time. Also Iroquois / Sioux combo doesn't give anywhere flexibility or operational capacity that NH90 / A109 will.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Take a look at this post I had made earlier in this thread. The USCG HC-144A Ocean Sentry version of the CN-235 MPA already has radar and EO systems fitted, and has a modular system pallet (MSP) to control the sensors, which can be swapped out for cargo or passenger space.

If Government is willing to allocate NZ$200 mil, that would likely be sufficient for 3 airframe fitted with sensors and MSP, or perhaps as many as 4 airframes and 2 MSP. That is assuming that the RNZAF went with the same exact production version as the USCG. NZ$200 mil. might be able to be stretched even further if instead of getting HC-144A versions which includes some US components and assembly, the airframes are sourced from Spain/Indonesia, since US production would likely drive the price higher.

-Cheers

I couldn't agree more re: HC-144 Ocean Sentry an excellent aircraft which meets range and mission capability, the pallet mission module sounds perfect allow a relatively rapid re-role. The range of the OC is also vital feature which from basic research seems moderately greater than the Q-300.

4-5 would work nicely in the all the active multi-mission requirements. This would certainly pick up the any reduction in the large MPA number. (6- P-3K2- 4 P-8's

However would these aircraft be to complex/valuable for twin engine training not to mention its size?

I also note the base CN-235 allows for 6 weapon hard points, while probably not necessary for the current environment, it certainly allows excellent room for capability growth. Weapons carried include Harpoons, Torpedo's and the Indonesians have mounted the Exocet on it.

The following is sourced from the USCG Ocean Sentry Page
Perhaps it would be possible to plug into the USCG buy, expected orders are 36 however only 14 I believe have been ordered,(11 in service) with a further 3 in production, USCG has an the rights to exercise an option for 6 by 2015. By gaining access to this run or a future run, we should have the opportunity to drive costs down for NZ and even the USCG, or at least if the USCG doesn't want to exercise the option now take it for them, USCG has a total planned buy of 36 airframes.

Other than fiscal concerns, I imagine the only other potential issues

I don't believe parts or support will be an issue given the wide spread use of the CN-235/ C-295 in service with over 40 countries for military and government agency purposes. Local uses include France, (New Cal) PNG, Indonesia and Malaysia.

The Q-300 route will be the cheap route as Bombardier have ceased production of the any Prop aircraft bar the Q-400. This would require a lease/purchase of second hand aircraft, while Air New Zealand operates 23 Q-300's and performs most maintenance in country, anything other than a temporary lease would be short sighted, it would also severely restrict the capability of the mid range MPA.

 

[Todjaeger]

I would plumb for 4 or 5 A400Ms rather than 8 C130Js because the A400Ms give us far greater capability, yes TOL cost will be larger but I believe benefits will out weigh costs. The A400M will lift the LAV where the C130 can't. The A400M gives us greater ability to deploy relief aid quicker which is always a favourite with politicians. It should take a NH90 and definitely multiple A109 airframes. It has just under twice the payload capacity of the C130J. By the time we get to the purchasing process the A400M should be proven and in service. C130J also would be short sighted because we would only be extending heavy lift issues we have now deploying heavy items like the LAV. I think we had to hire the USAF to do our heavy lifts into AfGhan and we've used Antonov freight to do heavy lift for us before.

Ok C27 is to expensive and CN235 seems to be the favourite especially if there are preexisting modules for it. The CN235 is a relatively old aircraft (maiden flight 1983) so by the time we come to purchase it, will it be a legacy aircraft? Will CASA/IPTN or EADS provide TOL support for it? The C295 made its maiden flight in 1998 and since it is a direct development of the CN235 the aforementioned modules theoretically should slot in. Also by the time we are in purchase window the sensors on offer will be better than previously available. Maybe off the shelf military sensor buy rather than untried new tech. As to quantity be it CN235 or C295, 5 definitely not enough, 10 would be nice but given budget and present economic climate most we could hope for would be 8 and that is wishful thinking. IMHO Q300 not an option because doesn't give cargo versatility.

With regard to the NH90 / Iroquois, the NH90 gives greater ability to do what Iroquois can't. Don't get me wrong Iroquois great helo but is past it's time. Also Iroquois / Sioux combo doesn't give anywhere flexibility or operational capacity that NH90 / A109 will.

I would not be so worried about the CN-235 becoming 'legacy' aircraft just yet. While first flight was achieved in 1983, the CN-235 did not enter service with Spain and Indonesia until 1991. Further, the USCG Deepwater programme selected the CN-235 in 2002, with the first HC-144A Ocean Sentry delivery being made in 2006. As of 20th December, 2010 3 HC-144A Ocean Sentry aircraft remain to be delivered. Given that the USCG is using the HC-144A to amongst other things, replace its aging fleet of HU-25 Guardian (Falcon Jet) MPA which has been in service since 1983 at the latest, it seems reasonable to expect that the USCG will still be using the Ocean Sentry for 25+ years as well. This suggests that parts, support and upgrades will be reasonably available for some time.

While it might be a few years before any RNZAF medium-ranged MPA can, err, get off the ground... I would expect that the order would likely occur within the next five years or so. Given that the USCG order is still in production, and the aircraft itself is a versatile transport, I would expect that if/when a Kiwi order would be possible, the aircraft would be available.

As for the A400M as opposed to the C-130J... I am not certain one way or the other which would be a 'better' option. The C-130J, already being in service is an already known quantity, is already in service (and maintenance) with allies both regionally and elsewhere. The aircraft itself is also similar to what the RNZAF already has in service, which means that IOC could potentially be reached faster from the time of first delivery. The downside of course is that with the aircraft being similar to the C-130H Hercs in service (or being modified...) the -J Hercs have similar limitations in terms of space/weight transported, which for moving vehicles like the NZLAVs can be an issue.

Potential issues I forsee with a RNZAF order for the A400M, start with cost, both the initial purchase cost and TOL. Being larger aircraft, which ran into developmental issues which caused delays and increased costs, the purchase price is likely to be higher, which might cause further issues. The numbers I come across for the A400M here suggests a purchase price of ~$120 mil. to $130 mil. vs. ~$67 mil. for the C-130J. Other figures which I have come across suggest a price of somewhere upwards of 122 mil.€ per A400M. Other areas of concern are that the fully operational version is not expected until ~2018 per this article. While Germany has cut its initial order of 60 A400M down to 53, it is also planning on selling 13 of those immediately to further reduce German costs from the programme. The initial German deliveries of the A400M are not expected until ~2014, and those are not going to be the 'full' versions. While the A400M is to be a more capable transport aircraft than the C-130J, what I am not so certain of is whether that difference in capability is worth the NZDF either spending more on lift aircraft, having reduced numbers of aircraft, or delaying the C-130H replacement.

As I understand it, the blown out of all proportion SLEP for the C-130H was to extend the existing Kiwi Hercs ~5 years, until around 2015 or so. The future airlift aircraft was then to be in the pipeline, working towards reaching IOC if not already at IOC. The A400M might not work within that timeframe. Particularly since orders have already been booked for ~180 aircraft, and many of the A400M partner-nations have a real need to replace their aged airlift fleets.

With all the above in mind, my priority in concerns for RNZAF airlift replacement is as follows.

1. Time of Initial delivery
2. Time to reach IOC
3. Purchase cost
4. Space/Cargo/Range capabilities
5. TCOL

While I suspect that the first three concerns can be met more easily by the C-130J, IMO the real deal maker/breaker is whether or not both the A400M and C-130J can meet the first two concerns before the C-130H have to be replaced or undergo a further SLEP.

-Cheers