Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Todjaeger]

For the B757 the hour costs are $111,521.26 per flight hour - Scrap em.

As a side note the infamous Wikipedia gives the unit cost $US of C-130J as $62 million and once converted $184,021 million for the A400M. I would suggest that as cost is king in NZ the up front cost winner will be the C-130J.

Thanks very much for the analysis Lucasnz, that was the sort of info I was really looking for. Having said that I would disagree with scrapping the Broomsticks. Sell them instead, and get what can be had for them. But more importantly, get that bloated operating cost off the books.

Also, the figure which keeps recurring when I look into C-130J Herc prices is ~US$67 mil. On an initial cost basis, then somewhere between two to three C-130J's can be had per A400M. That sort of differential is one of the reasons why I am not so certain that A400M is the way NZ should go for airlift.

I went back through following the estimates for per flight hour operating costs. If the amount budgeted and available to spend for airlift replacement is NZ$1.6 bil. that works out to ~US$1.2 bil. at the current exchange rates. By my estimates, that would potentially provide sufficient funding for 2 C-17 Globemaster III's and ~8 C-130J Hercules II's to fly with Kiwi roundels, as also provide some funding for intial support and training. While I expect that would have somewhat higher operating costs than the RNZAF airlift currently has, that would largely be due to the simple fact that there would be ~3 additional aircraft in inventory, past the numbers currently in service. OTOH, since the newer aircraft might be less expensive to operate, there could actually be a net savings to the NZDF. That to me is real VfM.

-Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

The critical issue with the flight hours for the B757 is the capital charge. The charge is levied on the value of the asset so given the 757 is newer the hourly cost is I think inflated with regards to the Capital Charge, which is an unusual best in government circles. Depreciation you would have to wear under NZIFRS or any accounting standard. I haven't being able to break that cost down by aircraft type and the fixed asset register isn't detailed enough.

I maybe wrong, but I seem to recall reading a UK budget document that showed capital charge so the comparison is likely close, however I couldn't find any reference during a quick search just now. Given the higher cost of C-17 and the lower operating per hour cost I would venture, without detailed analysis (which is where the juice is), there is an economy of scale issue both at the service level and aircraft operating level. If that were the case RNZAF Operation of the C-17 would be cost prohibitive. We would be better off with more C130J.

Would a purchased C-17A airframe with us buying into a joint ANZAC airlift arrangement, offset the economies of scale issue?

The thing that concerns me is that once the Broomsticks go we will still not have that "1000" hours of strategic lift replaced. To take a tactical load a strategic distance. The C-130J and it is a wonderful aircraft for the majority of our needs which are in the tactical role falls short in the strategic aspect.

 

[Todjaeger]

I wonder Todj if they are waiting for the lead of the ADF in terms of the Caribou replacement. That is a C-295M and C-27J run-off isnt it?

The Baby J can do that 3 pallet tasking you have highlighted - but the C-295M is a known quantity as a Coastal patrol platform.

Question - to save me hunting for it - can FITS per the MPS be easily adapted for the C-27J so as to do EZZ patrolling?

I think Copewell on their website mention the A-400M with the Mark V dual rail.

AFAIK the ADF is still trying to decide what route to follow with the DHC-4 Caribou replacement. The suggestions I have heard tossed about range from additional CH-47 Chinook helicopters in Army colours, to CN-235, CN-295 or C-27J as options. Of course, that was largely before significant holds were put on programmes to reduce spending by Government. Things might well have changed.

With respect to the C-27J Spartan being able to be fitted with FITS and/or MSP, at a factual level, I do not know. I strongly suspect it could be arranged fairly safely and easily, but I am not certain on that. The reason I suspect it could be done though, is that I was wrong in a prior post. In 2005 a contract was awared for new HC-130J under a portion of the Deepwater programme. As part of that contract, the HC-130J will have the same mission pallet as the HC-235A, which is now known as the HC-144A Ocean Sentry. Given that the C-130J and C-27J have similar avionics and glass cockpits, I assume it would be possible to fitout a C-27J with the requisite sensors, and when needed connect the MSP.

I admit, I know what it is to assume.

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

Capital Charge amounted to $43.696 million or 19.10% of budget. Depreciation accounted for another $40.023 million or 18.81% of budget, though I seem to recall this maybe actually funded. In total 37.90% of the budget goes towards accounting entries besides receivables and payable's. If I recall rightly there was a change in accounting policy about 2 years ago and GST in no longer shown in the costs outputs. The standard accounting treatment of treating income and expenditure as net of GST was applied. If you accept that the balance of the budget is cash, which it may not be: hourly operating costs are $50,341.60 across the fleet. For the C-130 including capital charge and depreciation the hourly cost gives an operating cost of $64,498 per flight hour. For the B757 the hour costs are $111,521.26 per flight hour - Scrap em.

Thanks too for the analysis Lucas. What would be the impact on capital charge and depreciation costs and thus the hourly operating costs, if NZ were to lease aircraft eg from Boeing (C-17)(like the RAF originally did with their first 4 a/c) or LM (C-130J-30)? Presumably lower? Without re-reading the VfM report I thought the reviewers were suggesting this was one way of reducing overhead/operational costs? (Or would the Govt simply provide less funding for operating the air transport fleet to even things out)?

I notice Air NZ has been leasing aircraft since they first acquired 747's to replace the DC10's in the '80's - is that for the same accounting (cost reduction) reasons?

 

[Lucasnz]

Thanks too for the analysis Lucas. What would be the impact on capital charge and depreciation costs and thus the hourly operating costs, if NZ were to lease aircraft eg from Boeing (C-17)(like the RAF originally did with their first 4 a/c) or LM (C-130J-30)? Presumably lower? Without re-reading the VfM report I thought the reviewers were suggesting this was one way of reducing overhead/operational costs? (Or would the Govt simply provide less funding for operating the air transport fleet to even things out)?

I notice Air NZ has been leasing aircraft since they first acquired 747's to replace the DC10's in the '80's - is that for the same accounting (cost reduction) reasons?

From a commercial perspective leasing has a couple of advantages. It avoids the initial outlay on the plan, which can be disruptive to cashflow, plus provides an upfront tax advantage that you wouldn't get purchasing to own. Most leases are for fixed terms but you can surrender a lease (in some contracts), for a cost.

Leasing would avoid the capital charge and depreciation issues because NZ wouldn't own the aircraft. Leases can be cost effective over the short to medium but over the long term are less likely to be so. Factors such as the residual value of the aircraft (if any), dry / wet lease, whether interest is charged etc come into play here.

I'm not keen on specialist equipment by the military being leased, mainly for sovereignty issues.

Would a purchased C-17A airframe with us buying into a joint ANZAC airlift arrangement, offset the economies of scale issue?

The thing that concerns me is that once the Broomsticks go we will still not have that "1000" hours of strategic lift replaced. To take a tactical load a strategic distance. The C-130J and it is a wonderful aircraft for the majority of our needs which are in the tactical role falls short in the strategic aspect.

Possibly would be a safe response given it would lower the depreciation and depending on ownership lower or remove capital charge costs though bulk purchasing power. The optimal solution for NZ would be for Australia to purchase the aircraft and NZ contribute to operation though personnel and maintenance. Again sovereignty issues I think when differences in foreign policy arise, but these could be overcome by aircrew assignment.

 

[recce.k1]

Leasing would avoid the capital charge and depreciation issues because NZ wouldn't own the aircraft. Leases can be cost effective over the short to medium but over the long term are less likely to be so. Factors such as the residual value of the aircraft (if any), dry / wet lease, whether interest is charged etc come into play here.

Ta for that. Thinking back to the F-16 deal it was for an initial lease for several years and then the option was to purchase outright or continue the lease.

So I wonder for any new airlift aircraft (heavy?) NZ could lease for a period of time and then after a negotiated period of time again either buy (or continue to lease)? If it is decided that purchase is the recommendation hopefully the book value of the a/c is lower and thus lower cap charge and depreciation?

 

[RubiconNZ]

So I wonder for any new airlift aircraft (heavy?) NZ could lease for a period of time and then after a negotiated period of time again either buy (or continue to lease)? If it is decided that purchase is the recommendation hopefully the book value of the a/c is lower and thus lower cap charge and depreciation?

What is the cost of leasing the Anotov when we need it, is it cheaper to continue using this for our global strategic lift when needed rather than a full term lease.

I'm not sure how the NZ public would feel about a lease, just look at the reaction to the Government's new vehicle fleet buy.

 

[recce.k1]

Advanced trainer aircraft update

CAF says MB339's out, instead looking at Pilatus PC-9 or training off-shore options ...

Air force eyes new, faster planes for trainee pilots
By Hank Schouten
Dompost 16 Feb

The air force wants new, advanced trainer aircraft to hone and test the skills of its young pilots.

It is now looking at getting fast turbo-prop trainers, similar to those the Australian air force uses, air force chief Air Vice-Marshall Graham Lintott says.

Reviving the Aermacchi jet trainers - taken out of service a decade ago - was not a viable option, he said. It would be too dear to get them flying again and they were now far less efficient than the new trainers.

For the last decade, the air force has had just two types of training aircraft - single-engine Airtrainers for basic training, and twin-engined Kingairs to train pilots for multi-engined aircraft.

Air Vice-Marshall Lintott said, although the Kingairs were good, they did not provide the quality of training required for military fliers.

The planes were not able to extend trainee pilots and fully test the manoeuvring and low-level navigation skills needed by its Hercules, Orion and helicopter pilots.

The lease on the Kingairs expires next year and will not be renewed.

The type of aircraft being considered was the twin-seater PC9 Pilatus advanced trainer flown by Australia's air force, Air Vice-Marshall Lintott said.

Options included getting new trainers for the air force or sending pilots to Australia, Britain, the United States or Canada.

Firstly well done to the CAF, he explained precisely why to the media newer advanced training aircraft are required for pilot training (whereas I thought in the RNZN post today on the Endeavour replacement it talked about what the Navy wanted - as in nice to have - as opposed to why). All very important for positive public opinion and to minimise political point scoring by the opposition in an election year etc (a few years ago it wouldn't have mattered when the country was running surpluses but now one ought to take the time to explain better via the media conduit. Eg as Robsta alluded to, TVNZ did a total partisan beat-up on the govt two days ago on the ministerial BMW vehicle fleet replacement where as only now the economic rationale is being explained - too late though in the court of public opinion).

Anyway back to the issue, PC-9 is a good move for the pilots - we should have had them years ago, however (and should rekindle the armourey trade eg ejection seats & explosives again), assuming some are bought/leased for use in NZ. No discussion on whether fast-jet training comes in at the next stage via an overseas country, will have to wait. I'm not happy about the Aermacchi situation as it seems the money isn't there to get them going, but the glimmer then is any possible fast-jet training with more up-to-date types elsewhere?

 

[MrConservative]

CAF says MB339's out, instead looking at Pilatus PC-9 or training off-shore options ...



Firstly well done to the CAF, he explained precisely why to the media newer advanced training aircraft are required for pilot training (whereas I thought in the RNZN post today on the Endeavour replacement it talked about what the Navy wanted - as in nice to have - as opposed to why). All very important for positive public opinion and to minimise political point scoring by the opposition in an election year etc (a few years ago it wouldn't have mattered when the country was running surpluses but now one ought to take the time to explain better via the media conduit. Eg as Robsta alluded to, TVNZ did a total partisan beat-up on the govt two days ago on the ministerial BMW vehicle fleet replacement where as only now the economic rationale is being explained - too late though in the court of public opinion).

Anyway back to the issue, PC-9 is a good move for the pilots - we should have had them years ago, however (and should rekindle the armourey trade eg ejection seats & explosives again), assuming some are bought/leased for use in NZ. No discussion on whether fast-jet training comes in at the next stage via an overseas country, will have to wait. I'm not happy about the Aermacchi situation as it seems the money isn't there to get them going, but the glimmer then is any possible fast-jet training with more up-to-date types elsewhere?

Finally the problems and gaps are beginning to get solved. OK no Macchi's, as it seems that there was probably a contractual break-point date passed in the RR support. Will it be the Swiss built PC-9M or the US built Texan II its close cousin?

As an aside the MFTS for UK forces is coming along. This is quite a good article to digest in context of our APT needs. UK MFTS programme gears to train first students

The MinDef report on pilot training needs should be out shortly. Will give us an expectation of numbers.

 

[Gibbo]

Finally the problems and gaps are beginning to get solved. OK no Macchi's, as it seems that there was probably a contractual break-point date passed in the RR support. Will it be the Swiss built PC-9M or the US built Texan II its close cousin?

As an aside the MFTS for UK forces is coming along. This is quite a good article to digest in context of our APT needs. UK MFTS programme gears to train first students

The MinDef report on pilot training needs should be out shortly. Will give us an expectation of numbers.

DWP supporting docs indicate a $75M allocation - which isn't a particularly huge amount. Wonder how flexible that number will be - I guess it'll be close to a 1:1 replacement of B200. Depends of course on how any deal is structured (buy vs lease etc).

Based on the link below each airframe would come in at about NZ$8.5M - so if we exclude support etc etc (which you can't really do!) it could theoretically allow us to purchase up to 8 - if that's the type they chose. Purely speculative of course!

Welcome to Aircraft Compare

PC-9M or related Texan II would be a great buy - but man wouldn't the PC-21 be a great buy (already discounted according to earlier media reports).

As I posted earlier USAF use a private contractor to provide PC-9M for JTAC trainign so we could do same - at least that could help fill that gap (topped off with real jet based JTAC training once a year in Aussie perhaps!?!)

"The lease on the Kingairs expires next year and will not be renewed" - cool, that gives a fairly solid indication of how long we need to wait!

 

[Gibbo]

Given its similar capabilities and obvious political plus - a RZNAF Super Tucano?

Super Tucano has a lower top speed but I guess it's still a contender. What's the 'obvious political plus' you refer to - seems less than obvious to me.

 

[Lucasnz]

Given its similar capabilities and obvious political plus - a RZNAF Super Tucano?

I'm wearing my mod hat this post and have a friendly note for your future reference.

One liners are typically (as in just about always) not tolerated in the forums. In addition you made a important statement in your post re "political plus" without any supporting statement or evidence.

I also recommend that your read the forum rules.

 

[MrConservative]

DWP supporting docs indicate a $75M allocation - which isn't a particularly huge amount. Wonder how flexible that number will be - I guess it'll be close to a 1:1 replacement of B200. Depends of course on how any deal is structured (buy vs lease etc).

Based on the link below each airframe would come in at about NZ$8.5M - so if we exclude support etc etc (which you can't really do!) it could theoretically allow us to purchase up to 8 - if that's the type they chose. Purely speculative of course!

Welcome to Aircraft Compare

PC-9M or related Texan II would be a great buy - but man wouldn't the PC-21 be a great buy (already discounted according to earlier media reports).

As I posted earlier USAF use a private contractor to provide PC-9M for JTAC trainign so we could do same - at least that could help fill that gap (topped off with real jet based JTAC training once a year in Aussie perhaps!?!)

"The lease on the Kingairs expires next year and will not be renewed" - cool, that gives a fairly solid indication of how long we need to wait!

The Irish back in 2004 acquired eight PC-9M’s and paid Eur60m. That is probably the real cost when the support package is factored in. What has changed since the DWP is that there has been a rethink on AJT and I think that the $75m in the DWP is a funding carryover from the last Governments initial tender which looked for more of the same. I think the message that the RNZAF were giving the government has finally got there – that B200/B350’s are MEPT’s and not any good for APT. Plus all those stuffed engines from trying to get the B200’s perform in roles they were not really designed for would not have helped. At the end of the day that $75m must at least double if they are to go with the PC-9M and support it - if they want an outright purchase.

I wouldn’t be surprised if our order is just six to eight PC-9M's. I also would not be surprised if there were two-three light multi-engine trainers such as a C-90GTi included in the eventual mix. The reason I say this is that even with simulators it will be quite a jump to go from the PC-9M to a C-295M. There have been rumours about this. I notice that Bae is pushing the cheap VLJ Cessna Mustang 510 as a low cost option in the RAF’s MEPT requirements. At USD$2.6m it is less than the cost of the C-90GTi US$3.6m and has a slightly lower hourly operating cost of USD$850 pfh. That the fleet will be all of one type is not set in concrete. Oh well .... next month ..... thats if they dont delay it as per usual ....

 

[MrConservative]

Arms deals are driven by politics - we all know that, we're all adults!!

I'd also like to add not once did I breech the rules.

Yes you did. It was a one liner. Your comments should be a bit more expansive and not simplistic.

 

[Preceptor]

Given its similar capabilities and obvious political plus - a RZNAF Super Tucano?

AND

Arms deals are driven by politics - we all know that, we're all adults!!

I'd also like to add not once did I breech the rules.

The first quoted text is a 'one-liner' response, which actually IS a violation of forum rule #2. Secondly, you were given a friendly reminder to heed the forum rules by a Moderator. This is now a not so friendly Warning Issued. When someone with a Red profile makes a suggestion, it behooves one to abide by the suggestion. Failure to do so can result in additional sanctions.
-Preceptor

 

[Todjaeger]

behooves???

Try taking a look at a dictionary some time, or perhaps a thesaurus.

It was a one-liner with a more-than relevant question at the end of it? Was it not - Super Tucano for the RZNAF??

You do realize that you are skating on rather thin ice at this point?

The problem with people posting 'one-liner' responses, is that is provides little insight into what the question really is, or what the poster's point of view is.

In this case, how/why would a Super Tucano be appropriate for the RNZAF, particularly in place of the Pilatus PC-9 like those operated by the RAAF, or the PC-9 derived Raytheon/Beech T-6 Texan II?

In the case of both the PC-9 and T-6, they are in service in quantity with a number of operators, who also happen to be friendly with NZ to one degree or another. In the case of the Super Tucano, AFAIK it is only in service in Brazil, and perhaps with Columbia if deliveries have commenced. Which means systems to provide support for the Super Tucano are not going to be in place like they would be for either of the other two aircraft mentioned. Also, given the suggested political advantage, what sort of benefit would there be for NZ to begin operating a Brazilian prop attack/trainer?

An advanced turboprop PAC Airtrainer would certainly benefit NZ, but an aircraft sourced from a non-traditional ally, which is itself just really starting to see service. Where is the benefit to NZ from that?

-Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

It was a one-liner with a more-than relevant question at the end of it? Was it not - Super Tucano for the RZNAF??

Actually nothing wrong with that question. However we did encourage you to be more exspansive in what you wrote giving context and avoid one liners. A mature thing to do would be to recognise that and contribute with adult opinions.

To answer you question yes the Tucano is one of many APT solutions the RNZAF are looking at for its future training needs.

 

[Dropkick]

Actually nothing wrong with that question. However we did encourage you to be more exspansive in what you wrote giving context and avoid one liners. A mature thing to do would be to recognise that and contribute with adult opinions.

To answer you question yes the Tucano is one of many APT solutions the RNZAF are looking at for its future training needs.

That's like saying RAF - Super Tucano...

Mod edit: You are Banned, take two weeks off. If/when you come back, read the forum rules and abide by them before posting again. Directions from the Mod Team are not something to be dismissed or ignored. The same applies to the forum rules.
-Preceptor

 

[south]

Dude all you needed to do is say "I think the Super Tucano would be a great fit, for these reasons ......"

anywho I note you are banned...

WRT Mr Conservative comment that it is a fair jump from a PC9 to a C295 and that perhaps an interim type would be required... Not so sure on that myself. Pilots course is not designed to make you a PC9/T6/SuperTucano Pilot... it is designed to give you the skills you will need on an operational type. As an example RAAF Pilots seem to do fine moving from the PC9 to Hercs/P3's/Wedgetail/C-17's/707's (in the past)etc...

 

[MrConservative]

Dude all you needed to do is say "I think the Super Tucano would be a great fit, for these reasons ......"

anywho I note you are banned...

WRT Mr Conservative comment that it is a fair jump from a PC9 to a C295 and that perhaps an interim type would be required... Not so sure on that myself. Pilots course is not designed to make you a PC9/T6/SuperTucano Pilot... it is designed to give you the skills you will need on an operational type. As an example RAAF Pilots seem to do fine moving from the PC9 to Hercs/P3's/Wedgetail/C-17's/707's (in the past)etc...

About those twins. It was just something I heard about six months or so ago on my last trip back - that a twin could be still in the mix - and it did raise my eyebrows as I knew the how the overseas PT worked. However, I also saw a comment recently on an NZ Aviation site (only a watcher) by a well respected ex ACF bloke. So there could be something there - thats all. Just that I would not be suprised .... if it is a way to save money ... which is what they are pretty much obsessed with these days ....