Royal New Zealand Air Force

ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Reg, did you shoot cross and have a look at the post on te RAAF thread I was referring to? Funding is always going to be a big problem for us and maybe the PPP lease might be attractive as I suggested in the NZDF thread. I don't know the numbers & finance is not my area of expertise so IMHO depends how desperate Airbus Military are and if the NZG would be interested. I would hope that they are following the developments. 10 aircraft and 6 months before the C295 production line halts, with no new orders, I think would make Airbus Military a bit desperate. My thoughts anyway.
 
Last edited:
R

RegR

Well-Known Member
ngatimozart said:
Reg, did you shoot cross and have a look at the post on te RAAF thread I was referring to? Funding is always going to be a big problem for us and maybe the PPP lease might be attractive as I suggested in the NZDF thread. I don't know the numbers & finance is not my area of expertise so IMHO depends how desperate Airbus Military are and if the NZG would be interested. I would hope that they are following the developments. 10 aircraft and 6 months before the C295 production line halts, with no new orders, I think would make Airbus Military a bit desperate. My thoughts anyway.
Click to expand...
Agreed Ngati Airbus does seem to be alittle worried at the moment especially in their CN295 range but also with their A400 delays. I thought they would have approached NZ at the same time as Aus with the 295 especially since we have already shown interest in the smaller model and are actively discussing C130 options(I would have prefferred replacement rather then extending the inevitable).

A joint buy with Aus could see us pick up a better rate as Airbus seem flexible on the final price if it gets their AC in this region flying in numbers and keeps the production line open another year, and as you have said a lease deal could prove to be even better especially if it gives us the numbers we need now as opposed to smaller less optimal numbers due to capital cost.

If we went A400 and CN295 whos to say we couldnt go MRTT when the boeings come up for replacement to add to our joint/coalition interaoperability and give us another feather in our cap(since we can't provide combat support). Surely would look good to Airbus, 5 A400ms, 6 CN295s, 2 MRTTs, not large by international standards but still a good investment for all parties involved.

I can see how RAAF would have an interest in C27 for commonality with their Js but for us unless we are definately going the J route then our interest should not be as vested and should be more what suits us operationally and finanacially over their whole LOT.
 
MrConservative

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
ngatimozart said:
Kinda figured that but you know the old service way - start the rumour and eventually somebody might take it in germinate and think it their own :)
Click to expand...
Even a single A330 MRTT @ USD$300m let alone two to replace the B757's would receive a coded reply along the lines of "Foxtrot Oscar" from both Cabinet and Treasury.

My hunch is (strengthen today after reading the capability report) the B757 will not be replaced with a similar type - converted commercial passenger jet. I believe that the Grizzly is looking like the single type airlift solution for 40Sqd. It will be well sorted, settled and solved by 2020 when the C-130's are withdrawn. It does everything we need in terms of airlift all in the one streamlined package.

I do not see any reason for the NZDF to either own or lease any former commercial passenger jet for the conduct of any particular tasks within Defence - that couldn't be managed fiscally and operationally better another way or even by some other entity.
 
StevoJH

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
How often does it currently get used? Could a charter arrangement with Air NZ be organised instead?

Alternatively, could the NZ Gov charter the RAAF aircraft depending how heavily it is utilised?
 
MrConservative

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
StevoJH said:
How often does it currently get used?

Could a charter arrangement with Air NZ be organised instead?

Alternatively, could the NZ Gov charter the RAAF aircraft depending how heavily it is utilised?
Click to expand...
1. Each Broomstick does between 450-550 hours p.a. in RNZAF service.

2. A Charter with a commercial operator for some roles could be achieved cheaply and more effectively.

3. Possibly achieved but their are difficulties. There are limits to what is acceptable to both sides.

The VfM report slated the Broomsticks as a significant cost for the NZDF. They need to go when the C130's go. However, I think there is a place for a NZ Govt owned civil register commercial jet like an used A320-200, but flown by RNZAF pilots. Not owned by the NZDF but the Crown and used/chartered to other Govt Departments collectively. If required the NZDF charters it from the NZ Govt on an hourly basis. Likewise MAFT, DPMC, CivAv, VetAff ect... Air NZ do the LM & DM. It could be just a simple haze grey paint job with the Government of New Zealand in small letters and civ reg code like ZK-GOV on the tail. heck Air NZ could charter it from time to time - clear back-logs ect
 
R

RegR

Well-Known Member
StevoJH said:
How often does it currently get used? Could a charter arrangement with Air NZ be organised instead?

Alternatively, could the NZ Gov charter the RAAF aircraft depending how heavily it is utilised?
Click to expand...

They would probably get used alot more if they did not keep having issues, price you pay when you only have 2. They do the rotations for Afghan and Timor when available usually twice a year each, deliver the troops to excercises/visits in Aus, pacific and SE asia which are usually bi-annual at the least depending on ex, uplift AME/repatriations from MEAO which has been shown in recent times and support diplomatic missions to Galipolli, London and any other number of government appointed visits. They are also usually NZs rep at international airshows due to the top show they can put on. Also local work such as SATs(which is still unreliable), earthquake, RWC etc.

Yes the MRTT may be alittle excessive but depends where we are headed in terms of our global part, obviously allied nations are screaming out for tankers, so was only a suggestion for the future especially if it provides a new capability that we could be good at and do not currently have(also does it need to be A330). Things change depending on whos the boss, just look at our F16s that were once upon a time a sure thing.

The boeings are probably not a requirement and could be taken up by A400 but I think any soldier would tell you what they would rather travel in if given a choice. Ditching that capability is just another cost cutting effort, If Govt had their way they'd probably already be gone and Hercs with some palletised seating would be the new transport of choice but at the moment we need everything we got. Lets be honest, to get a decent amount of A400s alot of perks are going to go, any future PM will either be in buisness class or hitching a ride with Aus PM BBJ to world events. Our air force is also a projection of NZ and its rep is already shaky.

If we got P8s maybe B737-900 could be a go however if it meant 1 more Grizzly............ then maybe stevos AirNZ plan could provide a clean charter option on call, not sure about the RAAF idea, we would have exactly the same problems as others have pointed out for a 'shared' C17 vs our own Aircraft.

sorry MrC just saw your post, good points ref boeing replacement
 
recce.k1

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Well what's interesting is the PTC could even be an outside training provider basing their aircraft in NZ (or even not). Perhaps the colour guide is a hint that entities like the RAAF or RCAF could tender for the project (and earn themselves a bit of money)? A bit like the old Empire Air Training Scheme in reverse? :D
 
R

Robbie

New Member
replacement for the king air B200s/ Light Transport

I have been following this thread for about 12 months before this first post.
Two items I would like to comment on are both RNZAF related they are a replacement for the king air B200s and the lack of a light ground attack aircraft to support troops in medium risk environments ie: Peacekeeping/ COIN operations.

Item 1 King air replacements, I think that the CASA CN 212-400 is an over looked option for this role and if all the pollies want is a luxury seat to fly from Wellington to Wanganui, they will replace like for like with the King air 350s.

The C212-400 has side entry doors and a rear ramp it can accommodate 2 x 88 inch x 54 inch pallets as used in the Hercules, 25 troops or 15 passengers in comfort their are also Maritime variants with built in 360 radar options, long range fuel tanks and environmental containment option( oil spill boom and tank).

This would make the transition to the CN 235, P3CK, or Hercules more realistic for the pilots, and at a cost of around 12 million depending on options.
New Zealand could also lease these aircraft on the open market and try before you buy a better option when you can’t afford to make a mistake.


Item 2 second tier aircraft

The NZDF is lacking an advanced light trainer and ground attack capability and if the NZDF should ever need light close air support then this capability gap is going to cost dearly.

The two seat A29 B Super Tucano is a proven light ground attack COIN and advanced trainer with a low entry cost of around 9 million US, The aircraft is full night vision compatible with HUD and HOTAS.

The weapons fit is almost the same as the stores that are currently rotting away with the experienced pilots that were some of the best ground attack operators I ever saw.
 
MrConservative

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
If I remember correctly the current RNZAF B200 lease ceases in July 2012 and that was not going to be renewed. The question is will it be renewed or have they finally after 5 years – found their baby? I think they know what they want and they know where it is. The Hawker Beechcraft King Air 350CER Special Mission.

Reading between the lines of the DWP, the recent DefMin pressers, a couple of vague chats with Wayno last month on the dinner and cocktail circuit and this weeks DCR/11 – and putting it all together like a soup – I’d say that three 350CER’s is the way they will go. I would be flabbagasted if it is not the 350CER.

In my humble view, everything points to three 350CER’s and it is the CER model specifically with the Maritime patrol sensor package and single workstation. It has the dual control option for MEPT, has numerous fitted for / fitted with sensors and pods for plug and play, under-wing hard-points ect, has the enlarged rear cargo / access door, a lot of nifty features as standard, still has comfortable seating for 6-7 pax, which is important in that it still means that the PM, the PS and the skeleton detail can all be together, plus it has 9 hour endurance and a very impressive range that means it can transit NZ-Niue with ease. Plus it has a bog (very important), internal baggage space and the option of a small galley in lieu of the 7th pax seat. It frankly makes sense and is not outrageously priced for the solutions it offers.

Just a personal preference here in relation to the advance pilot trainer. I hope that we think long term and go for the Pilatus PC-21 over the PC-9M or the T-6B. It is a generation step onwards in comparison and would offer so much more utility. In my view initially 6 aircraft and a simulator should be sufficient to deliver current training outputs and if proposed training targets rise over the decade a second tranche of two more should suffice.

Oh and whatever they get as the APT aircraft - paint them black like the T-2’s at RAF Valley. :cool:
 
recce.k1

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
MrConservative said:
I’d say that three 350CER’s is the way they will go. I would be flabbagasted if it is not the 350CER.
Click to expand...
If this is to be I don't get how only 3 aircraft could cover multi-engine training, VIP/pax, MPA & allow for maintenance? Currently 5 (B200) aircraft cover these roles (bar MPA).

Unless it is 3 for training (and VIP?), with an MPA tranche later, which would make sense as the PTC-Pilot Training Capability RFI is exactly that, a RFI for PTC (and not MPA).

Then again perhaps in time the MPA option may be something else altogether - something that could tie in with the future airlift replacement projects eg back to CN-235/295 or C-27J again? These options are still years away (2018 IOS at the very earliest it seems) so at least the Beechcraft 350CER, if chosen, is wired for MPA plug and play then, which means this additional capability could get into service much sooner (good for whole-of-govt support) and raises the personnel skillsets. Should be a handy addition.

And at the very least the Beechcraft 350CER, makes more sense in the RNZAF's advanced multi-engine training role (than a CN-235 would). Gives them an advantage in also supplying and supporting the type for the single-engine advanced training role ....
 
MrConservative

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Three airframes (and a Sim of course - we must have the Sim) is the starting point and MEPT is where they need the gap filled first and then followed up with Coastal Patrol Capability which in respect of the 350CER is built ready for plug and play at a later date. There may well be a second tranche of a couple more airframes later on – ala – the LUH to round out the numbers. But, with a start point of three 350CER’s they are on the right pathway in respect of MEPT/Very Light Transport and platform growth for Coastal Patrol.

Obviously, the MEPT curriculum is considerably shorter than the Advanced curriculum. That is why less airframes will be initially needed over the next few years than what we find at present as we are using the B200 for both the longer advanced phase and the shorter multi-engine phase. VIP equates to 100 hours and iirc the lead in aspect of the multi-engine conversion is about 30 hours for each of the roughly 10 students who will complete MEPT each year following the advanced phase (50 hours). This still leaves quite a good chunk of each airframes annual flight hours put to good use to start re-developing a skill set on coastal patrol duties, that would mature and grow over time including a couple of more airframes.

When the new pilot training system gets into its stride following time in the Advanced Trainer course, pilots will either go across to the LUH conversion or the MEPT conversion. We had 5 x B200 airframes doing both. It is interesting to note that the availability rates for the B350 is about 95% (according to Hawker of course). Also because the aircraft is a light twin commercial prop and is not being stressed to the extent that the leased B200’s were doing the on advanced course, they can happily rack up considerably more flight hours per annum than larger or faster aircraft. The 350CER’s are cheap as chips to operate per $ flight hour compared to CN-235’s or god forbid C-27J’s (particularly in the MPA role).
 
R

RegR

Well-Known Member
recce.k1 said:
If this is to be I don't get how only 3 aircraft could cover multi-engine training, VIP/pax, MPA & allow for maintenance? Currently 5 (B200) aircraft cover these roles (bar MPA).

Unless it is 3 for training (and VIP?), with an MPA tranche later, which would make sense as the PTC-Pilot Training Capability RFI is exactly that, a RFI for PTC (and not MPA).

Then again perhaps in time the MPA option may be something else altogether - something that could tie in with the future airlift replacement projects eg back to CN-235/295 or C-27J again? These options are still years away (2018 IOS at the very earliest it seems) so at least the Beechcraft 350CER, if chosen, is wired for MPA plug and play then, which means this additional capability could get into service much sooner (good for whole-of-govt support) and raises the personnel skillsets. Should be a handy addition.

And at the very least the Beechcraft 350CER, makes more sense in the RNZAF's advanced multi-engine training role (than a CN-235 would). Gives them an advantage in also supplying and supporting the type for the single-engine advanced training role ....
Click to expand...
Agree with you reece that more than 3 AC will be needed as with the added MPA function 5 min will still probably be pushing availability limits to cover all envisaged roles if we are struggleing now.

I assumed RNZAF would want to keep the types down so compromise into one platform therefore a bigger kingair would cover these off to a degree but something like CN235(with rear ramp) would cover all sufficiently and also the transport and regional side alot better than a kingair.

Not sure why a CN235 would not be as good as a kingair for multi engine training if the Aussies can go from CT4 - PC9 - C130J then Im sure we could handle CT4 - PCish - CNtype.
 
recce.k1

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
RegR said:
Not sure why a CN235 would not be as good as a kingair for multi engine training if the Aussies can go from CT4 - PC9 - C130J then Im sure we could handle CT4 - PCish - CNtype.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with that except my thinking was it must be the vastly more expensive option to transition from a (RAAF) PC-9 to a C-130J or AP-3C OCU rather than something intermediary first eg B350 or similar (and C-130J's and CN-235's are designed as transporters not trainers which also doesn't seem efficient for that initial multi-engine stage)! But it can be done and money is less of an issue for the ADF than it is here of course.

The other aspect about this project is, so no tie-in with the RAAF training regime (as was being alluded to last year)? What happened?
 
R

RegR

Well-Known Member
recce.k1 said:
I don't disagree with that except my thinking was it must be the vastly more expensive option to transition from a (RAAF) PC-9 to a C-130J or AP-3C OCU rather than something intermediary first eg B350 or similar (and C-130J's and CN-235's are designed as transporters not trainers which also doesn't seem efficient for that initial multi-engine stage)! But it can be done and money is less of an issue for the ADF than it is here of course.

The other aspect about this project is, so no tie-in with the RAAF training regime (as was being alluded to last year)? What happened?
Click to expand...
Yes agreed a CN type would be more expensive but the added benefits would cover the whole gambit of tasks completely rather then having a lesser capability or a 2 type fleet(also in smaller numbers ie 3 + 2 adding a bigger logistic/maint headache). Guess it depends where they want to commit the money vs what they want efficiently covered off role wise. Gotta spend money to make money in a way.

I thought we where looking at the RAAF in their advanced trainer role PC-9 area but If we go with the 6-7 Pilatus type AC they have suggested then that should be taken care of leaving the multi engine(current kingair) role to yet be finalised(also covering short range MPA/transport etc). I thought there was also talk of fast jet training but I guess obviously RAAF pilots actually need that and hours would be in demand so would be a surprise to see that happen.

We probably could combine curriculums if it suited both parties(ADF/NZDF) ie we bulk up on CT4s and run that phase and they get a few more PC-9s and take care of that part or vice versa, multi engine would need to be sorted, don't know if any efficiancies could be gained or be worthwhile to either side but could be an option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top