Royal New Zealand Air Force

[recce.k1]

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.

Perhaps in summary:

A King Air type option ticks some important (bean counter) boxes nicely - economical MEPT and VIP (over a CN type). Added value in the form of economical coastal patrol options and a useful tool for SAR, Customs, Police and MFISH etc, which can only be beneficial for NZDF in terms of better public awareness of their functions and for the NZDF & Govt this frees up the P-3's for their primary roles.

A King Air type also fits into the proposed NZDF network-enabled ISR capability. (Question: will a King Air type have military/civil overland survellience functions)? However if not or in time & with the experience gained in a King Air type, a CN modular type may be something to aspire to, as it may offer greater capabilities to the proposed network-enabled ISR capability, especially for both whole-of-govt and military functions. Not sure though whether this additional tier is on the cards. But like the Navy's tiered inshore, offshore and combatant capabilities, I'm sure something similarly tiered for the air patrol environment would be beneficial and practical for the NZDF as a whole (and economic in the sense of matching a particular capability to a particuar task).

 

[Gibbo]

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.

......

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.

I also understand the B200 lease is up in July 2012. Give that it's unlikely the new advanced trainer solution / package will be operational by then, it'll be interesting to see how they propose to undertake APT until it does. Because if the B200 are gone that only leaves their replacement, which aren't slated for that role. I guess reality is 2-3 B200 may remain on extended lease for 12 months or so until the APT capability takes off (pun intended) :dance2 ....pleeeeeeeease let it be the B350CER - although minm 4, I love the KingAir family! :

For APT I remember it being suggested the PC-21 maybe be overkill, and perhaps they're not quite as 'proven' as we'd like!?! But wouIdn't it be great to see 6-7 PC-21 at Ohakea! Hey, they effectively replace Macchis so you can still argue to the bean-counters they offer similar capability but at a cheaper operating cost! I say why not try! :jump

 

[RegR]

The P3Ks already have overland surveillance capability so would'nt think its a requirement for the king air replacements, would seem like a waste for something that is deemed a local/maybe regional asset that would just keep tabs on Waiouru as opposed to the P3 that can cover off on local, regional and international. Just focus on the heavy fleet for that option no point duplicating roles at added and unneeded expense.

Has'nt the king air lease already been extended due to classic government leave it to the last minute mentality and I would have thought at the very least 1 for 1(ie 5)+ replacement due to the added and expanded roles envisaged with MPA and a more useful transport role, why make life hard with 3-4 platforms taking into account maintanence, training and new operational outputs. The advanced training role should be a seperate beast covered off by the new PC type aquisition leaving multi engine training to the king air replacement.

 

[chis73]

OK, I might as well wade in like John Wayne with my tuppence's worth.

As I see it, the key drivers in this project in terms of value for money are the following:

1. Sufficient critical mass is needed in the trainers (particularly in terms of engines) that we gain benefit from volume, in terms of higher serviceability rates, component commonality, etc. Best value is achieved by sharing a common engine (if not airframe) with Air NZ's turboprop fleet. In the past, the F27 Friendship trainer gained from this system, whereas the 757s were criticised in the VfM review for not following this route.

2. The extent to which the choice is skewed by the VIP transport role. Due to self- interest from the decision makers (ie Cabinet), this will sadly be the last role to be compromised (as we have seen with the Golden Eagle & B200 purchases in the past).

3. The extent to which the choice will have to cover for the P3 & C130 over the next 10 years. Both of these aircraft will experience higher unserviceability rates due to their age (both are struggling now). A prudent choice of trainer / short range lift / mpa could take the load off as these aircraft are retired and the replacements introduced.

So weighing all this up... my recommendations:

1. Purchase of about 3 secondhand Beech 1900D for the VIP transport role & initial multi-engine pilot training. Two of these could be kitted out as luxury VIP, with the third as per the Eagle Air 19 seater. Now the important part - Defence only pays 50% of the cost for these aircraft, the remainder coming from Dept of PM & Cabinet and from other Govt departments (user pays after all!). When not required for VIP work, can do pilot training, personnel transfer & Govt charter work. These aircraft are replaced at the same time as Air NZ replace their Beech 1900d with whatever Air NZ decide to buy. Buy some extra engines as these will be thrashed.

2. Operating our own single- engined turboprop advanced trainer in NZ isn't economically viable (not enough airframes, no shared engines). Nor is bringing the Macchi out of retirement. Best choice is to lease aircraft and join up with the Aussies and/or Singaporeans in a common training programme in Aussie for this phase of training.

3. Purchase at least 5 medium-range twin-engine aircraft for cargo / mpa / advanced multi-engine training. Depending on which way we want to jump with regards to replacing the C130s either:

5 C-27J Spartan if we get the C-130J (common RR AE2100 engine)

or

5 C295 (similar engine to Air NZ ATR72-500, PW127G vs PW127F/M). We should avoid the CN235.

In terms of C130 / 757 replacement - one should also note that the C-17 gains bonus points from the extra US aircraft in Christchurch during the Antarctic season & Aussie commonality. The A400M doesn't. A passenger / freight version of whatever AirNZ will be operating on medium haul flights (Boeing 767-300 or Airbus A320) would similarly qualify.

Chis73

 

[gf0012-aust]

Now that just classic and im sure the press will still get it wrong even with pictures supplied.nfloorl:

CD

I've seen the aussie press refer to Kanimbla and the old HMAS Adelaide (FFG) as battleships, I've seen a Steyr referred to as a canon and a machine gun and an iron bomb as a missile.

nfloorl:

 

[ngatimozart]

OK, I might as well wade in like John Wayne with my tuppence's worth.

As I see it, the key drivers in this project in terms of value for money are the following:

1. Sufficient critical mass is needed in the trainers (particularly in terms of engines) that we gain benefit from volume, in terms of higher serviceability rates, component commonality, etc. Best value is achieved by sharing a common engine (if not airframe) with Air NZ's turboprop fleet. In the past, the F27 Friendship trainer gained from this system, whereas the 757s were criticised in the VfM review for not following this route.

2. The extent to which the choice is skewed by the VIP transport role. Due to self- interest from the decision makers (ie Cabinet), this will sadly be the last role to be compromised (as we have seen with the Golden Eagle & B200 purchases in the past).

3. The extent to which the choice will have to cover for the P3 & C130 over the next 10 years. Both of these aircraft will experience higher unserviceability rates due to their age (both are struggling now). A prudent choice of trainer / short range lift / mpa could take the load off as these aircraft are retired and the replacements introduced.

So weighing all this up... my recommendations:

1. Purchase of about 3 secondhand Beech 1900D for the VIP transport role & initial multi-engine pilot training. Two of these could be kitted out as luxury VIP, with the third as per the Eagle Air 19 seater. Now the important part - Defence only pays 50% of the cost for these aircraft, the remainder coming from Dept of PM & Cabinet and from other Govt departments (user pays after all!). When not required for VIP work, can do pilot training, personnel transfer & Govt charter work. These aircraft are replaced at the same time as Air NZ replace their Beech 1900d with whatever Air NZ decide to buy. Buy some extra engines as these will be thrashed.

2. Operating our own single- engined turboprop advanced trainer in NZ isn't economically viable (not enough airframes, no shared engines). Nor is bringing the Macchi out of retirement. Best choice is to lease aircraft and join up with the Aussies and/or Singaporeans in a common training programme in Aussie for this phase of training.

Disagree. Having our own APT capability means that it runs to our timetable. Also do the RAAF or RSAF programs have the ability to absorb the extra students that the RNZAF will provide? Finally, over the long term it is foreign exchange costs that NZDF would be forking out all the time, as against a one off cost for 6 planes.

Yippee try #2 France

3. Purchase at least 5 medium-range twin-engine aircraft for cargo / mpa / advanced multi-engine training. Depending on which way we want to jump with regards to replacing the C130s either:

5 C-27J Spartan if we get the C-130J (common RR AE2100 engine)

or

5 C295 (similar engine to Air NZ ATR72-500, PW127G vs PW127F/M). We should avoid the CN235.

In terms of C130 / 757 replacement - one should also note that the C-17 gains bonus points from the extra US aircraft in Christchurch during the Antarctic season & Aussie commonality. The A400M doesn't. A passenger / freight version of whatever AirNZ will be operating on medium haul flights (Boeing 767-300 or Airbus A320) would similarly qualify.

Chis73

If you have read the previous posts in this thread an airliner replacement for the 757s is not going to happen. If you read the VfM report they said that the 757s were not VfM. A better suggestion has been advanced earlier, either in this thread or in the NZDF one, that NZG buy a 737 800 or A321 or similar, paint it grey with civvy rego with NZ Government or similar painted on fuselage, maintained by Air NZ, flown by RNZAF and hired out to Air NZ if it needs extra capability.

C17 definitely aint gonna fly. It is too much money for something that we won't use all the time. The Ice flying season is what 4 months max. I live in ChCh and am aware when C17's operate out of Harewood. The A400M would suit our capabilities far better, and the fact that it apparently has rough field capability is even better. The thing is we would need to buy 3, so that we do not end up with problems we have with 757, of both aircraft being down at same time. 3 means 1 operational at all times, 1 in maintenance and 1 available for operations, training or undergoing light maintenance. The basic 3's of military planning / thinking.

As much as I have argued for the C295 cargo and MP modular, the NZG has already signalled what is going to happen over the next 10 years. The Request for Information for the APTC aircraft was released last week. Where the MPA is concerned it is thought that the King Air 350 CER Special Mission has the front running because apparently it is perceived as meeting the requirements. The issue is the number of aircraft that will be acquired.

The C27J / CN235 issue will probably not be decided until the ADF make their decision on the Caribou replacement. This is not due to be made until the 2012 /13 or the 2014 / 15 financial years. However Airbus are getting a bit desperate because they only have 6 months of work (10 aircraft) for the C295) production line. A high powered team were in Canberra a week ago trying to get the AUG and the ADF to run a competition between the C27 and the C295. Whether that happens or not remains to be seen. Late in the 1990s the ADF had a competition C27 vs C295 or CN235 and then canned the project.

As far as RNZAF is concerned C130 & P3 replacement decisions will not be made until the next DWP which is penciled for 2015.

Even better drop goal France. Looks like Poms on next flight home.

 

[Todjaeger]

Disagree. Having our own APT capability means that it runs to our timetable. Also do the RAAF or RSAF programs have the ability to absorb the extra students that the RNZAF will provide? Finally, over the long term it is foreign exchange costs that NZDF would be forking out all the time, as against a one off cost for 6 planes.

Yippee try #2 France

If you have read the previous posts in this thread an airliner replacement for the 757s is not going to happen. If you read the VfM report they said that the 757s were not VfM. A better suggestion has been advanced earlier, either in this thread or in the NZDF one, that NZG buy a 737 800 or A321 or similar, paint it grey with civvy rego with NZ Government or similar painted on fuselage, maintained by Air NZ, flown by RNZAF and hired out to Air NZ if it needs extra capability.

C17 definitely aint gonna fly. It is too much money for something that we won't use all the time. The Ice flying season is what 4 months max. I live in ChCh and am aware when C17's operate out of Harewood. The A400M would suit our capabilities far better, and the fact that it apparently has rough field capability is even better. The thing is we would need to buy 3, so that we do not end up with problems we have with 757, of both aircraft being down at same time. 3 means 1 operational at all times, 1 in maintenance and 1 available for operations, training or undergoing light maintenance. The basic 3's of military planning / thinking.

As much as I have argued for the C295 cargo and MP modular, the NZG has already signalled what is going to happen over the next 10 years. The Request for Information for the APTC aircraft was released last week. Where the MPA is concerned it is thought that the King Air 350 CER Special Mission has the front running because apparently it is perceived as meeting the requirements. The issue is the number of aircraft that will be acquired.

The C27J / CN235 issue will probably not be decided until the ADF make their decision on the Caribou replacement. This is not due to be made until the 2012 /13 or the 2014 / 15 financial years. However Airbus are getting a bit desperate because they only have 6 months of work (10 aircraft) for the C295) production line. A high powered team were in Canberra a week ago trying to get the AUG and the ADF to run a competition between the C27 and the C295. Whether that happens or not remains to be seen. Late in the 1990s the ADF had a competition C27 vs C295 or CN235 and then canned the project.

As far as RNZAF is concerned C130 & P3 replacement decisions will not be made until the next DWP which is penciled for 2015.

Even better drop goal France. Looks like Poms on next flight home.

Regarding some of the recent discussions (and possible NZG decisions...) there are a few concerns I have.

A King Air 350 CER with the MPA mission modules, that might serve for some inshore MPA/SAR work, but there might be some limitations in terms of dropable stores, nevermind the ability to engage hostiles.

The second concern Ngatimorzart has already mentioned. Will there be enough aircraft/airframes and modules to meet the required roles? Between inshore MPA/SAR, MEPT, and personnel/VIP transport, plus the normal training and maintenance cycles, 3 airframes do not sound anywhere sufficient.

The third concern has to do with the King Air 350 suitability for meeting light/medium lift. If the lift requirement is just to transport a handful of personnel at a time over short distances, then the King Air 350 should be fine. However, if there is any need to move cargo, and/or a number of personnel (20+) at a time, then the NZG should really be looking at a larger aircraft like the CN-235, C-295 or C-27J.

Lastly, with the suggestions for replacing Broomsticks One and Two, I have a similar, but slightly different one. What I might suggest would be for the NZG to reach an agreement with Air NZ where Gov't has a charter/leasing agreement with Air NZ for an aircraft. The aircraft would belong to Air NZ and be painted in Air NZ colours, and naturally Air NZ would be responsible for maintenance, etc. However the NZG would ensure that the aircraft would be kitted with the required self-defence systems for Gov't ops (VIP transport, etc) and on NZDF missions the pilots would be RNZAF piloted rated in the aircraft model in question. Otherwise the suggestion follows most of the other airliner replacement suggestions.

-Cheers

 

[RegR]

Disagree. Having our own APT capability means that it runs to our timetable. Also do the RAAF or RSAF programs have the ability to absorb the extra students that the RNZAF will provide? Finally, over the long term it is foreign exchange costs that NZDF would be forking out all the time, as against a one off cost for 6 planes.

Yippee try #2 France



If you have read the previous posts in this thread an airliner replacement for the 757s is not going to happen. If you read the VfM report they said that the 757s were not VfM. A better suggestion has been advanced earlier, either in this thread or in the NZDF one, that NZG buy a 737 800 or A321 or similar, paint it grey with civvy rego with NZ Government or similar painted on fuselage, maintained by Air NZ, flown by RNZAF and hired out to Air NZ if it needs extra capability.

C17 definitely aint gonna fly. It is too much money for something that we won't use all the time. The Ice flying season is what 4 months max. I live in ChCh and am aware when C17's operate out of Harewood. The A400M would suit our capabilities far better, and the fact that it apparently has rough field capability is even better. The thing is we would need to buy 3, so that we do not end up with problems we have with 757, of both aircraft being down at same time. 3 means 1 operational at all times, 1 in maintenance and 1 available for operations, training or undergoing light maintenance. The basic 3's of military planning / thinking.

As much as I have argued for the C295 cargo and MP modular, the NZG has already signalled what is going to happen over the next 10 years. The Request for Information for the APTC aircraft was released last week. Where the MPA is concerned it is thought that the King Air 350 CER Special Mission has the front running because apparently it is perceived as meeting the requirements. The issue is the number of aircraft that will be acquired.

The C27J / CN235 issue will probably not be decided until the ADF make their decision on the Caribou replacement. This is not due to be made until the 2012 /13 or the 2014 / 15 financial years. However Airbus are getting a bit desperate because they only have 6 months of work (10 aircraft) for the C295) production line. A high powered team were in Canberra a week ago trying to get the AUG and the ADF to run a competition between the C27 and the C295. Whether that happens or not remains to be seen. Late in the 1990s the ADF had a competition C27 vs C295 or CN235 and then canned the project.

As far as RNZAF is concerned C130 & P3 replacement decisions will not be made until the next DWP which is penciled for 2015.

Even better drop goal France. Looks like Poms on next flight home.

It has not been stated definately that the 757s will not be replaced, the VFM is just a report with possible suggestions on ways to stretch the dollar and is not gospel just yet as if this was the case then there is no mention of king air 350s rather Q300s and even beach1900s under a maintanence plan. We are all just speculating on here with what we would like but should not be etched in stone, it leans towards certain options but stranger things have happened so wait out. For all we know the boeings could be sold to AirNZ and leased back, something leased from their stocks or rented on a as required basis. The same report stills states we will lose options with the heavys demise just depends how much money govt is willing to spend or gain when the time comes.

Remember it was a similar report that planned on consolidating RNZAF ops into Ohakea to save money but now years later we still have Whenuapai, things change depending on mood (and budget). I could see the same happening with Linton, that is an even bigger beast to move, good luck.

Agree with you about the size and number of MPA/transport Todj, slightly bigger king airs are not enough of an improvement in my eyes to take us into the future.

 

[MrConservative]

We must not make the mistake that the MEPT and SRMP platform is also going to be the mooted light transport platform (and overstate its role as the domestic VIP platform – the LUH will also contribute to that small output). The cost of operating a 350CER (for example) in both the MEPT role and the short range maritime role is significantly less than a Q300, CN235, C-295 or C-27J. Operating cost is King.

The light-medium transport requirement is going to be part of the Future Airlift Project. Two platforms are going to cover the Airlift Spectrum from Light Tactical to Strategic – that has emerged from the documents so far. (For example) it may well be an A-400M plus C-295 solution OR it may be something else – that will emerge in 2015. Let’s be clear here - Defence are making a decision on the MEPT / SRMP platform and not tacking on the light-medium tactical role. The fact that the 350CER has a modest cargo capability is a bonus capability, but should not be construed any further.

To put the primary RNZAF role requirements to thus enable the NZDF to meet policy objectives into perspective:

*Long Range Maritime Patrol (Orion P-3K2)
*Multi-Engine Training / Short Range Maritime (Beechcraft 350CER could do this)
*Tactical / Strategic Airlift (A-400M could do this)
*Light Tactical Airlift (C-27J or C-295 could do this)
*Basic Trainer (CT/4 E)
*Advanced Trainer ( PC-9M, PC-21, T-6B, KT-1 et al - all could do this)
*Medium Utility Helicopter (NH-90)
*Training / Light Utility Helicopter (AW109-LUH)
*Naval Helicopter (Sprite or replacement)

 

[RegR]

We must not make the mistake that the MEPT and SRMP platform is also going to be the mooted light transport platform (and overstate its role as the domestic VIP platform – the LUH will also contribute to that small output). The cost of operating a 350CER (for example) in both the MEPT role and the short range maritime role is significantly less than a Q300, CN235, C-295 or C-27J. Operating cost is King.

The light-medium transport requirement is going to be part of the Future Airlift Project. Two platforms are going to cover the Airlift Spectrum from Light Tactical to Strategic – that has emerged from the documents so far. (For example) it may well be an A-400M plus C-295 solution OR it may be something else – that will emerge in 2015. Let’s be clear here - Defence are making a decision on the MEPT / SRMP platform and not tacking on the light-medium tactical role. The fact that the 350CER has a modest cargo capability is a bonus capability, but should not be construed any further.

To put the primary RNZAF role requirements to thus enable the NZDF to meet policy objectives into perspective:

*Long Range Maritime Patrol (Orion P-3K2)
*Multi-Engine Training / Short Range Maritime (Beechcraft 350CER could do this)
*Tactical / Strategic Airlift (A-400M could do this)
*Light Tactical Airlift (C-27J or C-295 could do this)
*Basic Trainer (CT/4 E)
*Advanced Trainer ( PC-9M, PC-21, T-6B, KT-1 et al - all could do this)
*Medium Utility Helicopter (NH-90)
*Training / Light Utility Helicopter (AW109-LUH)
*Naval Helicopter (Sprite or replacement)

If we are going to stick with king airs would'nt an even cheaper idea be to retrofit a single station module into the king airs we already have?

This dillema kind of harks of the new helo fleet, you have a large expensive NH90 ($35000 PFH according to the aussies) or a smaller cheaper A109 when your task requires something in between, do you go buy another class size type to suit or use what you got and sacrifice something(cost/numbers/capability/options etc).

 

[ngatimozart]

It has not been stated definately that the 757s will not be replaced, the VFM is just a report with possible suggestions on ways to stretch the dollar and is not gospel just yet as if this was the case then there is no mention of king air 350s rather Q300s and even beach1900s under a maintanence plan. We are all just speculating on here with what we would like but should not be etched in stone, it leans towards certain options but stranger things have happened so wait out. For all we know the boeings could be sold to AirNZ and leased back, something leased from their stocks or rented on a as required basis. The same report stills states we will lose options with the heavys demise just depends how much money govt is willing to spend or gain when the time comes.

Remember it was a similar report that planned on consolidating RNZAF ops into Ohakea to save money but now years later we still have Whenuapai, things change depending on mood (and budget). I could see the same happening with Linton, that is an even bigger beast to move, good luck.

Agree with you about the size and number of MPA/transport Todj, slightly bigger king airs are not enough of an improvement in my eyes to take us into the future.

This is from the 2011 Defence Capability Plan.

Prospective capabilities
The Defence White Paper 2010 states that strategic airlift will remain a core supporting capability of the NZDF and will be maintained. A Future Air Mobility project will be established to review NZDF airlift requirements and make recommendations for the appropriate replacement of the C-130 Hercules and B757 fleets. The replacement of the Fixed Wing Transport Forces is intended to occur between 2018 and 2025. In order to inform decisions on these replacements the study will be concluded before the next Defence Review in 2015.

In considering the appropriate airlift fleet mix, this study will consider the most cost-effective use of the jet airlift currently provided by the two B757s. Assets recommended by the project will be expected to carry out all of the present fixed wing transport roles including strategic and tactical transport of people and cargo, airland and airdrop, low level and high level missions, aeromedical evacuation, and backup search and rescue capabilities. (NZ Defence Capability Plan 2011, p34)

We actually need to read the 2011 Defence Capability Plan as a whole http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/reports-publications/defence-capability-plan-2011.pdf because there is a major paradigm shift to a NZ Joint Amphibious Task Force. So everything now has to be read through the lens of that. One issue I have with it is it states that on occasion this Task Force will have to operate on its own. In this case where is its CAS? However in the report mention is made about "lost capabilities being recovered". Read into it what you may. Thats all it says - no specifics.

 

[MrConservative]

If we are going to stick with king airs would'nt an even cheaper idea be to retrofit a single station module into the king airs we already have?

The extra 500nm range / 2 hours of mission legs that the 350CER has over the B200 makes it a better proposition. I wonder if a small project retrofitting a handful of B200's into being plug and play capable would be economic when compared to buying a purpose built solution. I doubt it would be.

 

[MrConservative]

This is from the 2011 Defence Capability Plan.

We actually need to read the 2011 Defence Capability Plan as a whole http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/reports-publications/defence-capability-plan-2011.pdf because there is a major paradigm shift to a NZ Joint Amphibious Task Force. So everything now has to be read through the lens of that. One issue I have with it is it states that on occasion this Task Force will have to operate on its own. In this case where is its CAS? However in the report mention is made about "lost capabilities being recovered". Read into it what you may. Thats all it says - no specifics.

The NZJATF concept essentially is for SASO, Hum/Supt and other UNSC Chp VI type missions principally in the South Pacific. In those situations it will be able to operate on its own very effectively. Any hotter than that then it is a coalition mission based UNSC Chp VII mission which would mean CAS and the vast majority of air combat tasking courtesy of ADF assets.

 

[RegR]

This is from the 2011 Defence Capability Plan.



We actually need to read the 2011 Defence Capability Plan as a whole http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/reports-publications/defence-capability-plan-2011.pdf because there is a major paradigm shift to a NZ Joint Amphibious Task Force. So everything now has to be read through the lens of that. One issue I have with it is it states that on occasion this Task Force will have to operate on its own. In this case where is its CAS? However in the report mention is made about "lost capabilities being recovered". Read into it what you may. Thats all it says - no specifics.

Yes read this part Ngati, just saying it has not been finalised as to what the B757s will be replaced with, could very well still be jet, whether our own, leased or borrowed or more of what replaces the Hercs to make up the numbers. If we lost the boeings now and were left with just 5 Hercs we would struggle until replacement regardless of how much a 757 costs to operate so what is worse.

 

[MrConservative]

Yes read this part Ngati, just saying it has not been finalised as to what the B757s will be replaced with, could very well still be jet, whether our own, leased or borrowed or more of what replaces the Hercs to make up the numbers. If we lost the boeings now and were left with just 5 Hercs we would struggle until replacement regardless of how much a 757 costs to operate so what is worse.

The B757's are not going to be removed until the Future Air Mobility Project is completed and deliveries start. They are safe to at least 2018 when the replacements are scheduled. The DCP states that assets recommended by the project will be expected to carry out all of the present fixed wing transport roles including strategic and tactical transport of people and cargo, air-land and air-drop, low level and high level missions, aero-medical evacuation, and backup search and rescue capabilities. It also states that the Future Air Mobility Project will be established to review NZDF airlift requirements and make recommendations for the appropriate replacement of the C-130 Hercules and B757 fleets.

 

[RegR]

The extra 500nm range / 2 hours of mission legs that the 350CER has over the B200 makes it a better proposition. I wonder if a small project retrofitting a handful of B200's into being plug and play capable would be economic when compared to buying a purpose built solution. I doubt it would be.

Which is exactly why I am against something that covers off on only 'some' roles now just to save money especially when we will just spend more money in the future to eventually fill the capability gap with yet another type. If we can cosolidate all roles into one then surely the long term benefits will outweigh the added operating expense.

The more types we have the more maintainers, support equipment, spares, training, operating procedures etc etc we will require which will bring its own costs and headaches.

What does Australia operate under its orions in short range MP? multi-engine conversion is straight to Js(we can't afford), caribou replacement still up in the air(no pun) although they are beefing up larger wise so somewhat compensateing. Will be interesting whatever we go with I just would not like to see us lacking(again) in any certain area if we can avoid it from the outset.

 

[Todjaeger]

Yes read this part Ngati, just saying it has not been finalised as to what the B757s will be replaced with, could very well still be jet, whether our own, leased or borrowed or more of what replaces the Hercs to make up the numbers. If we lost the boeings now and were left with just 5 Hercs we would struggle until replacement regardless of how much a 757 costs to operate so what is worse.

Have to disagree here about the B757's. IIRC the B757's only provided ~100 - 200 flight hours for the entire year. This is part of why their operating costs per flight hour were ridiculous. Even with only having ~3 C-130H's in NZ at any given time due to SLEP work being done on them, the C-130 fleet managed to deliver ~x10 the number of flight hours vs. the B757's.

One of the other areas where the B757 really seems to be a VfM failure IMO is the fact the much of the utilization appears to be non-NZDF related. Flying crash survivors to Anarctica to commemorate the anniversary of a civilian airliner crash on Antarctica IMO should not be something a defence force does, or at least not for free or even at cost.

What it seems like at times, is that the RNZAF has been used by polli's/Gov't as a domestic and international airline, an Air NZ II if you will. Unfortunately for the RNZAF and NZDF, requiring the replication of capabilities that Air NZ has to move people by air in benign operating conditions takes resources away. Resources that IMO the RNZAF could make good use of in providing air capabilities (SAR, surveillance, RoRo cargo, rough field and hostile environ ops) which a civilian airliner has neither business or interest in operating.

As for the suggestion that the current King Air 200's get a module plug to provide MPA does not make any sense. The King Air's are leased aircraft. Barring some rather 'interesting' leasing terms and agreements, the RNZAF would first need to purchase the King Airs currently in use before conducting any such modifications. While the aircraft would be used and therefore likely less expensive than new aircraft, nevermind a larger replacement like the 350 CER's, they would still need to be purchased, then a programme started to modify them, money spent to develop, modify and then test them, etc. Or just purchase the similar but more capable 350 CER's which have already been tested, etc... Still think more than 3 should be purchased to cover short-ranged MPA, MEPT and some VIP transportation, but that could just be me.

-Cheers

The Oz maritime surveillance situation is IMO quite different from that of NZ.
Here are the assets Oz has to conduct Fishery, EEZ and naval patrolling and surveillance of the maritime approaches and SLOC.

JORN HF OTHR
SECAR HF OTHR
18 APC-3 Orions
6 Coastwatch/Surveillance Australia Dash-8 MPA's
4 Coastwatch/Surveillance Australia Q300 MPA's
RAN Armidale-class PB's
Customs Bay-class PB's
~5 civilian SAR/MPA helicopters
One or more Fisheries patrol vessels
16+ naval helicopters
~11 major surface vessels

In short, the surveillance net in Australia is significantly larger and with more assets relative to that of NZ.

 

[MrConservative]

A one size fits all approach I understand has been looked at, however the cost variables in operating such a platform looked to be unsustainable. Trying to cover MEPT, plus SRMP & SAR, light tactical airlift and have a degree of VIP within the platform options when acquisition and operational costs were factored in did not stack up. It was found that a better approach was to split MEPT and SRMP onto one platform and leave light-medium tactical to be covered by the Future Air Mobility.

There are 4 different potential acquisition options for the MEPT/SRMP outlined. These range from a lease contract offering a turn key support and operation package through to the traditional owner operator model. I guess the favourable option may well be outsourced support mixed with RNZAF ownership.

Australia uses privately contracted Coastwatch Q300’s to cover SRMP activities. This option was looked at also, however there would still exist a real need to provide for a MEPT platform.

 

[RegR]

Do you think the hours are due to reliability, distance(ie too short to warrent), type of cargo or running costs. They would only suit a number of jobs(but do them well ie pure pax) and if they are U/S(alot more nowadays) then the Hercs take up the slack therefore are credited the hours. The 757 is not the newest jet out there so there are better (more reliable/efficient) options. We have operated jets for quiet awhile now(incl 727) and now because times are tight they're out the door. What apart from money has changed? the jobs are still there, more even with Afghan rots.

So what you are saying is that the king air replacements cannot be leased if we want to modify them for MP so therefore could now end up with 3 types to cover multi engine, MP and transport? The fleet is beginning to look larger 5 king airs to???

Yes Oz operates a Q300 type, not too fussed about the rest they are a bigger beast with alot more worries.

 

[ngatimozart]

Do you think the hours are due to reliability, distance(ie too short to warrent), type of cargo or running costs. They would only suit a number of jobs(but do them well ie pure pax) and if they are U/S(alot more nowadays) then the Hercs take up the slack therefore are credited the hours. The 757 is not the newest jet out there so there are better (more reliable/efficient) options. We have operated jets for quiet awhile now(incl 727) and now because times are tight they're out the door. What apart from money has changed? the jobs are still there, more even with Afghan rots.

So what you are saying is that the king air replacements cannot be leased if we want to modify them for MP so therefore could now end up with 3 types to cover multi engine, MP and transport? The fleet is beginning to look larger 5 king airs to???

Yes Oz operates a Q300 type, not too fussed about the rest they are a bigger beast with alot more worries.

Horses for courses. The B757s don't fly into Afghan so can always charter Air NZ flight to Middle East & then C130 into Afghan as happens at moment. The King Air 350 CER Special is going to fill 3 roles MEPT, SRMP & VIP if needed. Yes cost is a big factor but so is practicality and Mr C seems to have a finger on the pulse. I agree that a fleet of more than 5 is going to be needed, especially as it appears that the present fleet is struggling to meet its taskings.

The light tactical transport and tactical and strategic transport are going to be covered in the 2015 DWP from the sounds of it.