Royal New Zealand Air Force

[MrConservative]

I was going to post on this just before Christmas, however the plot thickens with respect to what the RNZAF can consider post its Air Mobility Review.

1. Lockheed now has the C-130XJ under development. The XJ will essentially be a simplified standard J without the full suite of goodies - the X designator meaning expandable/fitted for not with. The concept designed to appeal to small air forces that are traditional users of the C-130H and don't require all the J's ad-on's and are very price sensitive customers (i.e the RNZAF).

2. Our Japanese friends are now able to offer the Kawasaki C-2 to some selected countries. The NZDF is the politically perfect customer for the Japanese Government to court for export sales of their mil-tech. I have seen this aircraft testing out of Komeki and Gifu. Very impressed with it. Like a baby C-17 that is the size of the A-400M.

 

[MrConservative]

I would assume the C-130J Versions of the herc would be purchased,as the NZDF already have used and operated this craft?( And alot of the ground equipment is already in place.)

Mr Conservative I didnt know about NZ Purchasing B727 as a cost saving for C-130.
I would assume this would be a big point(in the RNZAF) in selecting a "single" future transporter for the RNZAF.IE.Not to go down the same path as last time.

The NZDF heirachy and DefMin staff have been very keen on the A-400 for some years. It is because we need to move tactical loads strategic distances with some of those loads outsized for the C-130J's. The NH-90 does not fit into a C-130J but does into the A-400M. History has shown that the ability to have a rotary assets in place under a Pacific region crisis is a NZDF mission essential.

Thus the A400 provided the opportunity for the rationalisation towards a single type of aircraft covering the medium tactical - through to long range tactical/strategic lift.

 

[Cadredave]

2. Our Japanese friends are now able to offer the Kawasaki C-2 to some selected countries. The NZDF is the politically perfect customer for the Japanese Government to court for export sales of their mil-tech. I have seen this aircraft testing out of Komeki and Gifu. Very impressed with it. Like a baby C-17 that is the size of the A-400M.

For me this would be a better solution to replace the B757 and or the C130H as well it ticks all the right boxes in regards to size, range, ability to carry oversized weight and speed plus we have a good relationship with the Japanese Govt and as you say Mr C we would be the perfect political customer just my thoughts from a land operator.

CD

 

[MrConservative]

IMHO NZGov will go the C235/295 with MPA pallet option plus UAV(for coalition overseas air events) working with the RAAF due to cost factors, with 8x A400M for large loads of long haul tactical/strategic lift and a 6x multi role C235/295 for MPA, short haul intra theatre lift due to cost factors not for the lack of want/need.

If the NZDF gets the C235/C295 they will be strictly airlift as coastal patrol is to be rationalised with MEPT role. Cramming 3 roles into the one aircraft (Q300 or C235 were considered) was not going to work and was going to be pricey per flight hour. They have looked at other options for CPA / MEPT of which the B350 is looking good as well as a couple of others - I heard that leased light twin Diamond DA42 MPP were/are looked at. (Which would not meet the aircraft specs outlined in the 2001 Maritime Patrol Review - but cost is king.)

The air mobility review is not out but one must consider the tasking requirements and the amount of budget allocation. At present the RNZAF operates roughly 30% less airlift hours than what it was allocated back in the 1990's. Then there was 13 operative aircraft (2 x B727, 5 x C-130H and 6 available Andovers then reduced to 4 from the original 10) which flew around 5000-5500 hours. In those days the five C-130's flew around 3000 hours per year, the two available B727's flew 1200 hours, and the Andovers flew the remainder which depended on deployments and allocated hours less their then MEPT role (1200-1400 hours p.a would be the best guessimate). The traditional rule of thumb was that they needed 8 airframes operational from that airlift pool to meet commitments.

In recent times we have been flying under 4000 hours p.a using 7 airframes of which at best only 4 have been available. Around 25% of the current tasking by the C-130H has been light tactical - once done by the Andovers, About another 30% (nearly 1500 hours last year) used up by the B757 with the rest the traditional medium tactical role.

It is how we decide to slice and dice the taskings, tempos, platform type, and costs following the AMR. These will lead to the required numbers of each platform. However it seems that we will need to lift our operational hours and tasking at least to similar levels seen in the 1990's at some stage - problem is the budget allocation of Output 13 will not increase in the operational sense. My opinion is that even without taking the AMR into consideration we will need to fly another 1000 hours of tasking to get back some sembalance of normality. There is at least 5000 hours of tasking across air mobility spectrum. My guess would be that 1500 hours of that would be light tactical and another 1500 hours would be long range strategic. The rest in the traditional medium tactical territory of the C-130H.

RegR made a very good point a few posts back. That even though the intent is out there to rationalise the C130H and B727 into one platform (A400M) this should not be conceptually locked in. It may be found that the tasking projections post 2020 do not justify this following the review. It may be that once all is settled - we might actually need 3 platform types to address the range of air mobility tasking the NZDF requires and that 3 platforms may operationally and be acquisition wise - be cheaper.

 

[MrConservative]

For me this would be a better solution to replace the B757 and or the C130H as well it ticks all the right boxes in regards to size, range, ability to carry oversized weight and speed plus we have a good relationship with the Japanese Govt and as you say Mr C we would be the perfect political customer just my thoughts from a land operator.
CD

There is the real concern over list price of the A400M at Eur157million a pop (NZ$235m). Kawasaki has canabilized the OTS parts bin at Boeing and what has been lying around the Komeki manufacturers hub to make development costs stay low. Thus the JASDF think they can pick them up for 12 Billion yen a copy which is about NZ$175m. The Japanese really sense an opportunity with their aircraft exports and people need to look beyond the F2 blow-out cost wise. They can deliver quality cost effective well engineered durable products with very competitive prices. They are also within our APEC region, and finally are getting more FTA savvy. In fact it may well completely change the whole future AMR game.

I would be interested in how a three C-2 and five C-27J or C-295M mix might weigh up against a four A-400M and four C-27J or C-295M mix when factoring in acquisition and life cycle costs.

 

[Cadredave]

There is the real concern over list price of the A400M at Eur157million a pop (NZ$235m). Kawasaki has canabilized the OTS parts bin at Boeing and what has been lying around the Komeki manufacturers hub to make development costs stay low. Thus the JASDF think they can pick them up for 12 Billion yen a copy which is about NZ$175m. The Japanese really sense an opportunity with their aircraft exports and people need to look beyond the F2 blow-out cost wise. They can deliver quality cost effective well engineered durable products with very competitive prices. They are also within our APEC region, and finally are getting more FTA savvy. In fact it may well completely change the whole future AMR game.

I would be interested in how a three C-2 and five C-27J or C-295M mix might weigh up against a four A-400M and four C-27J or C-295M mix when factoring in acquisition and life cycle costs.

Good points Mr C,
as you stated before we will have to wait until the review for 2015 comes out, I to would like to see how the C2/C27J or C295M mix might weight up as well. maybe someone from RNZAF needs to get a posting to Japan.

CD

 

[chis73]

I agree whole-heartedly with Cadredave & Mr C. The Japanese have at long last played their joker.

I'd say that the C-2 should now edge out the A400M as the preferred option for NZ, replacing primarily the 757's, but also the C-130H in the strategic lift role. I'd agree with 3, perhaps 4 (if we take a more proactive role in Antarctic lift operations or want at least 2 available at all times). It looks a reasonably low risk option and it has a very common engine (used on the Airbus A330 and the RAAF's new KC-30A tankers). I don't know if we really need the rough field capabilities of the A400M for our heavy lift aircraft, and as others have stated, the A400M is pricing itself out of the market.

I would also have a preference for the Kawasaki P-1 (currently in testing, known as the XP-1, formerly the P-X) over the P-8 as an Orion replacement. I just feel it fits better with the way we use our Orions - long SAR missions flown at reasonably low level. The P-8 seems more suited for cruising at 30000 ft, acting as mother goose to a clutch of UAVs - reliant on satellite comms. OK for a major power such as the US or Australia - but NZ would struggle to afford that kind of approach.

Selling the P-1 to the government will be a much tougher task than the C-2. It will probably be dismissed as too ASW focussed, and too expensive. It also has a newly developed uncommon engine (shades of the Aermacchi there). I imagine the same arguments will surface as when the Clark government dropped the Project Sirius upgrade to the Orions in the early 2000s. Nevermind NZ's strategic vunerability to a (most likely sub based) naval blockade. What do we have - something like a 6-week fuel reserve? ASW is a skillset our air force (and navy) should have, even if it is secondary to a maritime patrol capability. At the moment, we're seriously underdone in the ASW department. There is a major financial crunch coming in the 2020s for the NZDF (Orions, Hercules, Endeavour, the frigates - all scheduled for replacement). I fear ASW will be one of the capabilites lost.

Chis73

 

[MrConservative]

You might be interested to know Chris73 that the New Zealand strategic fuel reserve (other than a couple of weeks in local tank farms) is in fact stored in Japan under a deal signed 5 years ago under the Clark administration. Problem with that is if their is a spot of bother up north in the strategic sense - getting the good oil safely down here from Japan is a bit of an issue. We could always send a frigate - hang-on wait - we only have two now.

 

[chis73]

You might be interested to know Chris73 that the New Zealand strategic fuel reserve (other than a couple of weeks in local tank farms) is in fact stored in Japan under a deal signed 5 years ago under the Clark administration. Problem with that is if their is a spot of bother up north in the strategic sense - getting the good oil safely down here from Japan is a bit of an issue. We could always send a frigate - hang-on wait - we only have two now.

Ye gods! That sounds almost as nuts as all the money we pumped into Singapore before WWII for the RN to protect us. That worked so well! :eek

I'd wager that our strategic fuel reserve would soon be 'nationalised' by the Japanese if hostilities broke out in the East Asia area.

Chis73

 

[Sea Toby]

I'd say that the C-2 should now edge out the A400M as the preferred option for NZ, replacing primarily the 757's, but also the C-130H in the strategic lift role. I'd agree with 3, perhaps 4 (if we take a more proactive role in Antarctic lift operations or want at least 2 available at all times). It looks a reasonably low risk option and it has a very common engine (used on the Airbus A330 and the RAAF's new KC-30A tankers). I don't know if we really need the rough field capabilities of the A400M for our heavy lift aircraft, and as others have stated, the A400M is pricing itself out of the market.

I would also have a preference for the P-1X over the P-8 as an Orion replacement. I just feel it fits better with the way we use our Orions - long SAR missions flown at reasonably low level. The P-8 seems more suited for cruising at 30000 ft, acting as mother goose to a clutch of UAVs - reliant on satellite comms. OK for a major power such as the US or Australia - but NZ would struggle to afford that kind of approach.

Selling the P-1X to the government will be a much tougher task than the C-2. It will probably be dismissed as too ASW focussed, and too expensive. It also has a newly developed uncommon engine (shades of the Aermacchi there). I imagine the same arguments will surface as when the Clark government dropped the Project Sirius upgrade to the Orions in the early 2000s. Nevermind NZ's strategic vunerability to a (most likely sub based) naval blockade. What do we have - something like a 6-week fuel reserve? ASW is a skillset our air force (and navy) should have, even if it is secondary to a maritime patrol capability. At the moment, we're seriously underdone in the ASW department. There is a major financial crunch coming in the 2020s for the NZDF (Orions, Hercules, Endeavour, the frigates - all scheduled for replacement). I fear ASW will be one of the capabilites lost.

Chis73

I agree, transport is much more important to fill considering the costs. Hopefully the Endeavor replacement is sorted out this decade. I don't see the taxpayers wishing to spend any more than they are currently. And its not as if the Orions provide much up to date ASW capability anyway. New Zealand uses their Orions more for maritime patrol, and that can be done with a cheaper aircraft, not a more expensive one.

Hercules aircraft aren't getting any cheaper either. Maybe going with the C-2 or Embraer KC390 is more likely. Frankly, either can also fill in for maritime patrol too.

 

[MrConservative]

Hercules aircraft aren't getting any cheaper either. Maybe going with the C-2 or Embraer KC390 is more likely. Frankly, either can also fill in for maritime patrol too.

Hercules C-130XJ is the Lockheed answer to the price growth of the current standard J. Much of the total acquisition cost of recent J deals have been for comprehensive support packages on top of the airframe. The Embraer's KC-390 is still under development and there have been only guesstimates of both the airframe cost and the support package. The C-2 is a possibility now, however that makes the very slim chance the KC-390 may have had had even more unlikely.

The DWP paper calls for a tier 1 ISR asset - able to be part of an wider enabled network right across the force and other state partners. The P-8 is central to the post 2020 plans.

 

[Sea Toby]

Hercules C-130XJ is the Lockheed answer to the price growth of the current standard J. Much of the total acquisition cost of recent J deals have been for comprehensive support packages on top of the airframe. The Embraer's KC-390 is still under development and there have been only guesstimates of both the airframe cost and the support package. The C-2 is a possibility now, however that makes the very slim chance the KC-390 may have had had even more unlikely.

The DWP paper calls for a tier 1 ISR asset - able to be part of an wider enabled network right across the force and other state partners. The P-8 is central to the post 2020 plans.

The Embraer will be flying before 2015, and its very likely its testing won't take much longer than a year. There is nothing new to the aircraft, its all off the shelf. While price isn't nailed down to an exact figure, its a bit misleading to suggest Embraer doesn't have a goal for a figure. The question remains whether they will meet that figure. However, considering Brazil's labor costs, it can be done for less than what Japan can do.

Furthermore, Embraer has support established throughout the world, Japan doesn't. If you are interested in a delivery around 2020 or later, I am sure Embraer can deliver.

Notice today the USAF bought 20 Tucano advanced trainers from Embraer, some if not all going to the USAF Academy.

From the specs, it appears the KC-390 will be cheaper being smaller.


C-2
General characteristics
Crew: 3
Capacity: Length 16 m x Width 4 m x Height 4 m
Payload: 37,600 kg (84,000 lb)
Length: 43.9 m (144 ft)
Wingspan: 44.4 m (145 ft 8 in)
Height: 14.2 m (46 ft 7 in)
Empty weight: 60,800 kg (133,920 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 120,100 kg (265,000 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × GE CF6-80C2K1F, 59,740 lbf (266 kN) each
Performance
Cruise speed: Mach 0.8 (550 mph, 890 km/h)
Range: 6500 km (4,039 mi; 3,510 nmi) at 12-tonne payload)
Ferry range: 10,000 km (6,214 mi; 5,400 nmi)
Service ceiling: 40,000 ft (12,200 m)

KC-390
General characteristics
Crew: 2
Capacity: Length 17.75 m x Width 3.45 m x Height 2.9 m
Payload: 23.6 tons (52,029 lb)
Length: 33.91 m (111.3 ft)
Wingspan: 35.06 m (115 ft)
Height: 10.26 m (33.8 ft)
Loaded weight: 74.0 tons (163,142 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 81.0 tons (178,574 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × IAE V2500-E5 turbofan, 120-129 kN (27,000-29,000 lbf) each
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 0.8 (300 KCAS)
Range: 1,320 nmi (2,445 km) at 23.6 ton payload
Ferry range: 3,370 nmi (6,241 km)
Service ceiling: 36,000 ft (10,973 m)

 

[MrConservative]

The Embraer will be flying before 2015, and its very likely its testing won't take much longer than a year. There is nothing new to the aircraft, its all off the shelf. While price isn't nailed down to an exact figure, its a bit misleading to suggest Embraer doesn't have a goal for a figure. The question remains whether they will meet that figure. However, considering Brazil's labor costs, it can be done for less than what Japan can do.

Furthermore, Embraer has support established throughout the world, Japan doesn't. If you are interested in a delivery around 2020 or later, I am sure Embraer can deliver.

Notice today the USAF bought 20 Tucano advanced trainers from Embraer, some if not all going to the USAF Academy.

From the specs, it appears the KC-390 will be cheaper being smaller.

Toby – lets simplify this into the real world and beyond the cut and paste of wiki.

Put a 16 tonne load into a KC-390 with max fuel and fly a tactical training mission profile to Niue and then fly back.

Q: Can your beloved KC-390 do it?

If it can (which it can’t but that wont stop you you) – now on to test number 2 - shove a 10 tonne NH-90 into the back of you KC-390 and fly a standard strategic logistics mission profile – this time you only have to fly to Niue (But you will have to pre-book a hotel as you will have to wait for someone to bring the extra fuel for your flight back as Niue like most South Pacific airfields does not have jet refuelling capability).

Q: Can your beloved KC-390 do it?

Good Luck.

As for your other point:

Kawasaki Aerospace has had long term links with Boeing who are a significant player in the NZ defence & aviation scene. International tie ups are the norm - just like Embraer now has links with Sierra Nevada Corp in the USA who are behind the A-29 deal. So what was your point again?

Toby as the chief cheerleader for Embraer I think you will have more luck touting the Super Tucano for the APT then with the KC-390 heading to 40Sqd.

Testing taking about a year? Does that include certifying it FAA/CAA?

Tactical Loads - Strategic Distances - that is the Mantra of 40 Squadron

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

Hercules C-130XJ is the Lockheed answer to the price growth of the current standard J. Much of the total acquisition cost of recent J deals have been for comprehensive support packages on top of the airframe.

Agreed, so I wouldn't count on a C-130XJ being any more attractive for the RNZAF than the C-130J.

In the last three years, the USAF have been buying vanilla C-130J (that is not special missioned) for roughly US$72m for an order of 1 or roughly US$64m each for an order of 8.
IDK how much LM would charge NZ for say 6 x C-130J, but I could not imagine that it would be more than 10% over the amount they charge the USAF for just 1, so assume US$80m (not including RNZAF costs of introducing any new platform be it C-130 or C-2).
Unless you have seen a briefing that says different, I will have to go with the public statement by LM that the only major change from a vanilla C-130J and a C-130XJ is the deletion of the automated cargo handling system, any other internal changes/deletions aren't specified.
They did confirm that the engines are the same, the avionics are the same, and the aerodynamic shape of the aircraft is the same.

I'm not sure how much deleting the automated cargo system would save (LM would, but they aren't saying) but I can't imagine it is anything to hold out for given the major costs are largely the same: raw materials themselves, most components are the same, airframe, engines, and avionics, aircraft assembly costs.
Personally, I think the XJ won't be much (or any) cheaper, it will just delete features that aren't needed for some customers (as they pointed out, the USFS) while introducing hidden costs such as operating and supporting an aircraft that isn't the C-130J which is widely used by US services and important allies (Australia, UK).
Either it'll be just different enough to be considered a different type, or it will be so similar it won't cost any less.

I would like to point out that commonality or interoperability with Aust/US shouldn't be a dominating factor in a NZ choice, but it should be factored into a through-life cost analysis. I don't think $80m for a C-130J is excessive.


Which brings me to my other, wider thought as I read this thread: How much longer is going to take the NZ Gov to realise that 1.1% of GDP on defence isn't going to pay for their own stated requirements/ambitions?

 

[MrConservative]

What Lockheed wants to put to market is their business - like Embraer. What the RNZAF needs for meeting its future air mobility needs with funding (NZ$1.6B middle pathway) is another matter. That is the only thing anyone could even take seriously at this stage. Everything is essentially cause and effect. What is chosen in regards for MEPT / Coastal patrol (Including being out-sourced under contract) will effect what eventuates being acquired following the future AMR.

Yep. I don't think USD$80m is excessive for an aircraft that will provide 40+ years of solid service.

 

[Sea Toby]

Toby – lets simply this into the real world and beyond the cut and paste of wiki.

Put a 16 tonne load into a KC-390 with max fuel and fly a tactical training mission profile to Niue and then fly back.

Q: Can your beloved KC-390 do it?

If it can (which it can’t but that wont stop you you) – now on to test number 2 - shove a 10 tonne NH-90 into the back of you KC-390 and fly a standard strategic logistics mission profile – this time you only have to fly to Niue (But you will have to pre-book a hotel as you will have to wait for someone to bring the extra fuel for your flight back as Niue like most South Pacific airfields does not have jet refuelling capability).

Q: Can your beloved KC-390 do it?

Good Luck.

As for your other point:

Kawasaki Aerospace has had long term links with Boeing who are a significant player in the NZ defence & aviation scene. International tie ups are the norm - just like Embraer now has links with Sierra Nevada Corp in the USA who are behind the A-29 deal. So what was your point again?

Toby as the chief cheerleader for Embraer I think you will have more luck touting the Super Tucano for the APT then with the KC-390 heading to 40Sqd.

Testing taking about a year? Does that include certifying it FAA/CAA?

Tactical Loads - Strategic Distances - that is the Mantra of 40 Squadron

The KC390 is also a tanker. Use one to refuel another one on the way there and on the way back using two aircraft. Its only 1500 or so nautical miles to Niue.

Range of aircraft is subject to air tanker availability. Or is this too difficult for the Kiwis to understand? Considering how far New Zealand is to everyone, you would think by now New Zealand would have air tankers in their air force fleet. With the KC390 you get both transporter and tanker with one buy.

http://www.embraerdefensesystems.com/english/content/cargo/performance.asp

http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/KC-390-carga-paga-x-alcance-imagem-Embraer.jpg

There isn't much difference in range between a C-2 and a KC390.

Furthermore, considering personnel shortages, and budget cuts, one would think New Zealand would be purchasing the auto loaders with any new Hercules buy as well, and Lockheed Martin's support packages. I wouldn't expect US$80 milllion per aircraft, I would expect US$100+ million per Hercules.

 

[MrConservative]

The KC390 is also a tanker. Use one to refuel another one on the way there and on the way back using two aircraft. Its only 1500 or so nautical miles to Niue.

Range of aircraft is subject to air tanker availability. Or is this too difficult for the Kiwis to understand? Considering how far New Zealand is to everyone, you would think by now New Zealand would have air tankers in their air force fleet. With the KC390 you get both transporter and tanker with one buy.

http://www.embraerdefensesystems.co...ith loading the NH-90 into your magic tanker?

 

[ADMk2]

The KC390 is also a tanker. Use one to refuel another one on the way there and on the way back using two aircraft. Its only 1500 or so nautical miles to Niue.

It is if fitted out so. What it is, is a tactical airlifter that is plumbed to provide a tanker capability IF required, just like the A400m and the C-130J are as well.

You may have noted that NZDF is just a tad short on dollars for capability acquisition?

Therefore anything "nice" to have such as AAR capability, that isn't directly relevant to the capability being sought, is going to come under intense scrutiny.

A couple of pairs of refuelling pods, plus control stations for an airlifter might only cost a few million, but that few million can't be used elsewhere and NZDF has to confront this issue for every single acquisition.

I can't see it being justified personally, unless the NZ Government is looking to develop capability that might be able to contribute to International Ops in which case a combo airlift / AAR might very well be able to value add to an operation, but there's few signs that such capability is sought by NZ.

 

[MrConservative]

There isn't much difference in range between a C-2 and a KC390.

You obviously do not know the difference between flying a tactical mission profile and a strategic logistics profile with respect to air mobility and how it effects range/payloads.

 

[Sea Toby]

You obviously do not know the difference between flying a tactical mission profile and a strategic logistics profile with respect to air mobility and how it effects range/payloads.

I shall admit a A400M range is longer, but for more than twice the price:
30 tonnes 2450 nautical miles
20 tonnes 3450 nautical miles
ferry 4,700 nautical miles

The C2 and KC390 individually don't match the A400M in range.