We could always drop him an email each. You know citizens taking the initiative
Don't know if MinDef staffers would take notice of it because it more than likely not on their watch briefings.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
Don't know if MinDef staffers would take notice of it because it more than likely not on their watch briefings.
t68
Well-Known Member
Because of NZ unique location and small overall capability, I don’t think C27J would be in the best overall interest to the Airforce. A while ago I had the opinion that RNZAF might go C295 in the MPA role if P8 was ruled out due to cost considerations, which could double in short haul intra-theatre lift. Now if the NZGov was to give an iron-clad guarantee P8 was on the cards that changes the playing field. Whilst using C130J or A400M (Future) for small short range loads is inefficient the short haul loads might be better of using Chinook which will become a tri-service aircraft.
The Chinook might cost more to run the C27J but majority of the time will be spent in NZ.Travel mate puts the distance between Sydney and Christchurch 2140km, range for C27J with a 10tonne payload 1850km(wiki) so in light of that C27J is homebound unless in ferry configuration 5926km. With the recent trouble with earthquakes a heavy lift helicopter that can move about the same payload as C27J would be more beneficial.
The US has a number of D models available by the sound of it or refurbishes the 6x ex Aus Army D models.
Disagree. Light but bulky loads that are cost effectively moved greater distances than the Chinook are whats required - Samoan Tsunami 09 bears this out. NZ does not need a short haul intra-theatre lift capability beyond what modest capability a slung NH-90 can provide with respect to realistic priorities. Nice to have BUT it is not the focus of what we do and 99% of the time actually need to do.
What we need as a priority is to get unsexy yet important stuff like small generators and pumps for clean water, 1000 litre plastic water tanks, portable sanitation, emergency supplies including food, medicines, tents, tarpaulins, mosquito nets, hand tools, wire, ropes, plastic piping and hoses as well as specialists into where they are needed. Quite often over the years that has been in the Pacific - the focus of the DWP. Quite often that involves logistical staging. Ideally you'd have a C-130 or B757 or CY heading up to Raro as the FLB for example and the tactical light transport making the hops / drops to the outliers up to 500kms away. Thats the capability and efficency gain we need.
It is because of our unique location, smaller size and Pacific defence focus (read responsibility) a fixed wing light tactical transport is needed. You would be surprised at the amount of very senior offices both RNZAF and Army who regret the lost of the C1 Andovers.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
I disagree, while they have similar lift capabilities the C-27 would allow the carry of half loads 5-6000 kgs as far out as Apia Samoa, for Tuvalu a fuelling stop would be required in between as necessary. This would allow for Search and Rescue flights or Medi-Vac, disaster relief etc this would flights to the majority of countries within NZ's sphere of influence not to mention unrestricted travel of NZ and the ferry ability to Australia.
Additionally its short land strip capability would allow self deployment then act from a forward base say disaster relief for Fiji based in Samoa etc.
Compare this with the Chinook radius of 400Km and a potential greater operating cost and potential similar purchase prices and potential similarities with the C130 J I prefer the Spartan over a fourth type medium in the fleet medium lift helicopter.
Tee_Centre_10
Member
A CH-47 also reportedly costs five times the C-27J to operate per hour, for what I would argue is far less utility to the RNZAF.
How much? Well it is estimated that the US fleet costs over US$3000 per hour, and it is estimated that the RAF fleet has costs more like US$8000 per hour. How much would a fleet of 4 or less CH-47 cost NZ to operate?
Regarding the C-27J/C-295, the cost differences are not insubstantial either. The C-27J costs something in the order of US$33m each and the C-295 about US$22m each (a C-130J is about US$80m). It is generally agreed that the C-27J operating costs are also significantly higher, with EADS (not exactly independent, I know) estimating that the C-27J could cost up 50% more to run per hour. Others have said more like a third. 33-50% is quite a chunk of change.
The "commonality" with the C-130J is blown way out of proportion, as the only commonality is the engines and some avionics. Pilots and aircrew would still need to do the full conversion course as the C-27J/C-130J are so different, and the only group of people to benefit would be engine maintenance personnel who could perhaps work on both types.
On the other hand, given the PW100-family of engines are used far more widely on some very common commuter aircraft (ATR-family, Dash-8-family) it is going to be far easier and cheaper to find parts and maintenance people for than the AE2100 which is just used on the C-130J.
Further, how certain is it that the RNZAF is going to choose the C-130J? If another type is chosen then the commonality issue is pointless, and you end up with an aircraft that was more expensive to buy and is now more expensive to run.
How much? Well it is estimated that the US fleet costs over US$3000 per hour, and it is estimated that the RAF fleet has costs more like US$8000 per hour. How much would a fleet of 4 or less CH-47 cost NZ to operate?
Regarding the C-27J/C-295, the cost differences are not insubstantial either. The C-27J costs something in the order of US$33m each and the C-295 about US$22m each (a C-130J is about US$80m). It is generally agreed that the C-27J operating costs are also significantly higher, with EADS (not exactly independent, I know) estimating that the C-27J could cost up 50% more to run per hour. Others have said more like a third. 33-50% is quite a chunk of change.
The "commonality" with the C-130J is blown way out of proportion, as the only commonality is the engines and some avionics. Pilots and aircrew would still need to do the full conversion course as the C-27J/C-130J are so different, and the only group of people to benefit would be engine maintenance personnel who could perhaps work on both types.
On the other hand, given the PW100-family of engines are used far more widely on some very common commuter aircraft (ATR-family, Dash-8-family) it is going to be far easier and cheaper to find parts and maintenance people for than the AE2100 which is just used on the C-130J.
Further, how certain is it that the RNZAF is going to choose the C-130J? If another type is chosen then the commonality issue is pointless, and you end up with an aircraft that was more expensive to buy and is now more expensive to run.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Honestly, I would be suspicious of some of the costs and price comparisons mentioned between the C-295 and C-27J... From memory, they are roughly the same in terms of price. While some online sources (Deagel.com specifically) have a unit price of USD$22 mil. for the C-295, that figure is suspect since the older and smaller CN-235 which the C-295 is derived from is given a unitary cost by Deagel.com of USD$36 mil. Based off an order for Poland in ~2001 the C-295 had a cost USD$26.5 mil. per aircraft. I do suspect a new-build order for the C-27J Spartan would be more than a new-build order for the C-295 with all other considerations being the same, but I would not expect a massive price advantage to acquire C-295.
In terms of commonality between airlifters... I think people have missed some of the important parts of this commonality. With regards to the C-130J and C-27J, the glass cockpit is supposed to be the same, as ar the engines and some of the other avionics. The advantages here are the ease of the maintenance burden for operating the two aircraft, as well as maintaining parts & equipment and a trained groundcrew staff. In terms of air ops, while yes the aircraft are different, having a high degree of commonality between airlifters can simply training and transitioning pilots between aircraft, as well as easing any concurrency burdens for pilots who might fly both types of aircraft.
What might IMO be more important is the commonality in airlift capacity. A cargo pallet which gets flown into a local area by a C-130J can be offloaded into a C-27J to take the cargo pallet onto its final destination. The cargo area of a C-295 is too small to take a pallet which can fit into a C-130J, and the floor strength is too low to take the weight of a fully loaded C-130J or C-27J pallet. This means that cargoes which get flown into an area in a C-130J would need to either be broken down and re-packed to fit into the C-295, or the C-130J would need to be packed with smaller and lighter pallets which are compatible with the C-295 in the first place.
To put things in perspective, the dimensions of the C-27J and C-130J cargo areas are of comparable height and width by design. The C-295 cargo area dimensions are comparable to that of the CH-47 Chinook.
-Cheers
its one of the things that does seem to get ignored. as you say, its the commonality aspects that are the big advantages with the spartan.
common logistics impact is a huge consideration if you already have hercs in the fleet.
its not just about airframe and flight handling etc - its about he through life support advantages, and the loggie impact with spartans is much much better if you already have hercs
Tee_Centre_10
Member
Personally, I like the C-27J, so I'm not anti-Spartan. I just don't think it is as clear a decision as we would like (as if it ever is).
Commonality with the C-130J is only an issue if the service already operates the C-130J or has firm plans to operate the C-130J. Yes for Australia - No for NZ.
Similarly I think the C-130 -> C-27 pallet issue is also an issue that requires careful thought.
How often does cargo go from logistics centre to battlefield without being broken down and repacked at an intermediate regional centre?
It is best for the pallet to be packed at the logistics centre with the needs of the end user and the pallet is transfered from truck to aircraft to aircraft to truck, but I wouldn't know how often that is realistic.
Complicating the issue is the uncertainty over the USAF program. If it is stopped, or even cut altogether, the associated support costs over the life of the aircraft will rise. The C-295 is more commercial in component origin, and that has to have an impact on support through its life (especially towards the end).
Commonality with the C-130J is only an issue if the service already operates the C-130J or has firm plans to operate the C-130J. Yes for Australia - No for NZ.
Similarly I think the C-130 -> C-27 pallet issue is also an issue that requires careful thought.
How often does cargo go from logistics centre to battlefield without being broken down and repacked at an intermediate regional centre?
It is best for the pallet to be packed at the logistics centre with the needs of the end user and the pallet is transfered from truck to aircraft to aircraft to truck, but I wouldn't know how often that is realistic.
Complicating the issue is the uncertainty over the USAF program. If it is stopped, or even cut altogether, the associated support costs over the life of the aircraft will rise. The C-295 is more commercial in component origin, and that has to have an impact on support through its life (especially towards the end).
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Most likely the pallet is broken down, prior to being loaded onto trucks, helicopters, manpacked, etc.
The advantage of the C-27J and the C-130J both being able to handle palletized loaded of the same weight, is that allows an intermediate pallet breakdown and repack to be skipped.
One logistical question which would need to be considered and answered, is how far removed are the deployed troops from the depots?
I would imagine that the preference would be for there to be forward depots to resupply the deployed troops with water, food and munitions. It would IMO be from these areas where the supplies would be broken down and flown out to the troops via helicopter, trucked out or perhaps even carried out. Depending on the area of operations, supplies might need to be flown into the theatre via a C-130J and then taken to the depots by C-27J, or perhaps the depots would just be supplied via C-130J and then in shifting of depot inventory was required, that might be accomplished via C-27J.
The fewer points where cargo needs to be handled before it gets into the end-user's hands, the fewer points where bottlenecks can interfere with operations.
-Cheers
No I'd definitely plumb for the C27J because we'd have commomality with the RAAF and the ability of transhipping pallets between C130s and C27Js without having to break them down. People do not think about that and I know that Todj has commented on it, but I used to work in freight forwarding (before I edumicated myself) and that transhipping ability without breaking down, saves a lot of time and hassle. I was a fan of the C295 but too much stuffing round in theatre if you've gotta break every pallet down. Also if you light load pallets at embarkation then you are wasting resources.
The agreement between the two governments changes the complexion of purchasing, especially for NZDF, and so we'll go C27J and C130J, unless the two govts agree that the A400M will be the best option for Australia and NZ. One scenario maybe that we'll get 5 - 7 C130J or C130J -30 and the RAAF another C17 (or 2 x C17), with NZ having access to a C17 when needed. Thats another scenario, some 40 Sqn crews being trained and rated on the C17.
There will be no 'Bargin Sale' of presumed surplus USAF equipment. The bean counters will sway transfer of any equipment to the highest bidder.
Let's look at the C27. 20 for the RAAF (Includes airframes for fire fighting) and 8-10 for the RNZAF. A comon purchase with maintenance carried out in both countries in proportion to the number of A/c aquired. A common crew training school (In NZ?)
The RNZAF has 17 Mb339 in long term storage. Despite best efforts to dispose of these - nobody wants them. They are an ongoing financial disaster. A real ongoing pain in the but.
The RAAF is commencing studies to upgrade it's Hawk trainers. Refurbishment will be mainly electronics but with some airframe fettling.
What would be the response if NZ offered Oz the use of the Mb339's. Either as a lease, or on a pay by the hour basis. If this fails offer them as a gift. Maintenance to be undertaken in NZ until the airframes collapse with old age.
This would provide the RAAF with 'light hours' airframes and lengthen the time before the Hawks run out of airframe hours. RAAF usage to be in initial flight experience and navigation exercises. Load up the hours on 'new' airframes and curtail fatigue on the Hawks. If required RNZAF crew to be trained with RAAF crew..
Yes, their different types with slightly different charastics but offer an easy conversion to a 'new' type.
Pipe dreams anybody!
Last edited by a moderator:
Paddy - I hate to break this to you but it will never happen. The MB-339's would require a cockpit upgrade as they are avionics wise effectively now useless in the modern training context and they need new engines as the Viper Mk680 was a bit of a dog and are effectively unsupportable. Even if they were offered for free the RAAF would still not want them.
They mostly are heading off now to Museums and as INST airframes for young trade apprentices to learn from. A couple may get to fly again as part of private collections - however the Macchi as a military aircraft or warbird is a dead parrot. It is no more, deceased, expired, gone to meet its maker...
C-130H Upgrade - Latest News
Hercules upgrade picks up speed | Stuff.co.nz
Des Ashton is saying that once delivered the aircraft have another 10 years left in them. Good!! That is an extra couple of years to flatten out the acquisition hump from a number of concurrent projects.
Hercules upgrade picks up speed | Stuff.co.nz
Des Ashton is saying that once delivered the aircraft have another 10 years left in them. Good!! That is an extra couple of years to flatten out the acquisition hump from a number of concurrent projects.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
All the same, work really needs to begin on the C-130H replacement programme now. "Another 10 years" means that the first Herc will require either replacement or yet another SLEP in 2022. If the programme to replace the Herc's does not start until after the 2015 Airlift review, that would only give the RNZAF seven years to make a replacement aircraft selection, get the selection through Gov't, place the order, receive delivery from the manufacturer and then reach IOC with the new airlifter before the Hercs start retiring.
That IMO is an extremely tight schedule. Unless Gov't opts to purchase second hand aircraft for sale from the aviation market or another air force, or is able to purchase an in production airlifter where the manufacturer has excess production slots/capacity or jump ahead of someone else's order I do not think the RNZAF will be able to get the Herc replacement to IOC before the first Herc retires. Now there are five Hercs, and I would imagine that the SLEP delivery will be staggered with the first now expected in June an AFAIK the rest over the next two years... That still leaves a very narrow window that the Herc replacement needs to be stood up in, while the Hercs available for service rapidly diminish.
From my perspective, it would almost seem like the 2015 airlift review really needs to be a way for the RNZAF/Gov't to announce their chosen selection(s) rather than for them to examine what their airlift requirements are.
-Cheers
From what you have said I would agree that the Herc replacement and the overall airlifter slection has to be gone into now and the process started. As an aside it was mentioned on 3 News tonight that the NZ$ is expected to reach 94 cents US later in this year and then that would be the time to pay for the now excess USAF C27J Spartans. Even that must be seens by the manadrins in Treasury as the optiminal time for such a purchase.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
One thing that does bother me about the NZG/MoD approach to defence expenditures is how short term the planning seems to be, and how willing they are to defer things. Between these characteristics and the apparently desire to purchase the least expensive, rather than the most appropriate, piece of kit for a role... It does seem like the NZG is being penny wise, but pound foolish.
Using the currently in production C-130J as a guide, it looks like it takes ~4-5 years from the order being placed to the first airlifters being delivered to the user. Unfortunately, in a procurement programme there are additional time blocks before an order is placed, while the piece of kit is being selected and any contracts negotiated. Similarly, once the first units are delivered, there are workups down to familiarize personnel with the new kit so that IOC can be reached.
Given how long things take, it seems like the NZDF should be looking ~15 years into the future with the various procurement programmes.
-Cheers
Twinblade
Member
Indians started receiving their C-130's in almost two years.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The FMS request that I came across was in May 2007, with the first C-130J delivery in December 2010.
When I looked at several other C-130J orders placed by different countries, most of the orders seemed to take about 4 - 5 years between order placement and initial delivery. Some more, some less, depending on a number of other variables.
-Cheers
Thanks for that because we now have somewhat of an idea of how long it takes to proceed once it gets to the US via the FMS. IIRC the DWP made mention of 2020 for C130H replacement and say 5 years to progress trough FMS and arrival of 1st aircraft in NZ then really the air transport decision planning and process needs to start now like as in today - nek minnit.
Jeez I just wish Wellington would say right lets get the USAF C27J Spartans that are being kicked loose, the spares & anything else that goes with them because its going to be the best deal we'll ever get, especialy if the kiwi$ hits US$0.94 as predicted AND we'll start the process looking at NZDF air transport needs so that we will have C130H replacements agreed too and the first replacements in country when our C130Hs are due to be replaced.
The RNZAF has been projected to spend $1.74 Billion over the next decade (2011-2021) on major capital acquisitions according to the incoming Govt briefing.
http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/reports-publications/Election Brief 2011 Backgroud Information.PDF
This of course is too cover the B200 replacement, the advanced pilot replacement, the extra three AW109's, the Seasprite replacement (or upgrade), as well as the start of the future airlift capability (B757 and C-130H replacements).
Following that further funding will have to be found by increasing the Defence spend to fund the remainder of acquisition pathway post 2022 such as the rest of the airlift capability, the P3-2K replacement and of course the ...................... Shornets:dance2
Just joking about the Shornets. Don't get too excited!
http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/reports-publications/Election Brief 2011 Backgroud Information.PDF
This of course is too cover the B200 replacement, the advanced pilot replacement, the extra three AW109's, the Seasprite replacement (or upgrade), as well as the start of the future airlift capability (B757 and C-130H replacements).
Following that further funding will have to be found by increasing the Defence spend to fund the remainder of acquisition pathway post 2022 such as the rest of the airlift capability, the P3-2K replacement and of course the ...................... Shornets:dance2
Just joking about the Shornets. Don't get too excited!