Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Cadredave]

Hey NM

But it appears that Coleman may not be doing a good job of advocating for Defence, so one wonders just how seriously he is taking his ministerial role and what his true feelings about defence are?

Having heard him speak in Linton & seen some of his remarks on TV1 news I fear that we have a minister who is in a holding pattern until something better comes along he has not endeared himself to us ref his comments of jobs for life from those who got made redundant or COMP, strike two was his comment from Bamiyan ref handing over our 10 NZLAVs to the ANP (I know MPs are not immune to foot n mouth) just waiting for strike three.

He not as bad as our ADF cousins Min Def but imo hes comes a very close second.

Secondly this may also indicate the fate of the advanced trainer in that there isn't anyone with sufficient leverage to keep pushing it through at cabinet level and below levaing the demons in treasury in total control.

Its still going through the process at the moment as far as im aware

CD

 

[Gibbo]

A case of walking away from short-medium patrol capability or could the situation perhaps be that a different (and larger) aircraft is now prefered again for the short-medium patrol capability?
The B350 option struck me as something to also fill the short (inshore) patrol capability but perhaps less suited for the medium range capability (i.e. offshore/Pacific Is).

And perhaps there's a tie in again with the air transport review i.e. something along the size of the C-27J/CN-235/295 - wouldn't that be nice if that was the case?

Something else - there were recent 'concerns' about Hawker Beechcraft's financial situation, so can we read the new B200 (glass cockpit) MEPT lease as a positive in terms of say the T-6 being in favour for the single engine pilot advanced pilot training role? I had thought that the single engine APT aircraft was pretty much the "next cab off the rank" in terms of capex?

Then again those treasury "mongrels" (he he, nice phrase NM, I'm gonna nick it) just love dangling those carrots in front of Defence and taking them away again :sniper

I guess it could be worse, at least it's not a reduction in capability - given Govt fiscal policy these days!:roll

Now I'm one for never even starting to believe what MPs & 'officials' say until I see it published / quoted in the media - generally because there is then less option for recall (not that guarantees that they'll not recant) - it also suggests that if it's gone public then they're prepared to do so for a reason. I also therefore also try to read between the lines of any official / press releases to try & see what they're not saying!

Anyway where I'm heading with the above is - never in all the publicly aired discussion about short range MPA have I ever seen any mention of the a/c being kitted out with a MPA suite. This (& others) forum have talked it up - but has anyone actually heard confirmation such a suite was on the cards!?!

What's to say the SR-MPA won't just be the MET used when required to perform 'eyeball reconn'? Much as the old F27's did (AFAIK) out of Wigram.

Of course I'm far from being privvy to any inside knowledge so others here may know a lot more. Let's hope it is a fully kitted out B350 MPA we see at some point - it's just current spending habits make it unlikely for now.

 

[ngatimozart]

I guess it could be worse, at least it's not a reduction in capability - given Govt fiscal policy these days!:roll

Now I'm one for never even starting to believe what MPs & 'officials' say until I see it published / quoted in the media - generally because there is then less option for recall (not that guarantees that they'll not recant) - it also suggests that if it's gone public then they're prepared to do so for a reason. I also therefore also try to read between the lines of any official / press releases to try & see what they're not saying!

Anyway where I'm heading with the above is - never in all the publicly aired discussion about short range MPA have I ever seen any mention of the a/c being kitted out with a MPA suite. This (& others) forum have talked it up - but has anyone actually heard confirmation such a suite was on the cards!?!

What's to say the SR-MPA won't just be the MET used when required to perform 'eyeball reconn'? Much as the old F27's did (AFAIK) out of Wigram.

Of course I'm far from being privvy to any inside knowledge so others here may know a lot more. Let's hope it is a fully kitted out B350 MPA we see at some point - it's just current spending habits make it unlikely for now.

I agree with you on the politicians. I don't trust the mongrels as far as I can kick a concrete truck.

In reality it doesn't have to be all the bells and whistles, just a airborne surface search radar, low light camera and HD colour video camera mounted on a nose pintle, good GPS and a data recorder that syncronises the input from radar, cameras & GPS. That software for that cheap as chips and the data recorder could be a laptop and a desktop harddrive. I have software for such setup that I got for nothing. It's not going to need to launch weapons or find subs. If worse comes to worse they can open the rear door and let rip with a C9 or MAG58. Methinks a .50cal might be a bit much although it is a very good problem solver. For the treasury mongrels the EEZ MP mission could double as training missions for trainee pilots navs etc. Multi-tasking.

Whilst I was keen on it long whiles back I actually think that the C295 MPA would be a waste of money for NZ.

 

[Gibbo]

I agree with you on the politicians. I don't trust the mongrels as far as I can kick a concrete truck.

In reality it doesn't have to be all the bells and whistles, just a airborne surface search radar, low light camera and HD colour video camera mounted on a nose pintle, good GPS and a data recorder that syncronises the input from radar, cameras & GPS. That software for that cheap as chips and the data recorder could be a laptop and a desktop harddrive. I have software for such setup that I got for nothing. It's not going to need to launch weapons or find subs. If worse comes to worse they can open the rear door and let rip with a C9 or MAG58. Methinks a .50cal might be a bit much although it is a very good problem solver. For the treasury mongrels the EEZ MP mission could double as training missions for trainee pilots navs etc. Multi-tasking.

Whilst I was keen on it long whiles back I actually think that the C295 MPA would be a waste of money for NZ.

Oh yeah totally agree - it would never have been a 'full' suite as per larger MPA, and certainly no need for any type of weapon! Off the shelf surface search radar & FLIR would be a suitable fit - but even that hasn't been discussed officially AFAIK.

I'd imagine even a basic suite like that above could add a cool million to each airframe so I can see the penny-pinchers will run a line through that idea! Heck if they're so desperate that they're disbanding half the (music) bands & making the historic flight a civvy unit, then a basic MPA suite may just be too much of an extravagance for them (whereas of course it's not!). Even though they do say it's to free-up frontline funding!

 

[Lucasnz]

Whilst I was keen on it long whiles back I actually think that the C295 MPA would be a waste of money for NZ.

I agree a dedicated C295 MPA would be a waste of resources, but a C295 or C27 that could operate in the Utility roll as well as MPA would be highly cost effective for New Zealand. I'm thinking modules that could roll on or off the cargo ramp. A fleet of 6-7 would remove some of the waste inherent in using larger aircraft.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

Forgive me for butting in, but has any consideration been given in NZ to contracting out the SR-MPA role? Given its civil constabulary remit, is it necessary for it to be a RNZAF role?
It is something that could be implemented in a fairly short amount of time and with minimal upfront cost to NZ, and fisheries/customs/NZDF personnel go along on flights depending on the mission.

As a point of reference Australia has contracted the Coastwatch capability to Surveillance Australia and they operate their own DHC-8 and smaller Cessna aircraft with radar and optics in conjunction with Customs. Customs contracts for a capability and it is up to SA to provide the capability. It seems to work well in practice, with the systems feeding into Border Protection Command which co-ordinates the MP efforts of Customs and RAAF aircraft.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_Australia"]Surveillance Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[MrConservative]

Forgive me for butting in, but has any consideration been given in NZ to contracting out the SR-MPA role? Given its civil constabulary remit, is it necessary for it to be a RNZAF role?
It is something that could be implemented in a fairly short amount of time and with minimal upfront cost to NZ, and fisheries/customs/NZDF personnel go along on flights depending on the mission.

As a point of reference Australia has contracted the Coastwatch capability to Surveillance Australia and they operate their own DHC-8 and smaller Cessna aircraft with radar and optics in conjunction with Customs. Customs contracts for a capability and it is up to SA to provide the capability. It seems to work well in practice, with the systems feeding into Border Protection Command which co-ordinates the MP efforts of Customs and RAAF aircraft.

It was considered 2-3 years ago - Mapp at the time was impressed and did the tour of it when was visiting WP, then it sort of went lukewarm after someone talked him down from it as was always a possibility with Wayno and then there was less enthusiasm. However, after the news of the lease extension on the current B200 fleet for MEPT ..... I did have an immediate vision of a white and red Q200 and had to go and have a cup of tea and a lie down.

To quote the late great All Black Coach JJ Stewart "Well, y'know you never know, y'know..." Thus, I wouldn't be surprised - in the make it up as it goes along world of the NZ national security of late.

 

[t68]

New zealand should purchase a few A330 MRTT's to replace the C-130H's when they retire.

They can tap into the RAAF servicing and pilot training..

They are the most practical aircraft for New Zealand.

New Zealand in any medium scale conflict would only provide a token force of ground troops and light vehicles. The A330's can transport New Zealand troops and their supplies long distances into theatre (not front lines) freeing up USAF and RAAF aircraft. They come with the added bonus of being able to refuel coalition aircraft.

It is probably the only aircraft that would allow New Zealand to be truely independant. Even though the strength and firepower of their military will be weak at least it is independant one.

To think 5 years ago before the C-17 purchase the RAAF was hitching a ride on USAF airlifters.

I see where you are coming with the niche capability of MRTT for RNZAF, but it should not be at the expense of future tactical lift of C130(A400M?) when you do replace B757 maybe, but it’s a lot of money for a capability that NZDF doesn’t need itself (AAR)but would be most welcome from other coalition partners. If in the future when you guys sit down and nut out NEW ZEALANDS OWN NEEDS and if you are in the market for a more multi role platform which could provide different levels of support to a coalition partner KC130J would be my pick, you do all that of a C130J can do plus AAR and also has a ground refuelling capability or it can provide an overwatch capability with Harvest Hawk in place of ARH.

But aside from all that, what is the best replacement for B757, Air New Zealand is the launch customer of 787-9, maybe a militarized version for troop transport, VIP, AME and cargo.

 

[ngatimozart]

From a source elsewhere it is believed that the advanced trainer reccomendations will go to Cabinet in July with possible RFP by December 2012. There appears to be two aircraft in mind the Pilatus PC9 and the Hawker Beech T6 II with this apparently covering all single engineed flight training. Apparently the wings course will not cover the MEPT, which IIRC was what it was in days gone by with MEPT being done later on an OTU. The word is that the King Airs will remain for the MEPT.

 

[MrConservative]

From a source elsewhere it is believed that the advanced trainer reccomendations will go to Cabinet in July with possible RFP by December 2012. There appears to be two aircraft in mind the Pilatus PC9 and the Hawker Beech T6 II with this apparently covering all single engineed flight training. Apparently the wings course will not cover the MEPT, which IIRC was what it was in days gone by with MEPT being done later on an OTU. The word is that the King Airs will remain for the MEPT.

Back to Cabinet again. Hopefully for the last time as this and 17 other projects went to Cabinet last September (when old Wayno was running the show).

The Wings course was always going back to single prop once the new fleet arrived as that is normal - we only did the abnormal due to it been forced. Back to the days of old.

My reading of the Hawker Beech Chapter 11 situation is that Goldman Sachs and Onex who own the company will possibly syphon off its profitable parts - i.e ditch the Biz Jets which have been it archilles heal over the last few years. The side of the business that the RNZAF is interested in - light twins and single engine military trainers has a future if spun off into its own entity and product line. Whether GS or Onex keep the money making side of the business is up to them. Embrear are interested - and I would say in all of it - Bizjet, trainers and light twins. Whether the USG and Corporate America will feel comfortable about that - is another question.

The PC-21 though a great aircraft costs bigtime. Heading into jet trainer territory with the CHF compared to the USD. With the decision to combine the Basic course and the Advanced on the one training platform the only realistic choice is the PC-9M or the T-6B Texan II (I bet they call them Harvard IIs if 'make it through as a nod to that well loved trainer of old). The PC-7 too low end and the PC-21 too high end (and too expensive - though they look simply beautiful) to meet the flexibility/cost/capability paradigm.

The question is numbers. I very much doubt that one to one replacements of a dozen CT/4's (If that ends up that way in the end) and the chatter (past-tense last year) of six airframes for the APT role will ever happen. It will be low-balled and will not have any sembalance of being able to do actual CAS/COIN or anything gee whizz. Seems also the world has given up on the CT/4 sooner than later ... was always going to happen and rationalisation on to one training platform was always going to eventuate aka PC-9 / T-6.

 

[south]

If the RNZAF decides to rationalize onto one type I hope that they have done their sums correctly.

USAF doesn't do it (Diamonds at IFS)
RAF doesn't do it (Grob)
RAAF doesn't do it (CT4)

Why? because something like the T-6:
1) costs too much to run
2) is too much for a brand new pilot to handle which requires more hours on type which leads back to point 1.

Rough figures that I have heard is that the RAAF PC9A costs an order of magnitude more per hour to operate than a CT4. As an example the RAAF all through PC9 course (which was adopted when the RAAF first picked up the PC9, before deciding that it wasnt the best way to do things) used to consist of approximately 190Hrs on PC9. The current RAAF BFTS/2FTS course is approx 65Hrs on CT4 and 110Hrs on PC9.

Learn the basics / scrub guys on the CT4 - heaps cheaper....

 

[chis73]

I had always discounted the option of using a turboprop PC-9/T-6 type as the basic trainer, instead of a CT/4, due to the likelihood of NZG wanting to support a local manufacturer, and being the misers they are, only wanting to purchase a minimum number of aircraft (ie for the advanced course only). I mean, what government wants the bad press of not supporting a local industry? The US, Poms, or the Aussies would always go for the local option.

Also, I would have thought a side-by-side rather than a tandem cockpit would be preferred in a basic trainer.

The only reason I can think of for the long delay in sorting this selection out is that NZG must want to link up with the RAAF PC-9 replacement selection (presumably to allow the course to be done in Aussie). This process has been going on since Goff was Defence minister (2007). It's not like the aircraft themselves are that expensive. If it was just a choice of picking a turboprop, I can't see what the hold-up has been.

Chis73

 

[MrConservative]

If the RNZAF decides to rationalize onto one type I hope that they have done their sums correctly.

USAF doesn't do it (Diamonds at IFS)
RAF doesn't do it (Grob)
RAAF doesn't do it (CT4)

Why? because something like the T-6:
1) costs too much to run
2) is too much for a brand new pilot to handle which requires more hours on type which leads back to point 1.

Rough figures that I have heard is that the RAAF PC9A costs an order of magnitude more per hour to operate than a CT4. As an example the RAAF all through PC9 course (which was adopted when the RAAF first picked up the PC9, before deciding that it wasnt the best way to do things) used to consist of approximately 190Hrs on PC9. The current RAAF BFTS/2FTS course is approx 65Hrs on CT4 and 110Hrs on PC9.

Learn the basics / scrub guys on the CT4 - heaps cheaper....

The Irish though use the PC-9M for both Basic and Advanced - but I think I will leave my comments about that right here.

I fear that the move to training rationalisation (which has long had its supporters mostly from outside the RNZAF since the 1990's) - as they really do believe it will save money - what is left unsaid is that it will lead to the contracting out of the Basic syllabus either in whole or part. It has always been a hobby horse of some who want it to happen and have always taken the opportunity to lobby MP's for it. Its not hard to wonder why they are so keen with the local flight school industry not having the greatest of times.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

The only reason I can think of for the long delay in sorting this selection out is that NZG must want to link up with the RAAF PC-9 replacement selection (presumably to allow the course to be done in Aussie). This process has been going on since Goff was Defence minister (2007). It's not like the aircraft themselves are that expensive. If it was just a choice of picking a turboprop, I can't see what the hold-up has been.
Chis73

If that is the case then you can expect that Cabinet will delay the requirement further, because Aust Govt has announced that Air 5428 second-pass approval (of the whole system, both syllabus and platform) is to be pushed back 12 months to 2016-17.

As to platform selection, there was an interesting article in this month's Australian Aviation about Air 5428 and the whole-of-system approach that the project is taking, and they talked to a former RAAF CFS instructor who had flown both the T-6B and PC-21. His view was that the T-6B was a more stable and predictable platform for trainee pilots, while the PC-21 was more "jet-like" and more akin to a LIFT in handling.
Might be a bit of a leap going from the CT-4 (or its replacement) and straight to the PC-21, especially when NZ doesn't need to graduate fast jet pilots.

 

[MrConservative]

I had always discounted the option of using a turboprop PC-9/T-6 type as the basic trainer, instead of a CT/4, due to the likelihood of NZG wanting to support a local manufacturer, and being the misers they are, only wanting to purchase a minimum number of aircraft (ie for the advanced course only). I mean, what government wants the bad press of not supporting a local industry? The US, Poms, or the Aussies would always go for the local option.

Also, I would have thought a side-by-side rather than a tandem cockpit would be preferred in a basic trainer.

The only reason I can think of for the long delay in sorting this selection out is that NZG must want to link up with the RAAF PC-9 replacement selection (presumably to allow the course to be done in Aussie). This process has been going on since Goff was Defence minister (2007). It's not like the aircraft themselves are that expensive. If it was just a choice of picking a turboprop, I can't see what the hold-up has been.

Chis73

I have a couple of old mates at PAC at least one I think is still there who I wish I had their emails - because I wouldn't mind their take on things and where they stand on this knowing it will impact them in some way. PAC were themselves lobbying for the use of the 750 as a cheap light utility aircraft even to the point of once letting Wayno take the controls for a bit closely supervised obviously.

The thing is Chris - the Ruth Richardson mentality is alive and well - y'know the scorched earth policy of local tech/engineering industries either having to survive or die, or alternately just contract everything out.

 

[Zhaow]

Question,
What do you think about the T/A-50 and F/A-50 and the Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano filling the needs for New Zealand.

 

[MrConservative]

Question,
What do you think about the T/A-50 and F/A-50 and the Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano filling the needs for New Zealand.

Nothing.

The EMB 314 was no doubt considered at some stage. The T-50 Golden Eagles are LIFT's so pointless and the F/A-50 is a 2nd tier strike aircraft that had no identifiable need under the present DWP/10.

 

[Zhaow]

Nothing.

The EMB 314 was no doubt considered at some stage. The T-50 Golden Eagles are LIFT's so pointless and the F/A-50 is a 2nd tier strike aircraft that had no identifiable need under the present DWP/10.

I was just wondering because if New Zealand wanted to get back into the CAS and Multi-Role Fighter business, wouldn't the EMB-314 fit their needs and the T/A-50 fit their LIFT needs as well.

 

[Todjaeger]

I was just wondering because if New Zealand wanted to get back into the CAS and Multi-Role Fighter business, wouldn't the EMB-314 fit their needs and the T/A-50 fit their LIFT needs as well.

This topic is done and dusted. Unless the NZG injects more tin into Vote Defence, or the NZDF cuts back on current capabilities significantly (and more likely it would require both...) then the RNZAF will not be getting back into the CAS role any time soon, nevermind adopting a multi-role fighter.

Short of a sudden explosion in the NZ economy (or massive natural resources strike) or a significant decline in NZ security a la major conventional multi-national war in the Pacific region, then it will not happen. As others have requested, it really is time to drop the idea and move on.

 

[Lucasnz]

The Irish though use the PC-9M for both Basic and Advanced - but I think I will leave my comments about that right here.

I fear that the move to training rationalisation (which has long had its supporters mostly from outside the RNZAF since the 1990's) - as they really do believe it will save money - what is left unsaid is that it will lead to the contracting out of the Basic syllabus either in whole or part. It has always been a hobby horse of some who want it to happen and have always taken the opportunity to lobby MP's for it. Its not hard to wonder why they are so keen with the local flight school industry not having the greatest of times.

I wonder if the RNZAF is looking at the RAAF Flight Training system where candidates are given 15 Hours flight time by a civilian organisation as part of the selection process. My view of flight training is that if initial flight training is contracted out (say for the first 50 hours) with a couple of check rides by a RNZAF instructor and it puts money back into the front line then I'm all for it.

I don't know if I agree with having a single type of aircraft for basic flight training. However the higher operating costs will be offset by the savings in the flight hours of the CT-4, a reduction in the logistics train and any associated training. The incremental cost of the change is likely to be smaller. Hunting around I found the flight hour cost for the CT-4F at around AU$200-$400 (AU$350 = NZ$449.03) vs the T-6 where the cost is around (See: scribd.com/doc/13546345/At-6CBrief (US$350 = $NZ453.78). Overall the differential cost increase in flight hours is only around $4.75 per flight hour.

The calculation is pretty basic, but using one AC type for flight training may have some cost benefit once support costs and the impact of that idiotic capital charge are factored in.