Royal New Zealand Air Force

[RegR]

Im also leaning towards contracting out basic flight training to civis and just concentrating on advanced and above training as long as it is to the required standard, acheives set goals, produces appropriate pilots and especially if it saves costs (operational, aqquisition and maintianing), abit like moving from the back to the pointy end like the VFM calls for. Would probably require a dedicated company with a differing approach to standard flight school operating procedures due to some unique military requirements such as formation, low level, outta-comfort zone flying etc. I guess these could be saved for the advanced phase if need be but could chew through valuable hours better spent on perfecting the art rather than making it.

It would be like a driver turning up with his licences already and only requireing familiarisation, time up and learning all the specific tricks before being signed off as competent vs a person with no licence needing the full process to even get them to the initial basic level. Saves time, money and frustration(for the RNZAF anyway) since it could be done before any military costs such as basic trg, kit issue, officer trg etc in a civilian guise with military liasion to track/maintain progression or even suitability in its early stages.

 

[htbrst]

Not sure if this has been discussed on here yet but RNZAF UH-1's are off to PNG to assist with elections, providing security and logistical support getting ballot boxes to rural areas.

Here are some pictures on FlightGlobal of them being loaded onto a RAAF C-17 on their way to PNG: PHOTOS: RNZAF UH-1H's loaded onto RAAF C-17 - Asian Skies

I'm also cynically noting the use of a C-17 as opposed to C-130 for getting them there, perhaps the NH-90 not fitting in a C-130 isnt the end of the world after all : - In saying that I would have liked to see Canterbury put to use getting them there for a good news story

 

[south]

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.

I believe your assumptions made in those calculations are flawed. For starters the US use a different method to calculate cost per hour than other air forces. A simple metric to use would be to look at the amount of fuel burnt in a sortie. CT4 ~ 150lbs T6 ~ 500lbs. Even assuming a CT4F with all the gucci stuff that makes it similar to the T6 it doesn't count the significant differences and extra systems that are running in a T6 (e.g. engine type, pressurisation, OBOGS, life support systems, ejection seat etc.) I can assure you that there is no way that the T6 costs only $4.75 (approximately 1% in your calculation) more to operate per flying hour

Personally myself don't really see why the RNZAF wants to run with an advanced single engine trainer when all of their main platforms are multi-engine MPA/Transport types.

 

[MrConservative]

The CT/4F prototype does not exist. The one that did was converted back to a CT/4E non glass model and if I am not mistaken in my aged and enfeebled mind is now on the civil register as ZK-JDZ or was the extra airframe sold to the RTAF back in 2004. Plane spotters will know such detail. Nonetheless it has been a decade since the CT/4 was last produced and the RNZAF wants in the future all its aircraft to be glass cockpits. Hazard a guess but it may be uneconomic for the aircraft to now ever return to production especially in that there are cheaper alternatives with glass cockpits such as the Diamond and furthermore with a very limited production run for the RNZAF (without any likely expectaion of further export orders) to make it viable.

Currently (and for the last decade or so since the end of the Macchi's) there are 108 hours on the CT/4E under the current RNZAF basic syllabus. They are non glass cockpit mid 90's era CT/4E's with a further 28 of solo consolidation, before going on to the advanced/MEPT syllabus with the B200's. Internal RNZAF reports have found that though the B200 has been an excellent MEPT, however there have been question marks and disatisfaction for a number of years over the B200's suitability and limitations with respect to low level handling, lack of speed, and a noted opinion that young pilots are arriving on to squadron having to spend a far longer and more expensive time building experience and getting up to operational military standards. The feeling is that it is best to learn those skills and gain that experience on a purpose built training aircraft rather than a C-130.

What is likely to happen in my view is that an elementary syllabus of 60-75 hours will eventually be contracted out when the CT/4É's are withdrawn. I expect a definitive answer on that to be revealed prior to the next DWP. From that point consolidation will be on one type the T-6 or PC-9 before moving on to the leased B200's for MEPT and AW109's for rotary conversion. An order of 6-7 airframes will likely be ordered later this year for production slots through 2013-14, to be delivered late 2014 for introduction 2015. There would be a reasonable possibility of a second smaller tranche to follow as the 13 PAC CT/4E's are finally withdrawn and current basic course is truncated back to less hours and contracted out. The bulk of the future RNZAF pilots training will be on the T-6 / P-9.

 

[RubiconNZ]

I recently posted in the RAAF page on the acquisition of this as a FAC aircraft in relation to the below article.

MC-12 Liberty Planes Eyed for Cuts | Defense News | defensenews.com

How would this aircraft perform the short/medium range maritime patrol aircraft role for the RNZAF, given that the unit price is $17 million new 4-5 second hand I imagine could be acquired second hand for I imagine a reasonable cost.

Could an ISR configure aircraft be suitable or modified to fulfil such a role?

The B-350 ER has an solid range and would surely enjoy logistic efficiencies with the Advanced Trainers.

 

[ngatimozart]

I recently posted in the RAAF page on the acquisition of this as a FAC aircraft in relation to the below article.

MC-12 Liberty Planes Eyed for Cuts | Defense News | defensenews.com

How would this aircraft perform the short/medium range maritime patrol aircraft role for the RNZAF, given that the unit price is $17 million new 4-5 second hand I imagine could be acquired second hand for I imagine a reasonable cost.

Could an ISR configure aircraft be suitable or modified to fulfil such a role?

The B-350 ER has an solid range and would surely enjoy logistic efficiencies with the Advanced Trainers.

These would be ideal if they haven't been thrashed and are in reasonably good nick. Don't know what the electronics fitting out would be but if need be a surface search radar and optical package (if needed) could be installed and the price would still be right. The radar doesn't have to be a fancy flash one with all the bells and whistles. All it needs to do is to detect a target and give range and bearing. The ISR would extend NZDF capability markedly because there are bound to be situations where you wouldn't want to take a P3K2 but a B350ER would be another story. Maybe the RNZAF could stand up nine aircraft then.

 

[aussienscale]

I know we spoke about it a couple of weeks ago, I think in the General NZDF thread, but it is now official that Kaman and NZ are in talks for the 11 SH-2G(I) after the US Government has granted Kaman authorization for a possible FMS

Kaman in New Zealand talks for helos - UPI.com

Looks like a steal, would be interesting to know how much proding the Aus Government is doing behind the scenes ? as they stand to get half, certainly will not be going into the ADF coffers.

 

[MrConservative]

I know we spoke about it a couple of weeks ago, I think in the General NZDF thread, but it is now official that Kaman and NZ are in talks for the 11 SH-2G(I) after the US Government has granted Kaman authorization for a possible FMS

Kaman in New Zealand talks for helos - UPI.com

Looks like a steal, would be interesting to know how much proding the Aus Government is doing behind the scenes ? as they stand to get half, certainly will not be going into the ADF coffers.

This was the most interesting line in the press release and confirms that the SH-2G(I) is in effect an interim platform.

"These helicopters would significantly enhance New Zealand's vertical lift capabilities with exceptional performance and low operating costs. Kaman continues to support the ministry's objective of extending the naval helicopter capability through 2025."

Eleven is the right number. These will be very capable assets for the price expected to be around NZ$230m for the job lot plus support package.

 

[RegR]

11 glass cockpit sprites with a simulator and spares + the 5 original sprites should definately solve the availability, maintanence and spares issues and all for a fraction of the price of new build, however will only get us to 2025 so don't sit back just yet govt you only bought a good planning/evaluating and saving time so their eventual replacements should be spot on and hopefully not a long drawn out process with deficiancies and problems.

 

[chis73]

Low operating costs?? How are Kaman figuring that one? Compared to a Merlin or Chinook perhaps. I think it's fair to say that is the one thing the Seasprite hasn't demonstrated in RNZN service. There are specific complaints in NZDF reports in regards to the Seasprite's high operating costs. Low acquisition costs, however, I would accept.

I'll be charitable and give them the exceptional performance claim (I'd prefer satisfactory though, docking them a few points for the logistical support problems).

Operating costs for the ex-RAN Seasprites might be low to start with, until the spares run out, or one of them breaks. Then we're stuffed. Sounds like Kaman are only offering a 10-year support package (assuming a possible 2015 NZDF purchase date). Hmmm... when are the ANZACs due to be replaced - later than 2025 iirc?

If Kaman aren't going to make much money out of a NZ deal, where is their incentive to support these aircraft? All a bit too risky for my blood.

Chis73

 

[MrConservative]

Low operating costs?? How are Kaman figuring that one? Compared to a Merlin or Chinook perhaps. I think it's fair to say that is the one thing the Seasprite hasn't demonstrated in RNZN service. There are specific complaints in NZDF reports in regards to the Seasprite's high operating costs. Low acquisition costs, however, I would accept.

I'll be charitable and give them the exceptional performance claim (I'd prefer satisfactory though, docking them a few points for the logistical support problems).

Operating costs for the ex-RAN Seasprites might be low to start with, until the spares run out, or one of them breaks. Then we're stuffed. Sounds like Kaman are only offering a 10-year support package (assuming a possible 2015 NZDF purchase date). Hmmm... when are the ANZACs due to be replaced - later than 2025 iirc?

If Kaman aren't going to make much money out of a NZ deal, where is their incentive to support these aircraft? All a bit too risky for my blood.

Chis73

The support contract under US law will be a very rock solid proposition if both parties are to remain in good faith and that there are no attempts by either party to conduct significant bespoke re-engineering.

If Kaman departs from its contractual obligations, contract law would penalise them heavily. There are a number of international avenues open for any signatory who feels there has been a breach of contract. In the case of Kaman there is a very real incentive for them to honour their obligations following the RAN debacle - which cannot be entirely sheeted home to them as a company. Remember that they are a US based publicly listed company who are a major defense and industrial engineering concern and not some dodgy used car dealers on New North Road. This deal is important enough for them to deliver and I have no trouble expecting them to meet their obligations to the NZDF. There will be plenty of parts and spare attritions airframes lying around to keep these birds airborne for the decade that we need them - both home and sitting dry in the desert - as well as the fact that the (I) model is chook full of COTS components and not a bespoke or custom variant.

The high operating costs of the Seasprite were an NZ Govt own goal due to us not buying enough in the first place - the initial order was just 4 - then later a 5th was added. We were thrashing them for the first 5 years of their life. Compounded that the 03 airframe was out of action for a considerable time which sent us back to just four of which at the best of times left only 1-2 ever available.

Anzacs are to be replaced 2027 and 2029. We will know what we are getting some years before - early 2020's and will able to fiscally and operationally plan the introduction of the likely Romeo's (As per the RAN).

Frankly I don't know what you are grumbling about Chris - this is the best deal we could ever get under the circumstances and it gives us certainty and continuity. This is a major enabler for us having the capacity to embark all our major vessels with rotary assets.

 

[ngatimozart]

Message deleted. Single word posts are against the forum rules. Please read these rules.

He's left a one liner on the NZDF page too Mr C. Looks like another ......

 

[MrConservative]

He's left a one liner on the NZDF page too Mr C. Looks like another .....

Best if you PM me Ngati about this sort of thing rather than on the threads. I had checked that out actually and was going to deal with it.

 

[t68]

There might be another aircraft on the lost as possible contenders for the MPA role which would be just the ticket for RNZAF, big plus is commonalty with the rest of the airlifter fleet.(if you upgrade to C-130J) Makes sense for a lot of smaller air forces such as NZ.

Lockheed Martin's Sea Hercules unveiled | StratPost

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjFijMCgh24"]SC-130J: The Sea Hercules - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[ngatimozart]

There might be another aircraft on the lost as possible contenders for the MPA role which would be just the ticket for RNZAF, big plus is commonalty with the rest of the airlifter fleet.(if you upgrade to C-130J) Makes sense for a lot of smaller air forces such as NZ.

Lockheed Martin's Sea Hercules unveiled | StratPost

SC-130J: The Sea Hercules - YouTube

I can't remember whether or not it was here or the NZDF thread or might've been another place where I lurk, that there was a dicussion upon this very animal. IIRC it wasn't what we really needed. It would also hinge upon NZDF buying the C130J.

Of note is Boeing announcing a 'baby brother' to the P8. Boeing to develop Poseidon’s little brother | Australian Aviation Magazine It will still be expensive and is based on a pure jet airframe rather than around a turbo prop which are cheaper to run.

Finally Alenias is pushing ahead with the MC27J gunship version of the C27J Spartan.

 

[kiwi in exile]

News from Farnborough International Airshow. Lockheed Martin has unveiled an MPA/ASW C 130, the SC 130J, aimed at the UK's MPA requirements now that the nimrod has been axed. maybe an optoion for us?

Regarding NZ/'s BAMS requirements after the P3's go, I'm a little unsure about the P8, because of cost and concerns about the airframes ability to loiter slow and low for ASW and SAR (which our Orions do a lot of). Proponents of the P8 say because of the P8's new technology and revised CONOPS this isn't really and issue. It will be interesting to see how the P8 performs. Of course there is the benefits of interoperability with the US and AU.

I like the modularity that this offers. Much like a larger C295, it can be used for transport and other more traditional C130 roles, as well as MPA/ASW/etc. There is also the CAS option too. If we were tro replace our hercs with C130J's this would be a logical choice. Reduced training and operational costs due to commonality. Given the SC130J's dual roles, we could perhaps get away with operating a smaller fleet too. Plus our aircrews would be familiar. Im guessing it's possibly cheaper to purchase than a P8 as well.

For the record, I'm actually in favour of purchasing A400's. They offer more capability. Plus we need the size to transport the NH90s/LAVs.
If we were to go with a new C130 variant, by the time they came in around 2025, the US may be prototyping it's next generation of military airlift (quad tiltrotors?).

Also Airbus has just flown a C295 carring a Marte missile. Regardless of the MPA we purchase, it would be good to see them armed with something bigger than a Maverick.

 

[ngatimozart]

News from Farnborough International Airshow. Lockheed Martin has unveiled an MPA/ASW C 130, the SC 130J, aimed at the UK's MPA requirements now that the nimrod has been axed. maybe an optoion for us?

Regarding NZ/'s BAMS requirements after the P3's go, I'm a little unsure about the P8, because of cost and concerns about the airframes ability to loiter slow and low for ASW and SAR (which our Orions do a lot of). Proponents of the P8 say because of the P8's new technology and revised CONOPS this isn't really and issue. It will be interesting to see how the P8 performs. Of course there is the benefits of interoperability with the US and AU.

I like the modularity that this offers. Much like a larger C295, it can be used for transport and other more traditional C130 roles, as well as MPA/ASW/etc. There is also the CAS option too. If we were tro replace our hercs with C130J's this would be a logical choice. Reduced training and operational costs due to commonality. Given the SC130J's dual roles, we could perhaps get away with operating a smaller fleet too. Plus our aircrews would be familiar. Im guessing it's possibly cheaper to purchase than a P8 as well.

For the record, I'm actually in favour of purchasing A400's. They offer more capability. Plus we need the size to transport the NH90s/LAVs.
If we were to go with a new C130 variant, by the time they came in around 2025, the US may be prototyping it's next generation of military airlift (quad tiltrotors?).

Also Airbus has just flown a C295 carring a Marte missile. Regardless of the MPA we purchase, it would be good to see them armed with something bigger than a Maverick.

This is where we discussed the Sea Hercules previously: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/royal-new-zealand-air-force-6601-102/ (about halfway down the page - post number 1519) This is a link to the P8 Poseidon thread: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/p-8a-poseidon-future-asw-11567/ The thread is worth a read and in this threads discussion onthe Sea Herc there is a link to the Lockheed page about it. On the P8 thread take note of what GF0012 says, although he speaks from an Australian perspective, so what is goos for them is not necessarily ideal for us. Also they tend to buy all the bells and whistles where NZ buys the stingy misers variant - just look at the ANZAC frigate build and fit out.

 

[MrConservative]

This is where we discussed the Sea Hercules previously: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/royal-new-zealand-air-force-6601-102/ (about halfway down the page - post number 1519) This is a link to the P8 Poseidon thread: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/p-8a-poseidon-future-asw-11567/ The thread is worth a read and in this threads discussion onthe Sea Herc there is a link to the Lockheed page about it. On the P8 thread take note of what GF0012 says, although he speaks from an Australian perspective, so what is goos for them is not necessarily ideal for us. Also they tend to buy all the bells and whistles where NZ buys the stingy misers variant - just look at the ANZAC frigate build and fit out.

There is no viable alternative to the P-8. It is hugely significant in the Tier 1 capability it will provide not just the NZDF, but NZ Govt (especially those behind the veil), regional defence partners, and the alphabet soup world we collect and contribute to in a meaningful way.

It is what it can do "within" the platform that matters and that its capabilty as a critical ISR generator rather than a supplimentor or reactor, is invaluable to us and those who we work with. The P-8 will be the cornerstone national security asset within the future NZDF inventory - we simply must not entertain anything less.

 

[Comrade69]

Quick Question...what exactly does the Royal New Zealand Air Force do?

Looking at wiki at their current equipment, all they have is Transport planes....what operations do they carry out exactly?

Its crazy, I never seen a nation without a single fighter or some sort of attack plane in their air force [Mod edit: We are giving a 21 day break to read this thread before you post again. And while you are away, have a look at the world map and the Forum Rules too.]

 

[MrConservative]

Quick Question...what exactly does the Royal New Zealand Air Force do?

Looking at wiki at their current equipment, all they have is Transport planes....what operations do they carry out exactly?

Its crazy, I never seen a nation without a single fighter or some sort of attack plane in their air force [Mod edit: We are giving a 21 day break to read this thread before you post again. And while you are away, have a look at the world map and the Forum Rules too.]

1. P32K''s are not transport planes nor are the rotary assets.
2. Read the thread - it will answer your questions.
3. Crazy? I wont disagree BUT that is very much a past tense topic that has been well covered on this thread - and unless there is a policy U turn it is not worth relitigating.
4. Get out a map and see that P-3's and Transports are much more of a priority than a 2nd tier MRF for NZ.