Royal New Zealand Air Force

[aussienscale]

I'm not normally one who jumps on the "Lets combine the RAAF and RNZAF" bandwagon, but this is one area where potential savings and gains could be made for both Airforces.

E.g. combining the training units could result in a reduced aircraft buy(lease?), reduced simulator buy, reduced infrastructure spending, reduced bureaucracy, reduced support costs. Significant too would be a reduced number of QFI's required reducing the drain on qualified pilots from frontline types for both services.

Problem areas could come in that I imagine the RNZAF would probably have different syllabus needs due to their different plaforms they are trying to graduate their pilots too (RAAF primarily aiming for FJ level single pilot graduates, not sure what RNZAF aims for but I imagine it is aimed towards crew operations) and I imagine the RNZAF would want some aircraft based in NZ which may make it not as financially viable..

Anyone know if this has been looked at between the two forces even at an informal level?

It has certainly been discussed on both this forum and the RAAF in the past, and I agree, while there are differences in the requirements of each nation, I can see over time that more and more will be combined between the two nations, and probably including other regional nations as well.

But it should be clearly defined it is not combining the Airforces as each country is still responsible for their own sovereign Defence. It should also be a shared venture, so not simply shut down everything in NZ etc but make each country the main hub for certain types of training etc

 

[south]

As I understand it, some of the NZ flight training is already done in Australia. IIRC the navigation portion is done this way, with RNZAF personnel attending the RAAF Nav school.

While the notion that even more such training be done jointly to minimize costs/maximize joint operations, I have to wonder whether this would really be feasible or not. AFAIK the only sort of training where this would work is in basic training/basic flight training, and perhaps basic multi-engine. Everything else becomes too dependent on which specific platform one is being trained to work on/with, console layout, systems/subsystems capabilities, conops, etc. Since I am not a pilot (nor ever likely to be one...) certainly could be wrong about this.

In terms of basic flight training, IIRC the RAAF has this contracted out to an outside flight training company. Unless the RAAF made the decision to bring such training back 'in-house' and/or the RNZAF basic flight training establishment was significantly augmented to handle the ADF pilot training demands... I do not see how this could be efficiciently done.

I could see that there might be more efficient ways for the RNZAF to get pilots with basic flight proficiency, given their comparatively small numbers, but I cannot really see a good way for Australia to outsource that training offshore.

-Cheers

Not really so platform specific, and as an example Canada runs NFTC which in 2008 had participants from Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Hungary, Italy and Singapore. All of these Air Forces have disparate types and conditions, yet NFTC can and does take people to a lead in fighter equivalent level. Core flying skills are what is most important, type specific stuff is delivered at dedicated training units... For further example the RAAF puts all pilots through to meet the same minimum Wings standard, even if they are going to be fed to different streams (FJ, transport, maritime, RAN choppers)

Suitability IMHO would mostly depend on what sort of Syllabus the RNZAF decided to run. Given that they have decided that they want a single engine light turboprop platform as part of their training system that suggests to me they probably want to strengthen the syllabus in certain areas that cant currently be met with CT4/B200 combination which would probably see it coming much closer into line with the RAAF syllabus. If there was a common enough Syllabus I could see it getting off the ground.

From there the problem politically would be what NZ would get out of it if the majority was based in Aus, given that most of the money would flow back to Aus tax coffers from there. .Dont know if it really offers much to the Kiwis, It may save some money.

 

[RegR]

The way I see it is that there are 3 generic stages, basic(CT4 type), advanced(PC9/T6 type) and MEPT(king air type) which set standards could be agreed on to keep both countries happy and then we begin to branch off into more specific trades like fast jet, helos and the big boys. The later could remain the individual countries conversion unit responsibilities due to our differing fleets but getting pilots up to that level could be a shared burden.

I think basic could be covered off by a civi group(s) as this is exactly what it states meaning trainee pilots do not even have to be full military at this early stage(making it a smoother process to weed out 'unsuitables', and there will be some), then once they are at a desired standard they then proceed to advanced and begin their military training proper, saving time, money and heartache if they are failed early on. At this stage is where military specific training can begin in earnest finally moving onto MEPT if required, then out to the squadrons.

For a combined ANZAC approach I would do advanced in Aus due to the larger amount of trainees both total and on a per-country ratio that would be qualifying on this phase and give NZ the MEPT side of the house. This may require a small increase in respective fleets to cater and simulators could take up any slack.

Again whether any of this is even feasable or financially advantageous for either country would need to be run through the due process but it does seem as though we could be double handleing unnescessarily.

 

[south]

http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/2012/Redacted COI report for Iro 06_UPDATED.pdf

Redacted report into the Iroquios Black fatal crash on Anzac Day 2012.

This report is not pretty reading. There are lots of particular area's where Organizationally the crew were let down badly with deficiencies/ambiguity/lack of clarity in Orders, Instructions, Pubs, SOP's, Planning, Authorisation, Crew categorisation, training and currency etc. Combine that with a some poor decisions airborne and tragically 3 young guys pass away.

Amazing to me to read the section on 3Sqn Culture...

 

[gf0012-aust]

[

Amazing to me to read the section on 3Sqn Culture...

that section in general is not flash, but 164 is not a good look

 

[south]

164? Para164?

 

[ADMk2]

164? Para164?

Finding 164 I believe...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Finding 164 I believe...

thats the one. speed typing as just got home from surgery, so groggy

 

[south]

Yeah, I agree thats not a good look. To me there are other aspects that are related to the culture which are even more untidy.

Findings 161/2.... Rules are rules. Aviation rules are often written in some guys blood. To knowingly break the rule/authorisation is a violation, IMHO far more serious than an error. To break them as an executive (as is alleged in the ICARUS (para295) shown in the culture part) in front of junior guys is unsat as that then makes it okay for the junior guys. Its a slippery slope from there... Why did the three full crews of Iroquois Black think it was okay to fly beneath their authorised weather minima of 600ft? That to me is probably the biggest single causal factor.

Having said that it can be hard to maintain and balance a culture between being too aggressive and too risk averse....You don't want your pilots in a war-fighting squadron to be a bunch of pussy cats, but you cant have them running around disregarding rules intended to provide a margin of error. There are some parallels in this case to the to the Aust 171Sqn Blackhawk crash in some regards, available here: http://www.defence.gov.au/coi/reports/bh221_boi_report.pdf

 

[Lucasnz]

The MOD has issued an RFI to upgrade the ASW Capability to the P3 Orion's.

The RFI is on the government tenders website: http://www.gets.govt.nz/

 

[ngatimozart]

The MOD has issued an RFI to upgrade the ASW Capability to the P3 Orion's.

The RFI is on the government tenders website: GETS - Government Electronic Tenders Service

These days you have apply to be registered to be able to access GETS. This is from the MOD RFI - UWISR Project [Ministry of Defence NZ]

Request for Information (RFI)

Underwater Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (UWISR) Project - (RFI 4107-02) GETS reference #38360

Defence is seeking information on potential solution options to restore the UWISR capabilities of its fleet of six P-3K2 Orion aircraft.

This RFI seeks responses from companies that have the requisite skills, knowledge and experience to provide either portions of or a complete airborne UWISR capability solution, including:

Aircraft systems:
a replacement for the existing acoustics system
an acoustic processor simulator
a Magnetic Anomaly Detection (MAD) system
a MAD simulator / stimulator
upgrade / modification of the air-dropped stores ejection system.

Ground based systems:
a post-mission acoustic analysis system
an acoustic data storage / archive system
an acoustic processor simulator
a MAD simulator / stimulator.

Installation and introduction into service:
integration and testing of the complete UWISR solution
NZDF operator and technician training on the operation and maintenance of both the airborne and ground systems
assistance with certification, testing, and Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) of the new ground and airborne systems.
Provision of ongoing industry support to maintain the UWISR capability at a contemporary standard through-life.

Respondents may choose to provide information that covers all aspects of this RFI or provide information that focuses on defined topic areas only.

Respondent information will be used to assist Defence in the development of a project Business Case. The Business Case will detail potential solution options for New Zealand Government approval. Defence will assume that respondents who provide information in relation to this RFI are also interested in participating in a Request for Proposal (RFP) or a Request for Tender (RFT), should the Project progress and such a document be issued. For the avoidance of doubt, respondents acknowledge that providing information in relation to this RFI does not in any way constitute an offer by Defence to the respondent to participate in, or be involved in any subsequently issued RFP or RFT.
Request for information documentation available online

View the Request for Information documentation on the 'GETS' website - GETS - Government Electronic Tenders Service (reference #38360)

Submission of Responses by 4.00 pm (NZDT), Thursday, 4 April 2013

Responses to this RFI must be received by 4.00p.m. (NZ Daylight Savings Time (NZDT)) on Thursday, 4 April 2013.

Each response must be marked "Request for Information for UWISR Project" and be addressed and delivered to:
Physical and Courier Address:

Rachel McKnight
Senior Project Support Officer (Acquisition)
Ministry of Defence
Defence House
2-12 Aitken Street
WELLINGTON 6144
New Zealand

Postal Address:

Rachel McKnight
Senior Project Support Officer (Acquisition)
Ministry of Defence
P O Box 12703
Molesworth Street
WELLINGTON 6144
New Zealand

Formal responses will not be accepted by facsimile or email.

All responses, questions, enquiries and any other correspondence that are required in relation to this RFI are to be in English.

Respondents will provide two hard copies and one electronic copy (saved as Portable Document Format (.pdf) files) for each response. One of the two hard copies should be in loose form for ease of copying.
Point of Contact

If any respondent requires further information or clarification of this RFI, they may contact Rachel McKnight (Senior Project Support Officer, Ministry of Defence) by letter, phone or email:

Rachel McKnight
P O Box 12703
Molesworth Street
WELLINGTON 6144
New Zealand
Phone: +64 4 496 0637
Email: [email protected]

Written enquiries by 4.00 pm (NZDT), Thursday, 21 March 2013

All enquiries must clearly and concisely state what matters require clarification or what further information is sought. Written enquiries will be responded to in writing where Defence receives the enquiry prior to 4.00pm (NZDT), on 21 March 2013.

Email enquiries will be responded to via email and may be made directly to Rachel McKnight up until 4.00pm (NZDT) on 21 March 2013. Both written and email enquiries received after this time may not receive a response.

Defence may deem any enquiry from a recipient to be a material matter. In that event, Defence will document the nature of the enquiry and its reply and use reasonable endeavours to advise all other respondents (using reasonable endeavours not to disclose the identity of the enquirer). Defence will be the sole judge of whether an enquiry is a material matter.

Any respondent may be asked to clarify aspects of, or provide additional information during the RFI process. These requests will be required to be responded to within two working days, or such other time frames specified by the Defence Point of Contact.

 

[ngatimozart]

While I was in the MOD page, the following is the Pilot Training Capability Request For Tender. http://www.defence.govt.nz/acquisitions-tenders/rft-pilot-training-capability.html This was put up in December 2012.

Request for Tender (RFT)

Pilot Training Capability - (RFT 1-225) GETS reference #38057

This RFT is for the submission of Tenders from Respondents to the Crown for consideration of the letting of a contract to a Respondent selected by the Crown for the Pilot Training Capability (PTC) Acquisition Project.

This RFT seeks, through either procurement or lease, an integrated training capability including:

PTC Aircraft
Synthetic Training Devices (STDs)
Computer Based Training / Computer Aided Instruction (CBT)
Maintenance and Support (either Partial In-House or Out-Sourced).

While the Crown has provided a detailed Statement of Requirement, Respondents are free to propose alternative solutions to provide an acceptable integrated training solution.

Tender Responses

The Crown envisages that there will be three types of response to this tender:

• Compliant (Full). The Crown has a preference to deal with a prime contractor in providing the totality of the solution. A Compliant (Full) response will include the PTC aircraft, STDs, CBT, and maintenance and support for both the Primary and Advanced phases of the PTC.

• Compliant (Part). The Crown will also consider a response which provides a complete solution for either the Primary or Advanced phases of the PTC. A Compliant (Part) response will include the PTC aircraft, STDs, CBT and maintenance and support for either the Primary or Advanced phases of the PTC.

• Alternative Tender. The Crown will also consider alternative Tender responses as an alternative to a compliant Tender in accordance with Rule 2.2.6 of Part 2 of this RFT.

Own vs Lease. The Crown’s acquisition of the PTC is sought through either a traditional procurement model, or via a lease arrangement. In addition to costing information required throughout this RFT, Respondents shall provide leasing data in accordance with DID LEASE 01. The Crown also seeks costing information in relation to the Partial In-House and Out-Sourced Maintenance options in respect of both the procurement model and the lease arrangement.

Request for Tender documentation available online

View the Request for Tender documentation on the 'GETS' website - GETS - Government Electronic Tenders Service (reference #38057)

Submission of Tenders by 12.00 pm - midday (NZDT), Thursday, 21 March 2013

Tenders shall be received by the Crown in accordance with the requirements of ‘Part 2 – Annex A Structure of Tender’ by 12.00 pm - midday (New Zealand Daylight Time) on Thursday, 21 March 2013 ('Closing Date'), time being strictly of the essence. ...

 

[Gibbo]

These days you have apply to be registered to be able to access GETS. This is from the MOD RFI - UWISR Project [Ministry of Defence NZ]

VERY interesting & frankly quite surprising! AFAIK there hadn't been any public talk of any plans to update the underwater sensors etc on the P3's so this is a damn good sign if nothing else. Even the DWP didn't suggest such a requirement - could it perhaps be that an 'ally / friend' has made a strong suggestion on the quiet that if we want to play with the big boys....!?!

Still no mention of a weapon & the all-important self-defence capability but baby steps...

But here's a thought.... these sorts of projects take years between this stage & final OT&E completion - so won't the P3's be almost gone by the time this gets delivered!?!

 

[chis73]

Indeed, most bizarre. This seems to have come out of nowhere. I agree with Gibbo's sentiments - especially with respect to timing. The best I was hoping for was a hand-me-down from the Australian AP-3C when they are retired by 2019.

A quick google search indicates that the US, Norway & Canada have Orion (or in Canada's case the Aurora) acoustic processor upgrade projects either underway or recently completed. The Canadian one might be of interest as it is a modular system.

Of note, it is now 2 full years since the RFI for the Endeavour replacement went out. If this project takes as long, and then takes a couple of years to go through tendering etc & introduction to service, that doesn't leave much time before the Orion will be retired (currently set for 2025).

Did we get anywhere with the Mk 46 torpedo replacement project? That's still to be done iirc. Maybe they should link that to this project too.

Still, it is only a RFI. No commitment to spend anything yet. I very much doubt NZG has developed an acute case of 'aspendicitis'.

 

[Lucasnz]

Indeed, most bizarre. This seems to have come out of nowhere. I agree with Gibbo's sentiments - especially with respect to timing. The best I was hoping for was a hand-me-down from the Australian AP-3C when they are retired by 2019.

A quick google search indicates that the US, Norway & Canada have Orion (or in Canada's case the Aurora) acoustic processor upgrade projects either underway or recently completed. The Canadian one might be of interest as it is a modular system.

Of note, it is now 2 full years since the RFI for the Endeavour replacement went out. If this project takes as long, and then takes a couple of years to go through tendering etc & introduction to service, that doesn't leave much time before the Orion will be retired (currently set for 2025).

Did we get anywhere with the Mk 46 torpedo replacement project? That's still to be done iirc. Maybe they should link that to this project too.

Still, it is only a RFI. No commitment to spend anything yet. I very much doubt NZG has developed an acute case of 'aspendicitis'.

I wonder if we got to RIMPAC and found ASW kit obsolete (I'd blame comarde Helen if that were the case). Personally I'd bring the P8 purchase forward. I think the mk 46 project is due to start next year.

 

[Gibbo]

I wonder if we got to RIMPAC and found ASW kit obsolete (I'd blame comarde Helen if that were the case). Personally I'd bring the P8 purchase forward. I think the mk 46 project is due to start next year.

Yes good point - it may well have been the experience at RIMPAC that highlighted & now drives this requirement. USA & Aussie have always been pretty hot on maintaining effective ASW capability (first against the Ruskies & now them & the Chinese) so being at RIMPAC will have really hammered home our P3 ASW deficiencies & they probably weren't slow in coming forward & reminding NZDF about it.

I wish I could be so certain about the P8 coming our way. I know on paper it's the obvious choice but experience in NZ defence matters shows you should not assume anything is even remotely possible until you see 'official' comment. Even then you still need to employ a dose of wishful thinking as pollies & Treasury will then most likely get involved & try to identify trade-offs to reduce cost - usually resulting in reduced platform numbers and/or reduced operational capability.

 

[ngatimozart]

Somewhere else it was pointed out that the interesting word was in the first sentence:

Defence is seeking information on potential solution options to restore the UWISR capabilities of its fleet of six P-3K2 Orion aircraft.

The word restore because it has appeared before, IIRC, in one of the capability documents with regard to restoring capability lost by NZDF. I just can't find the reference at the moment. It's also a dig at the govts of 1999 - 2008 under Clark.

 

[A4kscooter]

Rather than update 45 year aircraft in the long term would it be more affordable to purchase an Orion replacement.
Now that the US is concentrating on the Pacific region a purchase of a credible ASW/MP fleet would prove New Zealand's resolve to contribute to the security of the pacific region.
Maybe the P8 is unafforable but the C295MPA would be an affordable type which is proving to be a popular choice for many Air Forces and Navies.

 

[STURM]

Maybe the P8 is unafforable but the C295MPA would be an affordable type which is proving to be a popular choice for many Air Forces and Navies.

Another option is the SAAB 2000 which has been marketed to number of countries, including Malaysia, which are looking at a medium sized MPAs and are also very concerned about operating and support costs. SAAB has offered Malaysia a package comprising SAAB 340s [fitted with the Eriye] and SAAB 200s for the MPA role. The only problem with the SAAB 2000 is that it's pretty new [a mock up was first shown last year] and has yet to be ordered by anyone.

Saab 2000 MPA - Maritime Patrol Aircraft

 

[KiwiRob]

I thought Saab stopped producing new 340 & 2000 airframes, so if we purchased them they would be second hand frames, so why would we want something that must surely become difficult to support in a few yeas time?