Royal New Zealand Air Force

[40 deg south]

RegR
Yes they are saving money by cutting the B757. It is because they dont provide enough capability for their cost and that cost is a fiscal chain ball and chain dragging behind the rest of the NZDF.

I just don't see this happening. 'Air 757' is the part of NZDF that senior cabinet ministers' have the most direct contact with. They value the ability to get themselves and groups of officials where they need to be on time and without being tied to commercial airline schedules.

The capability is particularly appreciated in the Pacific, where scheduled services are often infrequent or at inconvenient times of the night. Plus, the ability to do a shuttle run around several island nations, collect the local political leaders and cart them off to a regional conference wins us diplomatic brownie points.

I don's see this or any future government being willing to give up this capability. You can argue about whether this should be a military function, or whether the 757 is the right aircraft for the job. But I'm very sceptical that this capability will simply be cancelled without replacement.

(Incidentally, most political travel is done by commercial airline. The Boeings tend to get used when there is a large group travelling to the same destinations (e.g trade missions, major talk-fests) or a Minister is visiting multiple destinations in a short time-frame (typically a quick lap around our island neighbours).

 

[MrConservative]

I just don't see this happening. 'Air 757' is the part of NZDF that senior cabinet ministers' have the most direct contact with. They value the ability to get themselves and groups of officials where they need to be on time and without being tied to commercial airline schedules.

The capability is particularly appreciated in the Pacific, where scheduled services are often infrequent or at inconvenient times of the night. Plus, the ability to do a shuttle run around several island nations, collect the local political leaders and cart them off to a regional conference wins us diplomatic brownie points.

I don's see this or any future government being willing to give up this capability. You can argue about whether this should be a military function, or whether the 757 is the right aircraft for the job. But I'm very sceptical that this capability will simply be cancelled without replacement.

(Incidentally, most political travel is done by commercial airline. The Boeings tend to get used when there is a large group travelling to the same destinations (e.g trade missions, major talk-fests) or a Minister is visiting multiple destinations in a short time-frame (typically a quick lap around our island neighbours).

My discussion on this matter is not about the capability being cut - it is about the delivery of the capability for the cost. There is a difference. No one has actually said that the capability itself will be cut - but that the B757 will be and that is in a time a few years from now when they will be very much long in the tooth. In 2020 they will be around 30 years old. Thus early next decade in essentially the same time frame as the C130s retire the Broomsticks will go.

The capability of the B757 with respect to delivering TT, VIP and other MAOT type tasks can be done just as effectively and cheaply in other ways. For example leasing. The capability of (limited) strategic lift that the B757 provides can also be far more effectively achieved using a purpose built platform ala A400M or similar. So when the C130s and the Broomsticks go the capability requirements will still be there but they will be essentially reassigned to new platforms with potentially different funding outcomes. (And the future platforms will give the Post 2020 NZDF a better, more appropriate airlift response to events than the B757).

For example with leasing an aircraft for VIP/ TT / MAOT taskings just to give you an idea - a 10 year old B737-800 or Airbus 320-200 on a 5 year partial wet Lease funded pro-rata out of user agency appropriations per NZDF, MFAT, DPMC as the prime users and other agencies on user pays basis may very well be an alternative. Current industry costs are around US$5-8 million p.a. depending on whether it is a dry or wet lease. (A partial wet lease meaning RNZAF Crewed and feuled - the rest is contractual with respect to support - which can indeed be sub-contracted to local industry). Thus leased civil registered, painted grey with Govt of NZ on the side, recent A320 viz 737 can do everything that the 23 year Broomsticks do viz required capability tasks other than palletised freight on a far better cost benefit basis for the NZ Govt. The fact that the type of tasking / depot work would very likely be well scheduled in advanced and the comparitively low usage rates a single airframe would all that would be required.

Therefore such a relatively minor output cost within the appropriations needs of the NZDFs / NZ Govts overall airift requirement - means that the remaining money that was spent keeping the Broomsticks and the C130s operating can then be cycled into the acquistition, operations and sustainment of a replacement single type platform that has the utility to effectively cover the military airlift spectrum from Medium Tactical to Strategic. With a Light-Medium Tactical airlifter complementing it. On examining the variables I would go for a LMTA which is better from an air movements perspective in terms of palletisation, one with the larger internal volume, better range / payload quantum, more likely to be future proof with respect to support, the one likely to be in use with regional allies and the one which would better provide the contributory component to our total future airlift solution in regards to the payload / range / tasking spectrum even if it does in fact come with the higher initial acquistition cost and a moderately higher operating cost. However that higher cost would be offset via the eventual savings in not operating the 2 Broomsticks and only leasing a passenger jet in lieu of the former Broomsticks non strategic roles.

 

[Todjaeger]

Mr. C, out of curiousity where did you get those costs from? I had been looking into No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF and Queen's Flight for information on costs associated with VIP/Royal travel to get some sort of cost comparison in terms of VIP aircraft chartering.

Do you also perchance have the ~operating costs p.a. for the C-130H's and the B-757's? How about what the B757's purchase price was? I already know that ~NZD$200 mil. has been spent modifying them to allow cabin reconfiguration between cargo, troop transport, VIP and aeromedical as well as some sort of self-defence suite IIRC.

-Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

Mr. C, out of curiousity where did you get those costs from? I had been looking into No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF and Queen's Flight for information on costs associated with VIP/Royal travel to get some sort of cost comparison in terms of VIP aircraft chartering.

Do you also perchance have the ~operating costs p.a. for the C-130H's and the B-757's? How about what the B757's purchase price was? I already know that ~NZD$200 mil. has been spent modifying them to allow cabin reconfiguration between cargo, troop transport, VIP and aeromedical as well as some sort of self-defence suite IIRC.

-Cheers

Todj - not that sophisticated but reasonably reliable per costings - however via posts on Airliners.net per 737/A320 lease costs and talking with a mate who works for Boeing at Shooters Bar for the hourly op costs of a 737-800 and confirmed by the off duty Delta pilot who we were having a Beer with. However it does illustrate the point that the NZDF can use another funding model option to essentially achieve the capability more cheaply freeing up money to be used elsewhere within the M22 fixed wing transport appropriation.

Up until the 2010 annual report they used to break down the Fixed Wing Transport costs of the NDZF in the supplementary section tabled in Parliament. In 2010 the M22 output for the B757 was from memory 100m plus. Lucasnz put on his accounting hat a couple of years ago and drilled down further the ops costs. They do not do a cost breakdown for both the C130 and the B757 any more and just limp together both under the M22 output. Interesting really that since the Treasury & Co did the VfM a component platform that costs around 5% of the operative NZDF budget ex capcharge has effectively disappeared.

The two Broomsticks were acquired for NZ$221 million back in 2003 a time when the Kiwi dollar was far weaker.

 

[Todjaeger]

Todj - not that sophisticated but reasonably reliable per costings - however via posts on Airliners.net per 737/A320 lease costs and talking with a mate who works for Boeing at Shooters Bar for the hourly op costs of a 737-800 and confirmed by the off duty Delta pilot who we were having a Beer with. However it does illustrate the point that the NZDF can use another funding model option to essentially achieve the capability more cheaply freeing up money to be used elsewhere within the M22 fixed wing transport appropriation.

Up until the 2010 annual report they used to break down the Fixed Wing Transport costs of the NDZF in the supplementary section tabled in Parliament. In 2010 the M22 output for the B757 was from memory 100m plus. Lucasnz put on his accounting hat a couple of years ago and drilled down further the ops costs. They do not do a cost breakdown for both the C130 and the B757 any more and just limp together both under the M22 output. Interesting really that since the Treasury & Co did the VfM a component platform that costs around 5% of the operative NZDF budget ex capcharge has effectively disappeared.

The two Broomsticks were acquired for NZ$221 million back in 2003 a time when the Kiwi dollar was far weaker.

Okay, that sort of costing gives us an idea of how much some of the other options could be.

I do find it interesting to note that the operating costs p.a. for the B757's roughly match the cost of a new B737-700 in 2012 USD$'s...

I have a number of questions about the B757's VIP role. I do not really expect answers, but the questions I have seem to be ones which should be asked and answered when considering replacement aircraft and/or alternate methods of providing capability.

I suppose the first question is, when the RNZAF is providing VIP transport for non-NZDF personnel, who pays (i.e. does it come from the NZDF or RNZAF budget and then gets reimbursed by the appropriate dept. or agencies) for the transportation? As a follow-on to that, if there is a reimbursement, who sets the amount?

If the full costs for the VIP transport are absorbed by the Gov't depts requesting/requiring transport, then the fact that there are less costly methods available becomes less important. However, I (strongly) suspect that the cost inefficiencies are being borne by the NZDF, especially if the budget submissions to Parliament no longer show a breakdown in costs between the B757 and C-130H's for airlift operations.

For the VIP missions, how many people normally need transportation and over what distances? In the troop lift configuration the B757's can transport something like 200 people, I would expect a VIP setup would allot more room per passenger but would still allow 50 - 100 passengers.

For VIP missions where NZ and S. Pacific personnel are going to be attending international conferences, are the B757's used as 'air taxis' to pick up/drop off S. Pacific island delegates from their home island? Or are the S. Pacific attendees responsible for getting themselves to NZ and/or an agreed upon transportation hub where the RNZAF B757's will pick them up?

Again, I do not really expect answers to these questions, at least not publically available ones anyway. I ask them because it seems that some poor decision making was involved in the B757 selection. Having gone back to get the exchange rates for NZD$ - USD$ in Febuary of 2003 (1.808736:1) it seems that the RNZAF paid USD$122 mil. in 2003 dollars for a pair of used and going out of production B757's, or about USD$61 mil. per B757. As Mr. C had mentioned earlier, that seems to be quite a steep price to pay, since the price for new B757's at that time ranged from USD$65 - 73 mil. or thereabouts, yet the RNZAF B757's were originally delivered to Transavia in 1993 according to these links here and here...

That sort of premium paid (and then another NZD$200 mil. for modifications) makes me wonder if either someone specifically wanted those B757's, or if the purchase was rushed for some reason.

-Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

Okay, that sort of costing gives us an idea of how much some of the other options could be.

I do find it interesting to note that the operating costs p.a. for the B757's roughly match the cost of a new B737-700 in 2012 USD$'s...

I have a number of questions about the B757's VIP role. I do not really expect answers, but the questions I have seem to be ones which should be asked and answered when considering replacement aircraft and/or alternate methods of providing capability.

I suppose the first question is, when the RNZAF is providing VIP transport for non-NZDF personnel, who pays (i.e. does it come from the NZDF or RNZAF budget and then gets reimbursed by the appropriate dept. or agencies) for the transportation? As a follow-on to that, if there is a reimbursement, who sets the amount?

If the full costs for the VIP transport are absorbed by the Gov't depts requesting/requiring transport, then the fact that there are less costly methods available becomes less important. However, I (strongly) suspect that the cost inefficiencies are being borne by the NZDF, especially if the budget submissions to Parliament no longer show a breakdown in costs between the B757 and C-130H's for airlift operations.

For the VIP missions, how many people normally need transportation and over what distances? In the troop lift configuration the B757's can transport something like 200 people, I would expect a VIP setup would allot more room per passenger but would still allow 50 - 100 passengers.

For VIP missions where NZ and S. Pacific personnel are going to be attending international conferences, are the B757's used as 'air taxis' to pick up/drop off S. Pacific island delegates from their home island? Or are the S. Pacific attendees responsible for getting themselves to NZ and/or an agreed upon transportation hub where the RNZAF B757's will pick them up?

Again, I do not really expect answers to these questions, at least not publically available ones anyway. I ask them because it seems that some poor decision making was involved in the B757 selection. Having gone back to get the exchange rates for NZD$ - USD$ in Febuary of 2003 (1.808736:1) it seems that the RNZAF paid USD$122 mil. in 2003 dollars for a pair of used and going out of production B757's, or about USD$61 mil. per B757. As Mr. C had mentioned earlier, that seems to be quite a steep price to pay, since the price for new B757's at that time ranged from USD$65 - 73 mil. or thereabouts, yet the RNZAF B757's were originally delivered to Transavia in 1993 according to these links here and here...

That sort of premium paid (and then another NZD$200 mil. for modifications) makes me wonder if either someone specifically wanted those B757's, or if the purchase was rushed for some reason.

-Cheers

Todj they are very good questions and no doubt were asked by the VfM team who demmed that the B757 was a poor and excessive acquistition.

I have quickly sort some details for some of your answers by looking through some of the many pdfs I have, mainly Parliamentary tabled documents and reports.

The Broomsticks last year were listed as Expense 13.1 and cost $122.126m out of a $270m Fixed Wing Transport M22 Budget Appropriation figure courtesy of appendix docs and not main report. So I was wrong - the information was tabled in the house however buried away in supporting documents and not in the Janet and John version with colour pictures they give to MPs.

I understand that there is no reinbursement as the tasking is all under the auspices of Services in Support of Other Government Departments and the Community, including Multi-Agency Operations and Tasks (MAOT & SSODGC). They get funded to do those tasks.

In 2012 the Broomsticks flew 1,256 hours of actual output. In 2011 the budget was 1256 hours however it was higher due to the CHC Earthquake and Rugby World Cup at 1390 hours. In 2011 the following SSODGC and MAOT tasks of the Broomsticks were broken down as 70 hours for the DPMC, 14.3 hours MFAT, 11 hours for the Funeral of the Tongan King, 42 hours for NZARP, 6.2 hours for honor guard personnel, and 16.6 hours for the Gov Gen.

This would not be a complete list as it does not include Vet Affairs flights for commemorative events e.g Gallipolli, Cassino. Korea, Ypres, Crete or El Alamein that happen from time to time and which come out of the NZDF budget.

In the released Cabinet documents from 2010 cutting the Boeings and leasing aircraft to cover their roles (It would no doubt include all 1250 hours of tasking) would save $26m p.a. Leasing a airliner per 737-800 for 400 hours of MAOT/SSODGC I would argue would stack up even better and having the funding redirected into operating platforms that really can cover the required airlift spectrum. Basically it cost us $97000 an hour to operate the Broomsticks. Thats about the same as what the Britsh are operating the C-17 for using data tabled in the UK HoR 3 years ago (GBP42000).

I have always suspected that the Government were in a rush in 2002 to spend money on the air force instead on something other than a previous cancelled deal. Funny how the operating costs and acquistition costs were not really that far off and that the previous Shipley government knew that leasing the air transport capability was the preferable option to replace the 727s.

 

[RegR]

Mr C I am all for leaseing if it saves on costs and am not fussed if we own the A/C outright (as per CT4/B300s) I was just meaning that the RNZAFairliner capability, albeit somewhat limited in certain areas, still has a use in our defence force in other areas. It fills a niche and provides a service not purely afforded by cargo types and how we paid/are paying for it was irrelevant (unless it was extreme of course). Some things cost more even if they provide better/lesser soloution, but a soloution none the less in the eyes of the end user.

Can a pure pax transport task be done by a A400, yes, but do they really need to be, no. We could fit pallet seating into the belly of a C130/A400/C17 and sometimes do but some tasks such as transporting our war vets, royal dignitaries, ex-pats, wounded and serving defence staff can (and should be IMO) done in something purpose built for the job/task and that could be a 757 type or a C130 type. If it was purely a cost thing then we could have moved prince Charles and his entourage around in 2 C130s instead of 2 B757s, or even hired but some of it also comes down to national pride and international perception, some would say savings in itself.

We always seem to have the problem of inflated upfront costs in anything we purchase (frigates/NZLAV/NH90s etc) and when we do get a good deal (F16s) we again fail, this has been going on for decades so not sure how we get around it and I'm sure we will continue to pay more for less in the future. For a govt so bent on saving money we sure do mess it up alot.

 

[Todjaeger]

Mr C I am all for leaseing if it saves on costs and am not fussed if we own the A/C outright (as per CT4/B300s) I was just meaning that the RNZAFairliner capability, albeit somewhat limited in certain areas, still has a use in our defence force in other areas. It fills a niche and provides a service not purely afforded by cargo types and how we paid/are paying for it was irrelevant (unless it was extreme of course). Some things cost more even if they provide better/lesser soloution, but a soloution none the less in the eyes of the end user.

Can a pure pax transport task be done by a A400, yes, but do they really need to be, no. We could fit pallet seating into the belly of a C130/A400/C17 and sometimes do but some tasks such as transporting our war vets, royal dignitaries, ex-pats, wounded and serving defence staff can (and should be IMO) done in something purpose built for the job/task and that could be a 757 type or a C130 type. If it was purely a cost thing then we could have moved prince Charles and his entourage around in 2 C130s instead of 2 B757s, or even hired but some of it also comes down to national pride and international perception, some would say savings in itself.

We always seem to have the problem of inflated upfront costs in anything we purchase (frigates/NZLAV/NH90s etc) and when we do get a good deal (F16s) we again fail, this has been going on for decades so not sure how we get around it and I'm sure we will continue to pay more for less in the future. For a govt so bent on saving money we sure do mess it up alot.

I do not disagree that the RNZAF has a use for civilian airliners as air transport. Clearly they do.

What I have been questioning (in both a general sense and the B757's specifically) is whether or not, given the limitations/niche capabilities and the limited funding available to the NZDF, whether having/operating airliners is appropriate.

Given all the numbers we have seen so far, it does seem pretty clear that the B757's were not really the 'right' choice, at least in terms of acquisition and operating costs. Personally if the RNZAF had been directed to purchase airliner replacements for the B727's I would have thought it made more sense to purchase either B737's or B767-300ER's. Both models being in Air NZ service at the time the decision was being made. Speaking of Air NZ... that airline is one of the other reasons why I have reservations about the RNZAF operating airliners as part of the NZDF airlift. The Kiwi Gov't already owns a controlling stake in Air NZ (73.13%) which means that the Kiwi Gov't is in a position to dictate some terms to Ai$r NZ. The Gov't has already interferred in Air NZ ops to the detriment of Air NZ. I am referring to the charter work Air NZ had been doing for the ADF between Oz and Iraq, until NZ officials protested because the NZ Gov't wanted nothing to do with Iraq, nevermind that Air NZ had submitted the winning bid for the contract... The ADF subsequently announced that they would re-consider the bidding of such support contracts in the future. IMO that was the ADF's more or less polite way of saying that it no longer considered NZ a reliable source for capabilities

Now I doubt that any future RNZAF airlift replacement programme would be sufficiently funded to allow a 1:1 replacement of the C-130H's with A400M's or replacing the two B757's with two C-17's (nevermind if they are still in production in 2020...). However between 2020 and 2025, it might be possible to retire the 5 C-130H's and two B757's and replace them with 6 A400M's, and then also possibly some smaller airlifters/transports. A force of a half-dozen A400M's would provide an airlift capability greater in almost all areas than what the RNZAF currently has. The areas where there may be some shortfalls could then potentially be made up with additional leased or charter airlift. This would be especially true if the airlift selection being more efficient to run, therefore reducing operating costs and thus freeing up additional resources to further expand or maintain the NZDF.

-Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

Now I doubt that any future RNZAF airlift replacement programme would be sufficiently funded to allow a 1:1 replacement of the C-130H's with A400M's or replacing the two B757's with two C-17's (nevermind if they are still in production in 2020...). However between 2020 and 2025, it might be possible to retire the 5 C-130H's and two B757's and replace them with 6 A400M's, and then also possibly some smaller airlifters/transports. A force of a half-dozen A400M's would provide an airlift capability greater in almost all areas than what the RNZAF currently has. The areas where there may be some shortfalls could then potentially be made up with additional leased or charter airlift. This would be especially true if the airlift selection being more efficient to run, therefore reducing operating costs and thus freeing up additional resources to further expand or maintain the NZDF.

-Cheers

Todj - I think that if the Air Mobility Review in the end indicates the A400M, then the initial purchase will be just 4 and the light-medium transport again just 4 (C-27J my preference), and if we are very lucky, a single leased 737-800 too soak up the odds and bods roles - as a preference to just adopting an adhoc charter. That is 9 aircraft available for tasking, which would be a decent recovery in terms of budgeted flights hours across the tasking spectrum, from where we have been of late. I think within the context of $1.6 a Billion budget for Air Mobility and that we are also going to have to fund four P-8s shortly after and the Frigates a little while later - then 6 would be difficult before 2030. I would also want us to acquire a CY replacement - a decent LPD with a good aviation capability prior to expanding the Air Mobility fleet, if we had a little extra cash lying around.

In some ways the leased 737-800 could be used beyond the limited scope of current non strategic MAOT type roles currently conducted by the two 757s to get more value out of them. This idea is a little left field for the curriculum purists, but it could be used as a form of conversion training platform for post MEPT course pilots on the B200s(B350ER) or who are going to transition onto the heavies like the A400M and P-8s. Familiarization, heavy aircraft handling characteristics?? It could have the benefit of reducing some of the conversion time spent on those more expensive and operationally relevant aircraft as well as making the utility of leasing a 737 better than the marginal flights hours we would get out of just using it for VIP, Troop Transport, MOAT et al. It is worth having a think about within the limits and constraints of trying to operate a small fleet air force and would give us some wriggle room for the first time in a generation.

 

[RegR]

Yes I too very much doubt we will get 1 for 1 heavy replacement for the hercs(A400+ wise anyway) but combined with a smaller lifter purchase as well would releive any pressure and take up the smaller naff taskings therefore would still be a very workable soloution.

I've always beleived that whatever the replacement for the P3s (back then the A310/20 MPA was also lurking) would be then would make an obvious choice for the 757 replacement as it would cut down on pilot and maintainer rating/training and provide synergies in spares, operating expertise and operations. Therefore if we went with the P8 then a 737 derirative would be the way to go. I mooted the A320 type due to the fact we could maybe combine deep maintanence with Air NZ for costs and its fleet of A320s however hav'nt heard much lately about the airbus MPA so could be another gamble with an unproven type (P8 seems to be miles ahead comparitively).

I do wonder however if the reason we went with 757s over 737s way back when was due to factors such as capacity, MTOW, undercarriage, range etc therefore could take away even more capabilty from the airliner type in terms of freight/pax/distance. Hard to find that happy medium without some compromise I suppose.

 

[40 deg south]

Thanks for all the useful information Mr C.

I'm still scratching my head over the claim that the 757s (a twin-engine commercial aircraft) have similar hourly costs to the C17 (a 4-engine military heavy lifter).

Does this include a portion of the initial purchase cost of the aircraft, divided by the annual hours flown? If this is the case, all the RNZAF needs to do is to fly more hours and Bingo - instant savings!

When evaluating a purchase, presumably you must factor in purchase costs across the expected lifetime of the aircraft - this would be the only way to compare the lifetime cost of different aircraft.

But once the aircraft is bought, surely all that matters is the direct operational costs? The purchase price is a sunk cost, and no matter how much or little it was, we ain't getting it back again!

I eagerly await a legion of accountants lining up to explain just how wrong I am.

 

[40 deg south]

Todj - I think that if the Air Mobility Review in the end indicates the A400M, then the initial purchase will be just 4 and the light-medium transport again just 4 (C-27J my preference), and if we are very lucky, a single leased 737-800 too soak up the odds and bods roles - as a preference to just adopting an adhoc charter. That is 9 aircraft available for tasking, which would be a decent recovery in terms of budgeted flights hours across the tasking spectrum, from where we have been of late. I think within the context of $1.6 a Billion budget for Air Mobility and that we are also going to have to fund four P-8s shortly after and the Frigates a little while later - then 6 would be difficult before 2030. I would also want us to acquire a CY replacement - a decent LPD with a good aviation capability prior to expanding the Air Mobility fleet, if we had a little extra cash lying around

Another question for Mr C.

Do you expect the Air Mobility Review to go as far as recommending specific aircraft types be purchased?

My expectation is that it will contain lots of analysis of the hours and weights of expected taskings over the next couple of decades.

It might suggest various possible combinations of light/heavy aircraft, but would it actually go as far as picking a preferred aircraft? I have no idea, but as a former public servant my guess is that it will be very non-specific to avoid stepping onto the turf of Ministers/Cabinet.

I stress that I have no inside knowledge, but would be interested in what others think.

 

[Todjaeger]

Another question for Mr C.

Do you expect the Air Mobility Review to go as far as recommending specific aircraft types be purchased?

My expectation is that it will contain lots of analysis of the hours and weights of expected taskings over the next couple of decades.

It might suggest various possible combinations of light/heavy aircraft, but would it actually go as far as picking a preferred aircraft? I have no idea, but as a former public servant my guess is that it will be very non-specific to avoid stepping onto the turf of Ministers/Cabinet.

I stress that I have no inside knowledge, but would be interested in what others think.

I am not Mr. C, but I will take a stab at the question.

IMO the end result of the Air Mobility Review would essentially need to make some specific recommendations. Even with the modification and SLEP work done on the B757's and C-130H's, aircraft are going to need to be retired in the 2020-2025 timeframe, or undergo further SLE work to keep them airworthy. The B757's for instance are currently twenty years old and I believe that most air lines in the developed world retire their aircraft once they rack up a certain number of miles flow and/or have aircraft reach a certain age (25 - 30 years IIRC) to avoid safety and reliability problems.

If some rather specific recommendations are not included with the review, then the RNZAF would need to start the RFI and RFP process, request tenders, etc. All of this takes time, when the RNZAF airlift fleet's airtime clock is doing a countdown. From what I have seen, unless there is either a Gov't directed purchase of a specific asset or an already favoured platform/option, the tender process can take something like 2 - 3 years between the start of the process and contracts being signed. Once the contract gets signed, it can easily be several more years before the first delivery is made, and this is assuming that the platform is not one that already has a large backlog of booked orders. Using Airbus and the A330 as an example, the current backlog of orders will take ~26 months for Airbus to clear following the production rate increase back in April to 10 A330's per month. That of course is assuming that no new orders get placed...

Basically if the review does not give recommendations in one fashion or another, then the RNZAF is likely to either encounter a shortfall in airlift, or end up spending more funds (either on another SLEP or to 'jump' the production queue...)

-Cheers

-Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

Todj - I think that if the Air Mobility Review in the end indicates the A400M, then the initial purchase will be just 4 and the light-medium transport again just 4 (C-27J my preference), and if we are very lucky, a single leased 737-800 too soak up the odds and bods roles - as a preference to just adopting an adhoc charter. That is 9 aircraft available for tasking, which would be a decent recovery in terms of budgeted flights hours across the tasking spectrum, from where we have been of late. I think within the context of $1.6 a Billion budget for Air Mobility and that we are also going to have to fund four P-8s shortly after and the Frigates a little while later - then 6 would be difficult before 2030. I would also want us to acquire a CY replacement - a decent LPD with a good aviation capability prior to expanding the Air Mobility fleet, if we had a little extra cash lying around.

In some ways the leased 737-800 could be used beyond the limited scope of current non strategic MAOT type roles currently conducted by the two 757s to get more value out of them. This idea is a little left field for the curriculum purists, but it could be used as a form of conversion training platform for post MEPT course pilots on the B200s(B350ER) or who are going to transition onto the heavies like the A400M and P-8s. Familiarization, heavy aircraft handling characteristics?? It could have the benefit of reducing some of the conversion time spent on those more expensive and operationally relevant aircraft as well as making the utility of leasing a 737 better than the marginal flights hours we would get out of just using it for VIP, Troop Transport, MOAT et al. It is worth having a think about within the limits and constraints of trying to operate a small fleet air force and would give us some wriggle room for the first time in a generation.

A B737-800 would not be a suitable aircraft for NZDF needs. Any B737 for that matter in a transport role that takes it away from standard airports. The undercart legs are too short and means engines close to ground. So, for example, it would be difficult for one to operate on Pegasus Field at McMurdo where the B757s do, because of increased potention to FOD through ingestion. The A321-200 does not have the same issue and we know that the A320/321 could operate there, because the Australian Antarctic Program A319 has flown Christchurch - McMurdo - Christchurch during winter for a medivac. I also think long term leasing is less cost effective than out right ownership. I think that we will keep the capabilty that the B757s offer and I would like to see three aircraft for purely operation sustainment and capability reasons. The B757 is to be replaced after the C130H(NZ)s, so that gives a time frame of around 2023 or thereabouts. Air NZ is replacing all of its B737s with A320/321s so local maintenance up to civil Check D level is no issue.

I agree a proper LPD sooner rather than later would be ideal and at present with Endeavour replacement pencilled in for 2018 it could be difficult. What they requested in the RFI is quite expensive and looking at a vessel in the region of maybe 17k+ tonnage. Taking a chook is a heavy and large flight deck. BUT the C130H(NZ)s replacement cannot be put off any longer than they already have. This is purely for technical reasons. Four A400Ms would give a huge boost in capability to NZDF. Airbus claim that 4 x A400M = same productivity as 9 x C-130J-30s and that the A400M fleet has 35% lower Life-Cycle Costs than the C-130J fleet. Airbus Aims at Huge Export Market for A400M My largest concern would be the NZG cutting the numbers from four to three.

I am not Mr. C, but I will take a stab at the question.

IMO the end result of the Air Mobility Review would essentially need to make some specific recommendations. Even with the modification and SLEP work done on the B757's and C-130H's, aircraft are going to need to be retired in the 2020-2025 timeframe, or undergo further SLE work to keep them airworthy. The B757's for instance are currently twenty years old and I believe that most air lines in the developed world retire their aircraft once they rack up a certain number of miles flow and/or have aircraft reach a certain age (25 - 30 years IIRC) to avoid safety and reliability problems.

If some rather specific recommendations are not included with the review, then the RNZAF would need to start the RFI and RFP process, request tenders, etc. All of this takes time, when the RNZAF airlift fleet's airtime clock is doing a countdown. From what I have seen, unless there is either a Gov't directed purchase of a specific asset or an already favoured platform/option, the tender process can take something like 2 - 3 years between the start of the process and contracts being signed. Once the contract gets signed, it can easily be several more years before the first delivery is made, and this is assuming that the platform is not one that already has a large backlog of booked orders.

Airbus reckon they have their first available production slot in 2018, but the article above thinks turn of the decade given current orders and suggested production rates. However there are some nations who may further decrease their orders or may agree to us having one or two their slots. One just never knows. This presupposes us getting the A400M.

 

[Todjaeger]

A B737-800 would not be a suitable aircraft for NZDF needs. Any B737 for that matter in a transport role that takes it away from standard airports. The undercart legs are too short and means engines close to ground. So, for example, it would be difficult for one to operate on Pegasus Field at McMurdo where the B757s do, because of increased potention to FOD through ingestion. The A321-200 does not have the same issue and we know that the A320/321 could operate there, because the Australian Antarctic Program A319 has flown Christchurch - McMurdo - Christchurch during winter for a medivac. I also think long term leasing is less cost effective than out right ownership. I think that we will keep the capabilty that the B757s offer and I would like to see three aircraft for purely operation sustainment and capability reasons. The B757 is to be replaced after the C130H(NZ)s, so that gives a time frame of around 2023 or thereabouts. Air NZ is replacing all of its B737s with A320/321s so local maintenance up to civil Check D level is no issue.

From my perspective, if the RNZAF were to purchase replacement civilian airliners as part of the airlift then new, late model aircraft of either B737 or A320 would be the sensible ones to purchase. The B737 for commonality with much of the P-8 Poseidons which would be entering service, or the A320 for commonality with Air NZ.

However, the ability (or lack thereof) to operate from McMurdo IMO would not be one of the critical drivers behind platform selection. Especially since whatever replaces the C-130H should be able to operate to/from McMurdo.

As for the decision between own or lease, much of that will be determined by how many flight hours carrying nn personnel and/or kit, over yy distance is required. If much of those requirements can be met by whatever replaces the C-130H, then there might be minimal need for an airliner, in which case a charter or lease agreement might be the best option. OTOH, if there is an airliner which is a direct replacement for the B757's then IMO if it is possible to get the aircraft rigged as a MMRT, that would be the best option.

-Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

From my perspective, if the RNZAF were to purchase replacement civilian airliners as part of the airlift then new, late model aircraft of either B737 or A320 would be the sensible ones to purchase. The B737 for commonality with much of the P-8 Poseidons which would be entering service, or the A320 for commonality with Air NZ.

However, the ability (or lack thereof) to operate from McMurdo IMO would not be one of the critical drivers behind platform selection. Especially since whatever replaces the C-130H should be able to operate to/from McMurdo.

As for the decision between own or lease, much of that will be determined by how many flight hours carrying nn personnel and/or kit, over yy distance is required. If much of those requirements can be met by whatever replaces the C-130H, then there might be minimal need for an airliner, in which case a charter or lease agreement might be the best option. OTOH, if there is an airliner which is a direct replacement for the B757's then IMO if it is possible to get the aircraft rigged as a MMRT, that would be the best option.

-Cheers

That's why I suggested some posts back that new A321-200s be converted to a MRT configuration. Actually if they converted them to similar specs to the B757s, e.g., strengthened under cart etc., plus have a good self protectection kit installed then they would be of value. Airbus aren't doing freighter versions in the forseeable future because of high demand for pax variants of the A320/321. They cannot keep up with demand so to speak. So it would be just easier to buy three pax aircraft and take them to ST Singapore and have them do the conversion. They did the B757s. With regard to McMurdo, it is a significant tasking to the NZG and utilising the B757 on that tasking significantly frees up cargo space on USAF C17s and RNZAF C130H(NZ)s.

Yes I too very much doubt we will get 1 for 1 heavy replacement for the hercs(A400+ wise anyway) but combined with a smaller lifter purchase as well would releive any pressure and take up the smaller naff taskings therefore would still be a very workable soloution.

I've always beleived that whatever the replacement for the P3s (back then the A310/20 MPA was also lurking) would be then would make an obvious choice for the 757 replacement as it would cut down on pilot and maintainer rating/training and provide synergies in spares, operating expertise and operations. Therefore if we went with the P8 then a 737 derirative would be the way to go. I mooted the A320 type due to the fact we could maybe combine deep maintanence with Air NZ for costs and its fleet of A320s however hav'nt heard much lately about the airbus MPA so could be another gamble with an unproven type (P8 seems to be miles ahead comparitively).

I do wonder however if the reason we went with 757s over 737s way back when was due to factors such as capacity, MTOW, undercarriage, range etc therefore could take away even more capabilty from the airliner type in terms of freight/pax/distance. Hard to find that happy medium without some compromise I suppose.

Yes I don't know why Airbus Military stopped working on the A319 MPA. It looked a good concept and if they had of included a comprehensive ISR suit would've been a good competitor to the P8. Possibly they may have thought it a concept too far at the time and have instead concentrated on the C295 MPA. I agree with Mr C that 4 x P8s would be the probable acquisition considering that the RAAF are replacing 21 x AP3Cs with 8 x P8s plus maybe 8 x Triton BAMS UAVs. IIRC they have budgeted A$3.2 billion for the Tritons or similiar. In our case I think it would be cheaper for us to go with the P8s and 4 or 6 x C295 MPA or similar. We operate 6 x P3K2s and a one for one replacement with the P8 would be ideal, but like Mr C says that aint going to happen, unfortunately.

Reg, the B737 undercarriage legs are too short so the engines are close to the ground. When Boeing changed the engine in the 400 series like Air NZ are flying at moment (think they are being taken out of service next year), they had to squash the cowling at the bottom to get the required ground clearance. Since the RNZAF operate in some areas where ingestion of foreign objects into the engine could be a problem then I think the A321-200 is the better option. Also the A321 is fly by wire and a relatively new design with a full glass cockpit.

 

[MrConservative]

The engine induction issues on 737-800s are irrelevant within the context of what such an aircraft is in reality going to do. It is certainly not going to be flying into MacTown when A400Ms or C130J-30s are around to do the 4 trips a year to the ice the B757 has started to do (and only because we have been gravely short of C-130s). A leased 737-800 wont be heading into marginal strips on island atolls or foward bases in Banyam either. It is a civilian aircraft used for civilian support tasks for the NZG, flying in and out of large civilian or large military airports. Its job would be to fly people places and those places are substantially in the South Pacific and East Coast of Australia. A 737-800 can transit through Darwin if it has to haul arse to Asia. Buying an aircraft that can fly non stop long distance runs up against prohibitive costs acquistition wise and operationally just for the very rare occassions when a trip is required for official circumstances beyond the SW Pacific. Any money spent to accommodate this relatively minor role simply takes away scarce and required funding for more significant and relevant tasks. Just to avoid the occassional 90 minute refuel. That is simply not worth a quarter billion solution.

Buying C295s for 2nd tier MPA means that we would have Hobsons choice over having to use the C295 also for light airlift. Frankly it does not give as good the spectrum coverage when coupled with the A400 let alone issues with palletisation and ease of ground handling - it does not reach far enough to be a valid lower-medium solution, unlike the C-27J. If we going for the C-130J-30 then the load / range / tasking spectrum would not be such an issue with respect to reach. However the strategic component of the airlift spectrum would then need to be fufilled with a third platform type with the dramatic increase in price tag and op costs. That we would consider a 3 platform air transport fleet has been essentially ruled out and is too difficult for a small air force like the RNZAF. Buying a further 3 A321's, a a further 4th type to do a marginal role would make it even more unworkable in the real world. Besides the budget is $1.6 Billion. Depending on comparitive NZD FX rates at the time of purchase, solid looking deals and the usual modest support approach we favour, we could pickup 3-4 A400M with 4-5 C27-Js or 5 C-130J-30s with 4-5 C295s.

Now if we were to purchase six C295's - would that mean that they are to utilise Mission Modules and have the ability to re-role within a couple of hours between light transport and 2nd Tier MPA? That decision may then impact the eventual choice of MEPT. There really is not that much substantive capability required from a 2nd teir MPA for coastal EEZ work as per routine Customs, Fisheries, and SAR Top Cover roles than what a MM capable B350ER could otherwise do in the NZ context. A platform which is also the MEPT of choice these days as well as being an aircraft that is substantially cheaper to own and operate in comparison to the C295. The C295 is a fine aircraft however sited within the reality of the contemporary NZDF in terms of the operational synergies, cost benefits and capability tasking in holistic sense it does not make a convincing case.

In the light airlift role (proposed) there are real issues of marginal utility around as I have said before in range and loading when it comes to the contributory operational and logistical efficency that the C295 platform brings to the wider RNZAF airlift solution. There is a notable capability gap between the lower thresholds of the A400 and the higher thresholds of the C295. That gap does not exist with respect to the larger C-27J. It is the synergy of the platforms and the spectrum of tasking which is most important in achieving air mobility in the logistical sense.

 

[RegR]

I would have assumed C295 would have a similar loading system(obviously smaller) to A400 since they are made by the same people and the main advantage of the C27J was that it is a mini C130J with the inherit commonality pluses therefore I do not know why you would mix and match when they seem like obvious pairings already, A400/C295 and C130J/C27J (or large+/medium and large/medium+). The same manufacturers alone should at least provide cost savings on a combined purchase deal let alone a common supplier, training and support package for either combination but due to the fact A400 already ticks off a few extra RNZAF issues lends its weight to frontrunner so far.

The capability threshold you speak of MrC is still alot better then before, A A400/C295 mix vs C130H (kinda reminds me of our current NH90/A109 vs UH1H fleet), the gap seems somewhat unavoidable regardless however covers a larger spectrum providing for better options nonetheless. The amount of fleet types does add cost however we have covered before as C295/C27J would replace a capability we lost years ago in the Andovers which was not replaced.

I feel the 757s are in their own category and should be seperate to the C130 replacements and the 'replace with similar or better' tag should cover each and not the transport fleet as a whole. I agree with you that there are designated AOs for the airliner type vs the transport type and also don't think Antarctica is high pri for airliner just a nice to have, so runway condition is not a major issue (bar all out war or biblical disasters but then we have other issues) it all just comes down to what the tasking is. Save the airliner for the nicer stuff (literally) and leave the rougher stuff to the transports, peace and war so to speak.

So in my perfect world A400s/C130Js would replace the Hercules, C295s/C27Js the long lost Andovers and B737s/A32Xs the 757s(complimenting the P3 replacements) with 4-5, 4-6 and 2-3 numbers for each fleet type but as you say the 1.6bn (most probably 2.5bn in the end) will determine what type (if any) and numbers.

 

[ADMk2]

Why not something along the lines of the multi-mission SC-130J?

http://tinyurl.com/jvfstt9

This is bearing in mind the $2.5b budget, someone mentioned earlier...

You'd probably be a launch customer unless the RAF or someone looks at such a capability, however given it's an off the shelf C-130J, with a world-wide fleet of hundreds of aircraft used by 15+ planned or current nations supportability would be no issue and given the mission system is based on advanced P-3C mission systems, you'd not have a huge developmental issue there either.

Integrating the weapons hardpoints, the ESM wingtips and sonobuoy launcher would probably be the extent of the developmental activities and would quite probably open up domestic work opportunities as a launch customer...

Such a capability can be rolled on or off in 30 minutes, allowing you to re-role your aircraft for whichever mission is the highest priority and given the price difference, between these and the P-8A, you could probably afford 10-12 aircraft in total to replace your C-130H and P-3K fleets with a common aircraft.

If you then chose the C-27J, the same modular mission system may even be able to transfer across to that aircraft, you would simply need to ensure power was available and the aircraft could handle the mission system pallet, though you would not likely want to integrate the ESM, weapons and sonobuoy launcher for the 2nd tier capability.

However the USAF has decided that the slight capability (short runway) and lower operating costs of the C-27J for many missions, is not worth the extra cost and difficulty of operating a second airlifter type.

For a small force like the RNZAF perhaps such a tradeoff is worthy of looking at too? Perhaps the C-130J / SC-130J can fill all the roles, at some additional expense, but still perhaps cheaper overall than supporting 2 aircraft types for some missions?

Based on recent DSCA announcements, a pair of C-130J's, plus support etc will set you back about $300m, plus you'd need some extra for training equipment, infrastructure etc.

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2012/Norway_12-31.pdf

6 C-130J-30's and all support, training assets etc appears to cost about $1.2b based on India's requests.

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2011/India_11-44.pdf

I'd suggest 8 C-130J-30's could be had for about $1.5b at that rate and 10 C-130J's would be approximately a $1.8b investment.

I'd sugges NZ would be looking at about $300 - $350m for the acquisition and integration of the MPA kits for the SC-130J variant, leaving about $300m - $350m for a second tier airlift / patrol capability from that $2.5b budget if you opted for 10 C-130J's or $600-$650m for the second tier capability if you chose 8 C-130J's.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Why not something along the lines of the multi-mission SC-130J?

This seems familiar. has someone allready raised this on this forum? maybe Ngatimozart?
From memory the UK is seen as a market since they canned their Nimrods. I think there is a youtube clip of a LockMartin guy discsussing the MPA herc infront of a model.
I initially liked the idea. I think I'd rather have the A400/P8 combo and have C27/C295 multimission aircraft. C295s are allready roll-on/roll-off ASW/ASuW equiped. They can do transport and there are gunship versions being developed
Airbus Military studies gunship versions of medium transports
There are gunship versions of the C27 too:
Armed MC-27J on target for February firing trial. Im not aware of any plans to develop an MPA version though.

In my mind this would give us an additional "medium" MPA capability. I realise buying/running a King Air type MPA would be cheaper.

With the C27/C295, it seems like we will be buying them anyway. Plus, if we were to operate a multi-role/gunship version, we would gain close air support, which thus far NZDF lacks, and AFAIK is not part of JATF planning. An armed C27/C295 has more payload, speed, range and endurance than an armed Mako.