Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Todjaeger]

Unfortunately it does seem as though some people have started up with a 'wish list' of kit for the RNZAF. Granted, uses for the kit could certainly found or made, as others have pointed out, there are very real limits to what NZ can allocate to the NZDF budget, and the actual NZDF budget is even more limited than that for political reasons (IMO at least...)

Right now the RNZAF operates a half-dozen designs in transport roles, three each in fixed and rotary wing, though several of the designs have more than just transport roles. The RNZAF also operates a pair of designs for naval aviation/MPA roles, one each being fixed and rotary wing.

Given the potential capabilities which some new designs appear to be offering, and the need for the NZDF to have interoperability (and thus familiarity) with friendly/allied forces, and the cost to acquire and operate said capabilities, it realistically looks like the RNZAF will need to have a two-tiered set of capabilities.

I will start with the naval aviation/MPA first. Right now the RNZAF operates the P-3K2 Orions (6) and the SH-2G(NZ) Seasprites (5) and in April eight SH-2G(I) Seasprites were ordered to replace the current Seasprites. I readily admit I would rather the RNZAF ordered MH-60R 'Romeo' Seahawks as that is a newer airframe and the design is multi-role and quite capable, as well as providing commonality and a development/upgrade path in common with the RAN and USN but that is all water/dam now... On the fixed-wing MPA side of things, realistically the half-dozen Orions currently in service IMO are not sufficient since even with all of them aloft, they cannot provide coverage of all the maritime approaches to NZ, nevermind the additional areas where NZ has commited to provide MPA (Niue, Tokelau, Cook Islands). With that in mind, and the prospect of the RNZAF only getting 3-4 P8 Poseidon's to replace the Orions, I do feel that some sort of manned, armed 2nd tier MPA is called for. My preference for this 2nd tier MPA would be either a CN-235, C-295 or C-27J airframe fitted with hardpoints for ordnance, the appropriate mounted sensor systems (EO/IR cameras, comms, sea search radars, etc) and with palletized mission systems/stations, allowing the aircraft to switch between MPA and transport roles.

On the transport side of things, I have no real recommendations or suggestions to make for the rotary wing. There are certainly potential uses for a medium/heavy lift helicopter like the CH-47 Chinook, or the CH-53 Super Stallion, however as mentioned there are budgetary limits... Fixed wing transport is a bit different. At the bottom end of the scale is the Beech King Air B200's, which are for MEPT as well as some light/liason personnel movements. Renewing the lease when it ends would IMO be fine, as would 'upgrading' to King Air B350ER's for MEPT and additional light personnel transport. I would not be in favour of having any King Air's (B200 or B350's) modified for any type of MPA operations, unless the alternative was having only the 3-4 P-8 Poseidons for MPA. My reluctance here for something like a B350 MPA stems from limits the B350 would have in terms of sensor/system capabilities, loiter time and cost (especially for MEPT roles)

As I have already mentioned, IMO the B757's can/should go away given their operational limitations and costs. Additionally IMO, whoever advised & made the decision to purchase and modify the B757's when there were less costly and more efficient solutions available should be smacked upside the head with a blivet. Repeatedly. If it is determined (I am yet to be convinced of this) that the RNZAF does need the ability to airlift large numbers of personnel on a regular basis, then I would advise looking at purchase, leasing and chartering options, and if purchase or lease were chosen, to get either B737-800's or A320-200's. Both designs provide comparable numbers (to each other and the B757's) in terms of troop lift and range, and would allow common maintenance either with the P-8 Poseidon's (B737) or with/by Air New Zealand (A320-200). Now if some sort of AAR kit could be added, that would provide some increased capabilities and options, but again that would depend on time, cost, and risk of development.

Now the C-130H replacement can be a bit problematic to consider. On one end, the maximum user requirements in terms of cargo weight and size need to be considered, while consideration also needs to be given to what the average and most frequent cargo weights and sizes are, and of course the distance of the airlift. As the RAAF found, and it seems that the RNZAF is finding or perhaps has already been aware of, most cargo movements do not require the full C-130H cargo capacity. This suggests that at least some of the airlift could be replacement with aircraft smaller than the C-130H, like the C-27J, C-295 or CN-235. If the C-130H (and possibly the B757) capability is allowed to be replaced with two airlift tiers, then the deciding factors for the low tier/tactical airlift should be made around which aircraft can move the most common small cargoes the required ranges, yet cost the least to acquire and operate.

At the other end of the spectrum, the strategic lift IMO it is looking more and more like the A400M would be the only sensible choice at the time the decisions would be made. The C-17 is most likely going to be either out of production or with the line shutting down. The other 'strategic' airlifter would be the C-130J, which would basically just mean a like for like replacement with some slight improvements in operating efficiency, availability and slight increase in cargo weight capacity. The C-130J would still not have sufficient space or weight to airlift an NZLAV, which depending on circumstances, might be an operational need. The A400M should be able to airlift an NZLAV with some additional room and cargo weight to spare for additional things. Also IIRC the A400M is already plumbed for AAR. While this is not a current capability of the RNZAF, AAR is the sort of capability which allies would find very useful, if the RNZAF could bring that to a deployment or operation. AAR for RNZAF use IMO would be minimal, since that cannot be used to increase a P-8 Poseidon loiter time and I would assume the same would apply to other MPA and AEW-type aircraft. The question next becomes what sort of numbers are required for the tactical and strategic airlifters. I would hope at least three A400M's would be purchased, to allow one always available for operations, but four would be preferable, with five better still. If the B757's do get retired, I would not rule out as many as five or six A400M's being chosen, since as a strategic airlifter, the A400M beats out the B757 in all categories except for speed and the maximum # of passengers. The numbers required for tactical airlift at present are unknown (to me at least...) but I would suspect between 3 - 5 aircraft would be appropriate. Given a choice though I would prefer more strategic airlifters than tactical, since a tactical airlift could be preformed by a strategic aircraft, the same cannot be said for a tactical airlifter fufilling the role of a strategic aircraft.

-Cheers

EDIT: Additional thought. With others having pointed out that the population and GDP (PPP) of NZ is comparable to that of Sydney, I have to ask those advocating for a jet to cart the PM and others round in, does it seem worthwhile? AFAIK Sydney does not have an airliner jet rigged up to fly the Lord Mayor and staff around. Granted the Lord Mayor of Sydney does not have the foreign relations duties which the PM and other ministers in NZ have, I do have to ask what one is willing to give up for a VIP airlift capability.

 

[KiwiRob]

leasing and chartering options, and if purchase or lease were chosen, to get either B737-800's or A320-200's. Both designs provide comparable numbers (to each other and the B757's) in terms of troop lift and range, and would allow common maintenance either with the P-8 Poseidon's (B737) or with/by Air New Zealand (A320-200). Now if some sort of AAR kit could be added, that would provide some increased capabilities and options, but again that would depend on time, cost, and risk of development.

Actually no the 737-800 and A320 do not have the passenger capacity of the 757-200, to get that you'd need a 737-900 or A321, but neither of them has anywhere near the range of the 757-200, as they say the only replacement for the 757 is another 757.

 

[Todjaeger]

Actually no the 737-800 and A320 do not have the passenger capacity of the 757-200, to get that you'd need a 737-900 or A321, but neither of them has anywhere near the range of the 757-200, as they say the only replacement for the 757 is another 757.

A standard B757-200 can carry 200 to 228 passengers depending on configuration, with a range of ~3,900 n miles. A B737-800, which is supposed to have an ERX variant which served as the basis of the P-8A, as well as the BBJ2, should have a range of ~3,115 n miles, with 162-189 passengers. The ER/ERX version likely having still greater range. An A320-200 can seat up to 180, with a max range of ~3,300 n miles. Not the same, but comparable.

-Cheers

 

[KiwiRob]

757-200 is certified to carry up to 239 passengers in an all economy configuration, which is significantly more lift than 737-800 and A320, at significantly more range, the only narrow-body aircraft that can get close is the A321NEO, but for now that's a paper plane. It will be very difficult replacing them as there really is no direct replacement around today, these planes will be flown by airlines until they die. You'll have 40 year old 757's flying transatlantic in a few years because they make money and there isn't anything out there as capable that can do the same job. We can probably fly ours for many more years.

 

[ADMk2]

Out of interest and to put the utility of some things into perspective, the C-130J is also "plumbed" for air to air refuelling.

The only difference between a KC-130J and a C-130J is that 2 Sargent Fletcher refuelling pods are carried on the KC-130J and a 3600 gallon removable fuel pod, can be carried in the cargo bay of the KC-130J.

All the necessary plumbing is extent on the C-130J. It's simply the extra refuelling kit you need to turn it into a KC-130J, just as it's the modular mission payload and wing-tips needed to turn a C-130J into an SC-130J MPA...

Cheers,

AD

 

[Todjaeger]

757-200 is certified to carry up to 239 passengers in an all economy configuration, which is significantly more lift than 737-800 and A320, at significantly more range, the only narrow-body aircraft that can get close is the A321NEO, but for now that's a paper plane. It will be very difficult replacing them as there really is no direct replacement around today, these planes will be flown by airlines until they die. You'll have 40 year old 757's flying transatlantic in a few years because they make money and there isn't anything out there as capable that can do the same job. We can probably fly ours for many more years.

IIRC many of the older airliners (30+ years old) are operated by smaller regional/national air lines in areas like South America and Africa. Places that in many cases the companies could not easily afford to purchase or maintain new aircraft. IIRC a number of the carriers are not allowed to conduct flights into Europe and North America due to safety concerns about the aircraft.

Now granted, with proper maintenance many jets can be kept in service for a very long time indeed. However, the older and aircraft is, typically the more that needs to be done to be kept in service safely. Also if the aircraft (or any piece of kit really) is no longer in production, then the more difficult and expensive it can be to get or have parts made/modified for use. Using the C-130H's as an example, they are ~40 years old at this point, and have or are undergoing a SLEP to get another decade of service out of them. The cost per aircraft for that SLEP is ~$50 mil. IIRC, when at the time the decision was made new C-130J's could been purchased for ~$65 - 70 mil. per aircraft. I bring that point up because at some point, the costs to keep the B757's will become prohibitively high.

As for range and carrying capacity, what numbers do the NZDF really need from a jet liner? Looking back at what a B727 could manage, the max was ~189 passengers with a range of 2,170 n miles. Both the B737-800 and A320-200 meet or exceed those specs. For cargo movements (of high weight and/or long range) if the A400M were in service, that would be preferable due to comparable range and capacity, with the ability to carry outsized loads, greater ease of loading/unloading, and lower operating costs. That again brings one back to, how often does NZ need to fly 200+ people to/from the same destination at the same time? If the answer is all the time or even regularly then having something like a B757 (or a MRTT would be even better) in service makes sense. If the answer is it happens a few times a year, then perhaps leasing/chartering options should be looked at again. And another reminder that the Kiwi gov't owns 73% of the stock in Air New Zealand, which has a wealth of experience and resources in moving large numbers of people back and forth over long distances via air. IMO it does not make sense for the RNZAF to replicate a capability which can be gotten as needed via Air NZ at lower cost, unless either Air NZ does not have the capacity to provide what would be needed, or the ops areas would be unsafe for Air NZ aircraft. Given that NZ has had the B757's for a decade and they are just now being fitted with self-protection suites...

Out of interest and to put the utility of some things into perspective, the C-130J is also "plumbed" for air to air refuelling.

The only difference between a KC-130J and a C-130J is that 2 Sargent Fletcher refuelling pods are carried on the KC-130J and a 3600 gallon removable fuel pod, can be carried in the cargo bay of the KC-130J.

All the necessary plumbing is extent on the C-130J. It's simply the extra refuelling kit you need to turn it into a KC-130J, just as it's the modular mission payload and wing-tips needed to turn a C-130J into an SC-130J MPA...

Cheers,

AD

I will need to read up a bit on the SC-130J MPA, but I would have a concern about the available loiter time. The P-8 Poseidon has a loiter time IIRC to 15-18 hours, before certain onboard fluids are exhausted. These fluids I believe are used as coolant for the radar and therefore not something which can be replenished during AAR. Smaller MPA like the HC-144A Ocean Sentry (based off the CN-235-300 MP Persuader) have a loiter time of ~9 hours.

Now with something like a C-130J fitted with MPA sensors, that is going to cause some reduction in the available cargo space if the SC-130J is operating in a transport role. There is also likely to be a shorter loiter time available, due to space/weight limits for the coolant. The amount of space and weight set aside for additional coolant, therefore allowing a greater loiter time could of course be increased, but that would then negatively impact cargo capacity (space and weight) when operating in the transport role. There is also the question of how and from where something like a SC-130J would drop LWT's and sonobuoys.

I need to find out more about LockMart's proposed sensor fitout, to get a real idea of at what level the SC-130J would be performing as an MPA.

-Cheers

 

[RobWilliams]

I will need to read up a bit on the SC-130J MPA, but I would have a concern about the available loiter time. The P-8 Poseidon has a loiter time IIRC to 15-18 hours, before certain onboard fluids are exhausted. These fluids I believe are used as coolant for the radar and therefore not something which can be replenished during AAR. Smaller MPA like the HC-144A Ocean Sentry (based off the CN-235-300 MP Persuader) have a loiter time of ~9 hours.

Now with something like a C-130J fitted with MPA sensors, that is going to cause some reduction in the available cargo space if the SC-130J is operating in a transport role. There is also likely to be a shorter loiter time available, due to space/weight limits for the coolant. The amount of space and weight set aside for additional coolant, therefore allowing a greater loiter time could of course be increased, but that would then negatively impact cargo capacity (space and weight) when operating in the transport role. There is also the question of how and from where something like a SC-130J would drop LWT's and sonobuoys.

I need to find out more about LockMart's proposed sensor fitout, to get a real idea of at what level the SC-130J would be performing as an MPA.

-Cheers

Here's LockMarts brochure, I chopped out the range/endurance figure for your convenience.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/conte...12-1166510A002 SC-130J Sea Herc Bro Media.pdf

Having a brief look at Wiki, the P-8 supposedly has 1,200nm range with 4 hours on station, this is backed up from Boeing. Considering LockMart puts an SC-130J at 1,325nm with 4 hours on station it actually is pretty good.

Boeing: P-8A Poseidon

 

[KiwiRob]

IIRC many of the older airliners (30+ years old) are operated by smaller regional/national air lines in areas like South America and Africa. Places that in many cases the companies could not easily afford to purchase or maintain new aircraft. IIRC a number of the carriers are not allowed to conduct flights into Europe and North America due to safety concerns about the aircraft.

Ah no they are not, Delta in the US operates DC9's and MD88 some which are fast approaching 30-40 years old, American Airlines has MD80 series planes approaching 35 year of age, Southwest has 20 plus year old 737's, Lufthansa, BA, KLM operate plenty of 20 year old 747's, United and American Airlines operate 25 year old 757's, as you can see plenty of airlines from developed countries operate older aircraft, not every airline has bags of cash like the Gulf carriers. The 757 will keep flying for premium airlines because there isn't an airliner that can do the job it does today.

If you get rid of the asset, we'll miss it. As for Air NZ, it's not the RNZAF, just because it's main shareholder is the govt it doesn't mean that the govt can tell it what to do, Air NZ isn't an SOE or a Crown Entity.

 

[40 deg south]

If you get rid of the asset, we'll miss it. As for Air NZ, it's not the RNZAF, just because it's main shareholder is the govt it doesn't mean that the govt can tell it what to do, Air NZ isn't an SOE or a Crown Entity.

The Crown can't simply tell AirNZ what to do. But it can pay it to carry out tasks, including the supply of charter aircraft.

I said a couple of days ago that having an airliner on tap is too useful for the government to give up. But I agree with those who point out such a capability could be met by either chartering commercial airlines to provide support on a mission-by mission basis or leasing an aircraft for RNZAF crew to fly.

My guess is that the 757s will be replaced by leased aircraft eventually. And if the existing Hercules fleet has been replaced by then, only a single passenger jet will be needed as the 757 cargo capacity will be available elsewhere.

Given the Herc's have been SLEPped until 2020, I don't think we will see a replacement entering service until thereabouts, with the P3 replacement coming a few years later.

On top of the ongoing upgrades to the frigates and various aging aircraft, the govt is buying new army trucks, new (ha!) Seasprites and presumably paying off the final 4 NH90s.

We know the next air force upgrade will be replacement training aircraft, around 2015. The Endeavour tanker is slated for replacement around 2018, along with a new littoral warfare/hydrographic capability.

Hence my doubt that RNZAF will see new airlift before 2020, with the 757s probably soldiering on until then.

 

[RegR]

The fact we are finally fitting out the 757s with any form of self protection shows at least someones interest in them and to be honest the reason we are getting it now is a direct response to our current threat areas (Timor and Sollies did'nt quite justify a SP suite) now and in the future. The world is changing and we need to adapt.

Now I doubt Air NZ would have a need to fit such a suite for 'a few leases' a year therefore the only viable entity that could provide such a capability is again the RNZAF. If it was deemed not needed we would not spend money on fitting them out in the first place and use the Hercs.

I seem to remember a time when pax seats were needed when NZ did a excercise in SE asia and required both 727s due to numbers. Admittedly it covered off a smaller ex in the general area as well but both were required to move the main bulk. A single 757 in this instance would have covered off and surely been more cost effective then 2 727s. RNZAF tries to combine taskings where possible to utilise assets to best effect, can't always work out but when it does it is better to be over-prepared then under- equipped.

If we are contemplating getting Air NZ to move our troops around then why not get the russians to move LAV/NH90/beer fridge etc as they too are a company in the air transport buisness? Just because it has NZ in the title does not mean NZDF are on its priority to do list. If we only move large groups of defence staff a few times a year then how often do you think we move LAV(or similar)?

 

[t68]

That post I did earlier is not to meant to be a wish list, just an observation on needs for the NZDF.

9x A400M is the upper limit that's required, or you risk overusing your equipment such as the original 4 C17 in RAAF use. As said before and I'll say it again 6 aircraft is the miniuim needed 4 operational 2 in maintenance 9 is the maximum and to maintain your equipment for years to come.

In regards to CH47 their are times when you have to move stores and equipment that will exceed that of MRH-90 why tie up you small fleet of utilty helicopters when you can use CH47 pending what the needs are 1 helicopter against 2/3. You have placed as part of RFI for a JSS to be CH47 capabile so their so the head sheds must see a need for it why not have it yourself.

 

[ngatimozart]

That post I did earlier is not to meant to be a wish list, just an observation on needs for the NZDF.

9x A400M is the upper limit that's required, or you risk overusing your equipment such as the original 4 C17 in RAAF use. As said before and I'll say it again 6 aircraft is the miniuim needed 4 operational 2 in maintenance 9 is the maximum and to maintain your equipment for years to come.

In regards to CH47 their are times when you have to move stores and equipment that will exceed that of MRH-90 why tie up you small fleet of utilty helicopters when you can use CH47 pending what the needs are 1 helicopter against 2/3. You have placed as part of RFI for a JSS to be CH47 capabile so their so the head sheds must see a need for it why not have it yourself.

The RFI for the Endeavour replace stated that the chook part was costs only so we can only conclude that it is being looked at as an optional extra right from the start. Also that it is something that they would see as working in with the ADF who do fly chooks.

One thing we should remember when looking at RNZAF use of B757s and civilian airline use of B757s is the number and frequency of cycles; i.e., one cycle = one take off plus one landing. Hence in RNZAF service a B757 cycle quantity and frequency is far less than that of an airline. So another thought comes to mind, if they decide to keep the B757 type capability, and no similar aircraft is available, then is a SLEP viable?

The B757 replacement if it happens is not supposed to be until around 2023, the FFH replacement around 2030, the P3K2, 2027+. Any interest we have in MPA at the moment really would be based around something to back up the P3K2s and 2nd teir. If we can get an aircraft like the C27J that is able to do that as well then that is good and the link that Mr C has put up speaks to existing technologies the do not necessarilly mean cutting holes in the airframe and / or adding wiring for external weapons, sensors etc.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Crown can't simply tell AirNZ what to do. But it can pay it to carry out tasks, including the supply of charter aircraft.

Exactly. And based off some (very) rough calculations it can do so more efficiently, at least in most cases. See the end of the post for what I mean.

I said a couple of days ago that having an airliner on tap is too useful for the government to give up. But I agree with those who point out such a capability could be met by either chartering commercial airlines to provide support on a mission-by mission basis or leasing an aircraft for RNZAF crew to fly.

My guess is that the 757s will be replaced by leased aircraft eventually. And if the existing Hercules fleet has been replaced by then, only a single passenger jet will be needed as the 757 cargo capacity will be available elsewhere.

Given the Herc's have been SLEPped until 2020, I don't think we will see a replacement entering service until thereabouts, with the P3 replacement coming a few years later.

On top of the ongoing upgrades to the frigates and various aging aircraft, the govt is buying new army trucks, new (ha!) Seasprites and presumably paying off the final 4 NH90s.

We know the next air force upgrade will be replacement training aircraft, around 2015. The Endeavour tanker is slated for replacement around 2018, along with a new littoral warfare/hydrographic capability.

Hence my doubt that RNZAF will see new airlift before 2020, with the 757s probably soldiering on until then.

Hopefully the RNZAF will start seeing new airlift entering service just at the C-130H's service winds down. However, given how long it can take for decisions to be made, contracts signed, training conducted and new kit stood up...

I do not see the B757's retiring until around or just after the C-130's do, unless either the operating costs become unsustainable, or there is some sort of incident or event which would require additional costly modifications or repairs to the B757's.

If we are contemplating getting Air NZ to move our troops around then why not get the russians to move LAV/NH90/beer fridge etc as they too are a company in the air transport buisness? Just because it has NZ in the title does not mean NZDF are on its priority to do list. If we only move large groups of defence staff a few times a year then how often do you think we move LAV(or similar)?

If memory serves, a Ukrainian (not Russian) company did provide much of the strategic lift for the ADF and NZDF in Afghanistan, using contracted An-124's to fly in vehicles and heavy equipment. The company was hired because they were one of the few companies capable of doing that sort of long distance, outsized load heavy lift. IIRC at some points though there were difficulties experienced by the ADF in getting some of the heavy lift where and when it was needed, which I believe was one of the reasons why the ADF placed a rush order for C-17's.

Depending on which air transport gets selected as a replacement for the C-130H, then the RNZAF could provide that capability themselves. IMO it is more important for the RNZAF to be able to move heavy and outsized loads via air than large numbers of personnel, simply because there are few civilian operators able to do so. One of them which is near NZ is HeavyLift Cargo and has done charter work for the ADF, however they have a fairly small fleet of aircraft, ~4 IIRC including a Shorts Belfast which has performance similar to an A400M.

The RFI for the Endeavour replace stated that the chook part was costs only so we can only conclude that it is being looked at as an optional extra right from the start. Also that it is something that they would see as working in with the ADF who do fly chooks.

One thing we should remember when looking at RNZAF use of B757s and civilian airline use of B757s is the number and frequency of cycles; i.e., one cycle = one take off plus one landing. Hence in RNZAF service a B757 cycle quantity and frequency is far less than that of an airline. So another thought comes to mind, if they decide to keep the B757 type capability, and no similar aircraft is available, then is a SLEP viable?

The B757 replacement if it happens is not supposed to be until around 2023, the FFH replacement around 2030, the P3K2, 2027+. Any interest we have in MPA at the moment really would be based around something to back up the P3K2s and 2nd teir. If we can get an aircraft like the C27J that is able to do that as well then that is good and the link that Mr C has put up speaks to existing technologies the do not necessarilly mean cutting holes in the airframe and / or adding wiring for external weapons, sensors etc.

My understanding of the RFI about being able to land a CH-47 from the Endeavour replacement was more about adding flexibility to either lilypad or operate an ADF Chinook. In essence if the ADF needed to bring in an additional or replacement CH-47, then the RNZN replenishment vessel could transport it. I did not take it as an indication that the NZDF was looking to start operating CH-47's.

As for any sort of SLEP to keep the B757's in service past 2023, or even if there would be sufficient wear and tear to require it... Honestly I do not anticipate that as being an issue. What I suspect will happen is that the B757's will end up getting retired due to the cost of using and maintaining them.

Here is the rough calculation I did to illustrate what seems to be a cost inefficieny of the RNZAF B757-200. The current estimate is ~$97,000/hr to operate the B757's. Given the distance and cruising speed of the B757, to go from Auckland to San Francisco would take over 12.5 hours. Actually it would take longer than that, since a B757 does not have sufficient range to fly non-stop to San Francisco and would need to land somewhere in the Pacific and refuel first. So a generous estimate would put the cost of a one-way flight at $1.2 mil. If the B757 was fully loaded (all 239 personnel) that works out to costing ~$5,073 per person. I could fly Air NZ from Auckland to San Francisco direct, Business class one-way for between $4,075 and $5,576 depending on the day of the week. If one opted for the next tier down of air travel accomodations, Premium Economy, then the one-way flight would only cost between $1,476 and $2,276.

Basically it looks like the B757's when they are operating at their greatest efficiency in terms of personnel movement do so at Business class pricing. If there were only 100 passengers on the B757, the equivalent ticket price would have been $12,215 for a one-way flight.

Of course these are only some rough calculations, and I deliberately did not add in extra time or costs associated with the B757 needing to land in Honolulu to refuel before flying on to San Francisco. The main objective was to provide a reference and point of comparison.

-Cheers

 

[ADMk2]

IIRC many of the older airliners (30+ years old) are operated by smaller regional/national air lines in areas like South America and Africa. Places that in many cases the companies could not easily afford to purchase or maintain new aircraft. IIRC a number of the carriers are not allowed to conduct flights into Europe and North America due to safety concerns about the aircraft.

Now granted, with proper maintenance many jets can be kept in service for a very long time indeed. However, the older and aircraft is, typically the more that needs to be done to be kept in service safely. Also if the aircraft (or any piece of kit really) is no longer in production, then the more difficult and expensive it can be to get or have parts made/modified for use. Using the C-130H's as an example, they are ~40 years old at this point, and have or are undergoing a SLEP to get another decade of service out of them. The cost per aircraft for that SLEP is ~$50 mil. IIRC, when at the time the decision was made new C-130J's could been purchased for ~$65 - 70 mil. per aircraft. I bring that point up because at some point, the costs to keep the B757's will become prohibitively high.

As for range and carrying capacity, what numbers do the NZDF really need from a jet liner? Looking back at what a B727 could manage, the max was ~189 passengers with a range of 2,170 n miles. Both the B737-800 and A320-200 meet or exceed those specs. For cargo movements (of high weight and/or long range) if the A400M were in service, that would be preferable due to comparable range and capacity, with the ability to carry outsized loads, greater ease of loading/unloading, and lower operating costs. That again brings one back to, how often does NZ need to fly 200+ people to/from the same destination at the same time? If the answer is all the time or even regularly then having something like a B757 (or a MRTT would be even better) in service makes sense. If the answer is it happens a few times a year, then perhaps leasing/chartering options should be looked at again. And another reminder that the Kiwi gov't owns 73% of the stock in Air New Zealand, which has a wealth of experience and resources in moving large numbers of people back and forth over long distances via air. IMO it does not make sense for the RNZAF to replicate a capability which can be gotten as needed via Air NZ at lower cost, unless either Air NZ does not have the capacity to provide what would be needed, or the ops areas would be unsafe for Air NZ aircraft. Given that NZ has had the B757's for a decade and they are just now being fitted with self-protection suites...



I will need to read up a bit on the SC-130J MPA, but I would have a concern about the available loiter time. The P-8 Poseidon has a loiter time IIRC to 15-18 hours, before certain onboard fluids are exhausted. These fluids I believe are used as coolant for the radar and therefore not something which can be replenished during AAR. Smaller MPA like the HC-144A Ocean Sentry (based off the CN-235-300 MP Persuader) have a loiter time of ~9 hours.

Now with something like a C-130J fitted with MPA sensors, that is going to cause some reduction in the available cargo space if the SC-130J is operating in a transport role. There is also likely to be a shorter loiter time available, due to space/weight limits for the coolant. The amount of space and weight set aside for additional coolant, therefore allowing a greater loiter time could of course be increased, but that would then negatively impact cargo capacity (space and weight) when operating in the transport role. There is also the question of how and from where something like a SC-130J would drop LWT's and sonobuoys.

I need to find out more about LockMart's proposed sensor fitout, to get a real idea of at what level the SC-130J would be performing as an MPA.

-Cheers

The biggest advantage of the SC-130J is the MPA payload is modular and is carried on a standard Herc mission system pallet, so the payload can be installed in under 30 minutes, with a further 15 minutes electronics testing / start-up sequence, so the one aircraft can be re-rolled between MPA and Tactical / Strategic airlift or vice versa in less than an hour.

If you wanted an AAR capability, I don't see that, that would be such a huge issue either, though you couldn't obviously carry the internal fuel pod AND the MPA pallet on the same mission and you'd be restricted to whatever fuel offload can be carried in the wing tanks, plus you wouldn't be able to carry ASuW / ASW weapons and refuelling pods on the same mission, unless NZDF opted for a Harvest Hawk type configuration, but I think that's getting beyond the scope of what NZDF has in mind...

The SC-130J mission system is also based on the latest P-3C mission system, so capability-wise for MPA you'd have no great issue either and in fact RNZAF would probably gain a capability benefit from that, due to the woeful neglect of the P-3K ASW capability...

 

[Todjaeger]

The biggest advantage of the SC-130J is the MPA payload is modular and is carried on a standard Herc mission system pallet, so the payload can be installed in under 30 minutes, with a further 15 minutes electronics testing / start-up sequence, so the one aircraft can be re-rolled between MPA and Tactical / Strategic airlift or vice versa in less than an hour.

If you wanted an AAR capability, I don't see that, that would be such a huge issue either, though you couldn't obviously carry the internal fuel pod AND the MPA pallet on the same mission and you'd be restricted to whatever fuel offload can be carried in the wing tanks, plus you wouldn't be able to carry ASuW / ASW weapons and refuelling pods on the same mission, unless NZDF opted for a Harvest Hawk type configuration, but I think that's getting beyond the scope of what NZDF has in mind...

The SC-130J mission system is also based on the latest P-3C mission system, so capability-wise for MPA you'd have no great issue either and in fact RNZAF would probably gain a capability benefit from that, due to the woeful neglect of the P-3K ASW capability...

A few things about the SC-130J... Still would like to know what the max total loiter time is. From the brochure that Rob linked to, the highest loiter time shown was 11.1 hours with a range of ~400 n miles IIRC.

Having looked at the layout from the brochure, some cargo space and weight has to been given up to accomodate some of the 'fixed' MPA equipment. It would be good to find out what the expected cargo volume, weight, and range @given weights the SC-130J would have in terms of performance. I would also be very curious to see how the sonobuoy drop system which is apparently palletized and positioned towards the rear cargo ramp impacts cargo operations when not loaded. In order for the sonobouys (and forward LWT's for that matter) to be dropped, either the cargo ramp needs to be lowered in flight or some sort of hatch or bay door needs to be cut and installed into the airframe.

Finally, I have seen where LockMart mentions the SC-130J having the avionics equivalent of the latest P-3C Orions... I have reservations about that. AFAIK the AP-3C Orions in use by the RAAF are the most capable and highly upgraded Orions in service, with work having been done by L-3, Tenix and BAE. Also, from the brochure the SC-130J includes a MAD protruding from the tail. The P-8 Poseidon does not include a tail-mounted MAD and from comments from a friend of mine who is ex-USN, a MAD does SFA at this point. Part of the reason why a MAD was not included with the P-8's sensor suite I believe.

I do believe that the SC-130J can be an equivalent if not better MPA than a CN-235 MPA or C-295 MPA, but I have reservations about how it would compare with the P-8 Poseidon. What I would be concerned about for the RNZAF is cost, impact on cargo carrying capacity, and what sort of service outputs could be delivered for airlift and MPA roles.

On the cost side of things, programme which delivered the HC-144a Ocean Sentry version of the CN-235-300 MP Persuader was run by LockMart. IIRC as part of that they developed the Mission System Pallet (MSP) and did some airframe modifications. From memory, the green airframes themselves cost ~USD$30 mil. each, with a delivered HC-144A Ocean Sentry (including the MSP) costing ~USD$50 mil. That suggests that a SC-130J might have a cost of ~USD$110 mil. which is just a little over half the price of a P-8 Poseidon.

Something to think about.

-Cheers

 

[RegR]

The RFI for the Endeavour replace stated that the chook part was costs only so we can only conclude that it is being looked at as an optional extra right from the start. Also that it is something that they would see as working in with the ADF who do fly chooks.

One thing we should remember when looking at RNZAF use of B757s and civilian airline use of B757s is the number and frequency of cycles; i.e., one cycle = one take off plus one landing. Hence in RNZAF service a B757 cycle quantity and frequency is far less than that of an airline. So another thought comes to mind, if they decide to keep the B757 type capability, and no similar aircraft is available, then is a SLEP viable?

The B757 replacement if it happens is not supposed to be until around 2023, the FFH replacement around 2030, the P3K2, 2027+. Any interest we have in MPA at the moment really would be based around something to back up the P3K2s and 2nd teir. If we can get an aircraft like the C27J that is able to do that as well then that is good and the link that Mr C has put up speaks to existing technologies the do not necessarilly mean cutting holes in the airframe and / or adding wiring for external weapons, sensors etc.

Yes the fact Endeavour II's deck is specced to take up to Chinook size/weight is to provide options for us and our allies, I could be wrong but I am sure Canterbury will be able to land a Chinnok as well, not neccesarily to transport one but more for it to land on to on/offload troops, stores and fuel and ship to ship transfers, bread and butter for ships of this nature. This does not equate to us getting our own just means we can work with those that do, not too many helo parks offshore so can only be a bonus.

The 757s received its 'SLEP' when the cargo doors were fitted with comms, uprated engines etc so that should see them through till their retirement, not thrashed as much as the Hercs so should last the distance with our renowned maintainers.

 

[t68]

Canterbury can land a single airframe but from my understanding cannot hanger store it.

Was they capability requested for Canterbury as part of the design or just an added bonus?

 

[RegR]

Canterbury can land a single airframe but from my understanding cannot hanger store it.

Was they capability requested for Canterbury as part of the design or just an added bonus?

Cheers, knew it could not hanger a Chinook just was'nt 100% sure if the deck was rated or not. I believe it would have been factored in (deck that is) purposely and would not be surprised if the new Endeavour is the same ie space and deck strength but no hanger size, its all extra cost and idle space for something we would rarely cater for normally.

The current Endeavour has a flight deck however it is not rated for sprites so I wonder what they use the hanger for now, Gym? storage? movie theatre? could make a good garage for the captains car on those long deployments.

 

[40 deg south]

The fact we are finally fitting out the 757s with any form of self protection shows at least someones interest in them and to be honest the reason we are getting it now is a direct response to our current threat areas (Timor and Sollies did'nt quite justify a SP suite) now and in the future. The world is changing and we need to adapt.

Now I doubt Air NZ would have a need to fit such a suite for 'a few leases' a year therefore the only viable entity that could provide such a capability is again the RNZAF. If it was deemed not needed we would not spend money on fitting them out in the first place and use the Hercs.

I don't disagree, but to me this is beside the point. At present, NZ's shortage of airlift capability means the 757s are used for military cargo and personnel movements, as well as VIP/diplomatic tasks. I'm suggesting (and I think Todt is too) that when the current Hercules fleet is replaced, the 757s won't be needed to the same degree for the military airlift. This means a replacement passenger airliner type could be used predominantly for non-military tasks or kept well away from danger zones, opening up the possibility of using charters and/or leased aircraft.

This is the kind of issue I expect the 2015 Air Mobility Review (currently underway, according to Ngati) to analyse and make recommendations on.

For what it's worth, I think they will phase out the 757s concurrently with replacing the Hercules fleet, as a way of generating savings that can be used to help fund the Hercules replacement.The 757s could be replaced by a single leased aircraft in RNZAF colours, backed up by short-term charters where necessary.

 

[RegR]

I don't disagree, but to me this is beside the point. At present, NZ's shortage of airlift capability means the 757s are used for military cargo and personnel movements, as well as VIP/diplomatic tasks. I'm suggesting (and I think Todt is too) that when the current Hercules fleet is replaced, the 757s won't be needed to the same degree for the military airlift. This means a replacement passenger airliner type could be used predominantly for non-military tasks or kept well away from danger zones, opening up the possibility of using charters and/or leased aircraft.

This is the kind of issue I expect the 2015 Air Mobility Review (currently underway, according to Ngati) to analyse and make recommendations on.

For what it's worth, I think they will phase out the 757s concurrently with replacing the Hercules fleet, as a way of generating savings that can be used to help fund the Hercules replacement.The 757s could be replaced by a single leased aircraft in RNZAF colours, backed up by short-term charters where necessary.

Again I am not debating how/what we paid for the 757(type) as I'm all for the cheapest option or what we use them for as I too feel they have their mainly civil orientated roles (someone has decided to fit a protection suite so bonus) but more the fact that the type does have a use within the NZDF structure and would be noticed if lost or not even readily available. I also do not care if we had 1, 2 or 3 but the issues of availability, numbers of C130 type, lift capability and actual suitable 757 replacement are affected either way.

As it is they take pressure off the 5 C130s and do the tasks that do not require a pure freighter and even if we had 5 A400s only (we would not get 2 A400s for 2 757s) regardless of its larger capacity benefits we would eventually have similar problems (albeit lesser in areas) as how often is a C130 maxed out or when have we needed to send multiple Hercs? not very often.

Its all well and good covering everything with a C130 type as it can do everything (well VIP would surely be cut) but thats more if all our taskings were large, oversize and bulk in nature otherwise its just capacity lost, yes we could move bulk freight and pax at once but barring Timor/ Afghan type initial deployments (3 times in 13 years and bearing in mind we now have CY) is it better to have a larger bulk capacity rarely or a more optioned approach to better cover all taskings most times?

Getting rid of this capability to gain an extra A400 (or even worse just to penny pinch) does have its advantages but I also see deficiencies, all depends how NZDF is tasked in the future and what outputs need to be covered off.