Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Cadredave]

Secondly, the military has shot itself in the foot by inappropriate/clumsy/paranoid (take your pick) wording in a manual. NZDF generally has a reasonable relationship with the NZ media, so this was stupid and unnecessary. Talk about an own goal. Of course, the manual was drafted a decade ago under a much more left-leaning government, which may or may not limit impact on the existing govt. But it won't help NZDF-media relations.

Na Defence issues will be forgotten about they don't get you elected, when the manual was written the press were seen at that time as the enemy and still are regarded that way now in the NZDF regardless if the MoD revokes or rewrites the manual.

"I will never ever trust a journalist full stop wither it be in NZ or on OP's.

 

[40 deg south]

I'll be damned!

I was sitting in the Wellington airport domestic terminal yesterday, and glanced at the big screen above the walkway to the gates. It had half a dozen advertisements on high rotation, and among them was one for 'Pilatus - Pilot Training Systems'.

Even the Swiss must think we might be about to select a training aircraft - it isn't in their nature to spend money without good cause!

The add contained stills of a PC21 and (I think) a PC7 II looking photogenic over the Swiss Alps.

That brightened up my afternoon.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'll be damned!

I was sitting in the Wellington airport domestic terminal yesterday, and glanced at the big screen above the walkway to the gates. It had half a dozen advertisements on high rotation, and among them was one for 'Pilatus - Pilot Training Systems'.

Even the Swiss must think we might be about to select a training aircraft - it isn't in their nature to spend money without good cause!

The add contained stills of a PC21 and (I think) a PC7 II looking photogenic over the Swiss Alps.

That brightened up my afternoon.

We can but live in hope that a decision is being reached. But I am not holding my breath. Maybe the Embrear A29 could be an option. I hear there are 20 that might be looking for a new home.

 

[Marc 1]

I'll be damned!

I was sitting in the Wellington airport domestic terminal yesterday, and glanced at the big screen above the walkway to the gates. It had half a dozen advertisements on high rotation, and among them was one for 'Pilatus - Pilot Training Systems'.

Even the Swiss must think we might be about to select a training aircraft - it isn't in their nature to spend money without good cause!

The add contained stills of a PC21 and (I think) a PC7 II looking photogenic over the Swiss Alps.

That brightened up my afternoon.

The swiss are incredible optimists aren't they...

Don't mind me - I felt the need to sink the slipper in to you guys after we got done AGAIN in the Bledisloe... <Sob>

 

[40 deg south]

The swiss are incredible optimists aren't they...

Don't mind me - I felt the need to sink the slipper in to you guys after we got done AGAIN in the Bledisloe... <Sob>

No hard feelings, Marc. Now you how we feel when our cricketers are spanked by the Bangladesh second 11, or something similar. Mind you, the way your boys are batting...

I was just glancing at the NZ MInistry of Defence website and noticed a new document - the Statement of Intent 2013-2016. From memory, all govenment departments are required to put these out to outline their short-term objectives and plans.

http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/reports-publications/soi-2013.pdf

Most of it is as bland and jargon-filled as you would expect. However, the Minister's foreword contains the following quote

"Future acquisitions are also being advanced. Tenders for a new military pilot training capability are being evaluated and a tender has been issued for an upgrade of the ANZAC frigates’ combat systems. New maritime helicopters, medium a nd heavy operational vehicles, and equipment for the Wideband Global Satellite Communications network will be introduced into service."

So that confirms pilot training tenders have been received and are being evaluated. No guarantee that a purchase will follow, but still a hopefull sign!

There are a couple of other nuggets of information I'll post on the Strategic Defence forum, as they aren't air force-specific.

 

[40 deg south]

India’s Mid-Tier Maritime Patrol Aircraft Competitions

India is the first (I think) export customer for the Boeing P8 maritime patrol aircraft that the US will acquire in volume to replace the aging P3 Orion.

However, India is also looking at a lower-capability platform for medium-range patrol. The list of contenders might interest some readers here.

The Indian requirement includes the need for two long-range anti-ship missiles, which is't something NZ is likely to specify. This has removed smaller platforms like the Beechcraft Kingair from consideration.

 

[ngatimozart]

India’s Mid-Tier Maritime Patrol Aircraft Competitions

India is the first (I think) export customer for the Boeing P8 maritime patrol aircraft that the US will acquire in volume to replace the aging P3 Orion.

However, India is also looking at a lower-capability platform for medium-range patrol. The list of contenders might interest some readers here.

The Indian requirement includes the need for two long-range anti-ship missiles, which is't something NZ is likely to specify. This has removed smaller platforms like the Beechcraft Kingair from consideration.

The P8(I) for India is a different aircraft to the P8A for the USN. It carries a MAD that the P8A doesn't and it has Indian specific equipment. It also won't have the ISR, UAV and other capabilities that the USN P8A variant will have when it achieves FOC.

With regard to medium tier MPA it can be argued that NZ does not face the same strategic issues that India does and therefore does not need a secondary tier of ASW and ASuW capable MPA to patrol our EEZ. Some would argue that a Beechcraft B350 or similar with Mk 1 eyeballs and without the benefit of an airborne maritime surface search radar would be of sufficient capability. In my experience the oggin is not always covered by blue sky with unlimited visibility.

 

[ngatimozart]

An item that appeared this arvo on Australian Aviation. It seems that CAF RNZAF along with CAF RAAF and CAF RAF were taken for a fly in the A400M at RIAT. Has a nice piccy of all three of them standing on the ramp. Article says that the RNZAF has shown interest in the aircraft to replace its C130Hs. Unfortunately what the RNZAF wants and what the RNZAF gets can be two completely different stories.

I have stated previously that the Air Transport Review is occuring now and will finish next year in time to inform the 2015 DWP. This assertion is based on the below excerpt of a 2012 letter I received from the Minister of Defence in February last year in response to some queries I had.

An Air Transport Review will begin this year, to assess future air transport needs and the potential options available to meet those needs. This review will consider options for replacing the C-130 Hercules, including with smaller aircraft. The conclusions will inform the 2015 Defence White Paper.
Letter dated 14/2/2012 from Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman Minister of Defence.

Recently I emailed the Minister regarding some questions I had one of which was about the Air Transport review. Below is the reply I received.

Work on a replacement air transport capability is not yet underway. Consideration is being given to the future airlift requirement for the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) in the form of an Airlift Review. This work will inform an Air Transport Replacement Project, scheduled to commence after the next Defence White Paper in 2015. This will look at a number of options, including those raised in your letter.
Email dated 22/7/2013 from **** Ormsby, Defence Private Secretary, Office of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, Minister of Defence.

Having read that,I emailed back asking for some clarification with the below being part of my email.

... that the C130H(NZ) Hercules are, as far as I am aware, currently programmed for retirement commencing in 2018, and that any Air Transport Replacement Project starting in 2015 will be cutting things extra fine timewise, reducing options for NZDF and creating situations where substantial extra expenses could be incurred. For example the Airbus A400M has some production slots available in 2018 and that is for currently placed orders. Lockheed Martin C130J Hercules would still have significant lead time from adding slots to its current production schedule until delivery. Then there is the time required to induct the new aircraft into RNZAF / NZDF service.

So if the Air Transport Replacement Project goes ahead after the 2015 DWP it's still dependent upon mundane minor things such as the 2014 election, and / or earthquakes and other natural hazards.
This is the reply to the clarification I requested. It arrived 26/7/2013.

To clarify, the Air Transport Review raised in my letter of 14 February 2012, and the Airlift Review noted in my letter of 15 July 2013, are one and the same. This review is currently underway and will determine the future airlift requirements of the NZDF. Once these requirements are clear, work on an Air Transport Replacement Project can begin, and various options will be considered. It is this project, rather than the review, that is scheduled to commence after the next Defence White Paper in 2015.

So that's the word and ye ancient C130s will have to chug along somewhat longer.

Finally it according to US media the RNZAF have a C17. http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/...ia-staging-base-vital-training?nclick_check=1 It must be a real secret one - maybe it belongs to the GCSB. Speaking of which on facebook it has been suggested to freak out ones neighbours all one has to do is to change the name of ones wi-fi router to GCSB vehicle number x

 

[John Newman]

Ng, so you lot have been hiding a C-17 away in the US, maybe it's based with that secret Sqn of F-16's too!!!

Anyway, back to reality.....

Yes I saw that article on AA too about the three Air Force Chief's looking over the A400M.

Hopefully for you guys that the Air Transport Review does recommend that your C130H are replaced with same or better than before, and of course the money is made available.

And hopefully you may also be able to get a good deal on a few of those 26 'unwanted' A400M's that Germany and Spain are committed to buy, but want to on-sell to third parties.

 

[Todjaeger]

The concern I have been raising about the RNZAF Air Transport Review is unfortunately confirmed by the responses of the MinDef. Basically until the recommendations come out in 2015 from the review, there is not going to be any RFI, RFP or RFT's... Which in turn means that process will need to commence (time frame likely 2+ years at a minimum IMO) before any orders placed and contracts signed.

That in turn means that construction of the new RNZAF airlifters would not being until 2017-2018 or thereabouts, and depending which aircraft is selected and the level or production, it might be a further two years the aircraft themselves are built, putting things into the 2019-ish timeframe.

One the aircraft have been built, then the training programmes can begin to reach IOC, which can again take another 2+ years. This is also assuming that some sort of transition and upskill training had already been started during the build for an initial intake of pilots, ground crew, aircraft maintainers and others to form a cadre to train the rest of the RNZAF and then NZDF. This would put IOC that somewhere around or past 2021.

This is also assuming that the RNZAF gets the money needed to purchase the aircraft from Treasury, that an appropriate type of aircraft is available for NZ to order, that the aircraft are being built at a reasonable pace, and that there is no other booked aircraft orders which would delay construction of the aircraft for NZ...

On the (slightly) bright side, IIRC because of the delays in the C-130H SLEP, the final C-130H would not be back in service until ~2014 which should that some of them could potentially be kept in service until 2022-2023 or so. That might give the RNZAF a little more breathing room, but it does look like the timing will be close if everything works out. If something it out of production, or has significant production backlogs, then NZ might be forced to either retire without immediate replacement (never good), buy something else as a stopgap, or waste more money on a further SLEP until the replacement is available.

-Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

There is an election next year and at moment looks like current govt will be relected for a third term. Labour has gone through it's second leader since the last election and is now having a circus electing a new one. Some pundits suggest that the labour party will take a lurch to the left away from its current centrist neoliberal ideology. If this is the case and if by some reason they get into the treasury benches I think that could bode well for RNZAF transport, because they see that as an important HADR requirement and would maybe go for the A400M. However it wouldn't do the bang bang end of NZDF any good.

 

[RegR]

Still don't know why we need to wait for yet another review before decisions can even begin being thought about, we have known for years now what the transport force is deficient in, ie age, numbers, types, lift, capability etc etc so what exactly will another few years of waiting achieve other than current frames getting older(a SLEP does not stop time) and delays only compound not extend this fact.

If we keep waiting for something better around the corner we could just keep waiting and waiting as there will always be something better, a problem with constant evolution, and technology is no different. If its down to costs then again another gamble, might get better could get worse or this may be it.

With such long lead in times why wait even longer and I bet in 2015 they'll decide that we actually need to look at RNZAF airlift and our needs for the future?????? again. :rel

 

[MrConservative]

It is just the one review Future Airlift Review / Air Transport Review or whatever they are calling it this week Reg. What they are doing is sifting through historical data per tasking, tempo. loading, op costs, flight hours, servicing, crewing, and such, then forecasting future airlift requirements related to strategic environment, policy, force structure and contingency. It does take time with only a core small team with the experience and capability to do it.

The second stage is the acquisition process the Air Transport Replacement Project. Out of the review we should get a request for tender doc for the ATRP. It will reveal the mix of airframes, budget approx, and target delivery schedule. Negotiation and contracts to follow.

I can understand your impatience, but it is a project that may cost up to $1.6b in FY09 dollars according to the Cabinet External Relations and Defence Committee Defence Assessment Report 140117v1 2 Feb 2010 at 7. That is the third 3rd biggest ticket item behind the Anzac replacement and the P3 replacement over the next 15 years. It is a project with 40-50 year implications so Project Protector like stuff ups cannot be allowed to happen.

That said. They will know what they will require before the White Paper public consultation circus does its rounds. There is a valid question - why not press on with and get it sorted before the show pony defence white paper round? Answer: They firstly need to sell the idea to the public and let them have their say, lock in a 3rd term keeping things like Defence well off the radar and also wait for the economy to be in reasonable nick before they throw huge sums around for political consumption.

Also it will take time to work out whether to learn German and Italian, or Spanish and American, Italian and American, or German and Spanish or just stick with the Spanish.

 

[40 deg south]

Also it will take time to work out whether to learn German and Italian, or Spanish and American, Italian and American, or German and Spanish or just stick with the Spanish.

Heh. Assume you are overlooking the Portugese (KC390) and Japanese (XC-2) language options for the sake of simplicity!

As understand it, we are looking at a two-stage process.
1) Identify NZ's future airlift needs. This will involve looking at historical data, and gazing deeply into the crystal ball where the Joint Amphibious Task Force concept is stored. This is underway now.

2) Identify and buy aircraft (incl. training, support etc) that meet those needs. This will begin after the 2015 Defence White Paper.

Agreed this will take longer than forum members here will like. As the gov't has no spare money until 2015 or later, we will just have to wait.

I'm pleased that officials and the government seem to be taking a systematic approach, hopefully maximising the chance of making a sensible decision. I think the Mid-point Rebalancing Review (or whatever the hell it is being called) will be a key indicator of how willing the gov't is to increase the defence budget, and that is scheduled for completion late this year. (Translation - expect it in June 2014). I suspect this will be a tool for defence to persuade other departments/Treasury and the public that they either have to spend more on defence or lose some major capability.

 

[MrConservative]

Heh. Assume you are overlooking the Portugese (KC390) and Japanese (XC-2) language options for the sake of simplicity!

As understand it, we are looking at a two-stage process.
1) Identify NZ's future airlift needs. This will involve looking at historical data, and gazing deeply into the crystal ball where the Joint Amphibious Task Force concept is stored. This is underway now.

2) Identify and buy aircraft (incl. training, support etc) that meet those needs. This will begin after the 2015 Defence White Paper.

Agreed this will take longer than forum members here will like. As the gov't has no spare money until 2015 or later, we will just have to wait.

I'm pleased that officials and the government seem to be taking a systematic approach, hopefully maximising the chance of making a sensible decision. I think the Mid-point Rebalancing Review (or whatever the hell it is being called) will be a key indicator of how willing the gov't is to increase the defence budget, and that is scheduled for completion late this year. (Translation - expect it in June 2014). I suspect this will be a tool for defence to persuade other departments/Treasury and the public that they either have to spend more on defence or lose some major capability.

Kawasaki say that they are steadily working towards production of the C-2 and that the MinDef has placed orders. 40 were planned but I have struggled to get any headway on what is actually going on. It has been forty months since the XC-2 was delivered to the JASDF at Gifu. It will be a great aircraft, and I have seen it fly a number of times. However transition through to full production has not been plain sailing. It is still an unknown quantity. Also I would not put it into the temptation factor until Japan does more than put its toe into the TTP game and that Kawasaki can deliver as an exporter in the aerospace game - which I know Lockheed and EADS can. The KC-30 is also too an unknown a quantity and does not fall into the same level of political and defence synergies. It also does not offer anything more in the airlift role than the current C-130J which would make it a standout other than a proposed lower acquisition cost.

Coleman has consistently been putting out the meme publicly and privately, that we are maintaining lean funding levels for now - but also that medium to long term the 3 big price tag items looming 2020-2030 will require large capital injections. Coleman is more pragmatic and less pedantic than Mapp. He is also personally more decisive and the decision for a midway review reflects this - he came into the job a relative novice in DefSec issues, however he has been a fast study, has an open mind and not blinded by imposing ideological views that has happened in the past. He has a good mix of taking onboard both NZDF views, MinDef views as well as having a few trusted experts outside the beltway who he can sound out. He is trusted by Key and Joyce which really matters, practically an insider now. His longer term view for the NZDF is more robust than any of the previous three DefMins.

 

[40 deg south]

Kawasaki say that they are steadily working towards production of the C-2 and that the MinDef has placed orders. .. It has been forty months since the XC-2 was delivered to the JASDF at Gifu. It will be a great aircraft, and I have seen it fly a number of times. However transition through to full production has not been plain sailing. ..
The KC-30 is also too an unknown a quantity and does not fall into the same level of political and defence synergies.
Coleman is more pragmatic and less pedantic than Mapp.

Alert the moderators - this is the first time in living memory that anyone has said anything good about a NZ Defence Minister on this forum! That's a very positive assessment - I certainly hope you are right.

Glad you highlighted the issue of credibility within Cabinet. It is no good having a Minister full of good ideas if he doesn't have the abilty to convince his colleagues (esp. the PM and MinFinance) that the ideas are worth supporting. Foreign Minister McCully seems to have an expansive view of NZ's role in the Pacific, so I hope NZDF and Coleman are able to translate this into MFAT backing to update existing capabilities. As an outsider, it appears that NZDF hasn't been very successful at winning this 'war of influence' in the past.

I agree with you on aircraft selection. While I love oddball equipment and white elephants, I'd consider the chances of either the Embraer or Kawasaki airlifters to be close to nil. Both of them have the potential to be technically successfull aircraft, but I don't think they align very well with our geopolitical position and alliances.

 

[MrConservative]

Alert the moderators - this is the first time in living memory that anyone has said anything good about a NZ Defence Minister on this forum! That's a very positive assessment - I certainly hope you are right.

Glad you highlighted the issue of credibility within Cabinet. It is no good having a Minister full of good ideas if he doesn't have the abilty to convince his colleagues (esp. the PM and MinFinance) that the ideas are worth supporting. Foreign Minister McCully seems to have an expansive view of NZ's role in the Pacific, so I hope NZDF and Coleman are able to translate this into MFAT backing to update existing capabilities. As an outsider, it appears that NZDF hasn't been very successful at winning this 'war of influence' in the past.

I agree with you on aircraft selection. While I love oddball equipment and white elephants, I'd consider the chances of either the Embraer or Kawasaki airlifters to be close to nil. Both of them have the potential to be technically successfull aircraft, but I don't think they align very well with our geopolitical position and alliances.

As a Mod myself I could ban myself for a couple of weeks.

That said. Credit is where credit is due. It is just the feedback I am getting from Beltway mates. On occasions I have said positive things about Wayno and even Goff. The only one I have never said anything remotely positive about is Burton. In the past Bradford was good, East was OK and Cooper was weak and uninterested. From an PM standpoint around Defence - Muldoon if he had the money would have had us very strong, Lange was conflicted in that he allowed others to cloud his personal judgement yet was generally disinterested. That said he ordered the Anzacs and put the A-4s through Kahu. Palmer and Moore were not in long enough to make judgements other than that Palmer did have a Clark like world view. Moore I would guess would have been reasonably robust, at a guess better than Bolger and Lange in Defence as he had a worldview and not a parochial view. Bolger was a cheapskate and allowed Ruthless Ruth to kneecap the NZDF. Shipley was very pro the Defence sector. Was looking to increase defence spending, wanted the third Anzac, wanted an ACF, Orion upgrade and generally was firm on holding to DWP 97. Clark worse than Bolger - her record has been well gone over. Key - well it is hard to judge so far. At least he has not chopped capability, then again there is so little to actually cut. I do not think he is at yet - a Shipley level of interest or commitment but is certainly more strategically pragmatic and less ideological than Clark.

 

[MrConservative]

Back to planes. That's what we are here for.

With the Swiss PC-21 advert on screen at WLG I thought what else may potentially give Gavin Howse ex 75Sqd driver and DCAF now the man from Beechcraft a sleepless night.

http://www.ruag.com/de/Aviation/Military_Aviation_DE/Customer_Support/Dornier_228_New_Generation.pdf

http://www.do228ng.com/fileadmin/ruag/DO228NG/PDF/Brochure-Dornier-228-NG-Special-Mission.pdf

The (new) old girl is not that pretty but she sure gives out a lot. If the NZDF do get around to looking at a MEPT slash Coastal Patrol Aircraft that can do a reasonable impersonation of a rough and ready light transport once the King Air lease is done it is worth a look.

While this post has a Swiss theme. The Grob G 120 TP Basic Trainer?

This idea within the RNZAF to have a single solution for pilot training - from basic to advanced all on the one platform is something I am not 100% convinced about. In someways I hope the delay in getting a finalised decision for the APT is due to a rethink.

Getting back to the 120TP. It is a quarter of the price of platforms been mooted at US$2.6m a pop (going on what the have just Argies paid), its side by side which I think for an airforce which flies only side by side platform configurations makes sense, it can cover from what I have read the basic through to intermediate curriculum, and it just seems a natural yet enhanced replacement for the venerable CT4E. Heck the money saved from having the first half of the wings course in 120TPs may well mean that a slick bit of kit like a Texan T-6C+. A-29B or even the PC21 for the advanced course and not too implausible to give the Army guys something to exercise with or shooting practice for the lads on the Anzacs. A couple of things which are skills sets not as good as they once were.

Cheers MrC

 

[KH-12]

Back to planes. That's what we are here for.

With the Swiss PC-21 advert on screen at WLG I thought what else may potentially give Gavin Howse ex 75Sqd driver and DCAF now the man from Beechcraft a sleepless night.

http://www.ruag.com/de/Aviation/Military_Aviation_DE/Customer_Support/Dornier_228_New_Generation.pdf

http://www.do228ng.com/fileadmin/ruag/DO228NG/PDF/Brochure-Dornier-228-NG-Special-Mission.pdf

The (new) old girl is not that pretty but she sure gives out a lot. If the NZDF do get around to looking at a MEPT slash Coastal Patrol Aircraft that can do a reasonable impersonation of a rough and ready light transport once the King Air lease is done it is worth a look.

While this post has a Swiss theme. The Grob G 120 TP Basic Trainer?

This idea within the RNZAF to have a single solution for pilot training - from basic to advanced all on the one platform is something I am not 100% convinced about. In someways I hope the delay in getting a finalised decision for the APT is due to a rethink.

Getting back to the 120TP. It is a quarter of the price of platforms been mooted at US$2.6m a pop (going on what the have just Argies paid), its side by side which I think for an airforce which flies only side by side platform configurations makes sense, it can cover from what I have read the basic through to intermediate curriculum, and it just seems a natural yet enhanced replacement for the venerable CT4E. Heck the money saved from having the first half of the wings course in 120TPs may well mean that a slick bit of kit like a Texan T-6C+. A-29B or even the PC21 for the advanced course and not too implausible to give the Army guys something to exercise with or shooting practice for the lads on the Anzacs. A couple of things which are skills sets not as good as they once were.

Cheers MrC

I definitely think that the G120TP would be in the front running with the cost factor pretty important, also it can offer a broad spectrum training option from basic through advanced if required, and yes much more suitable to follow on operational side by side aircraft than a tandem layout as in the T6 and PC9 class.

I think also it would be pretty robust, I have an interest in an older Grob aircraft and that thing is built like a brick SH, and it's had it's share of damage over the years and being composite is pretty easy to repair.

The CT4s are on a leasing arrangement from memory.

 

[Gibbo]

I definitely think that the G120TP would be in the front running with the cost factor pretty important, also it can offer a broad spectrum training option from basic through advanced if required, and yes much more suitable to follow on operational side by side aircraft than a tandem layout as in the T6 and PC9 class.

I think also it would be pretty robust, I have an interest in an older Grob aircraft and that thing is built like a brick SH, and it's had it's share of damage over the years and being composite is pretty easy to repair.

The CT4s are on a leasing arrangement from memory.

The Grob G120TP seems a popular choice both here & 'another popular NZ site'. On that 'other site' there's some discussion questioning the need for a high-performance in-line trainer & why not stay with B200. The RNZAF has defined a clear need for a better advanced trainer... I refer here to this article that backs up what I've heard in other places, but this is the only 'source' I have to hand:
Training Tomorrow

Note the line "...By not exposing student pilots to the required range of military flying roles in a high performance aircraft, it compromises the development of their airmanship, including leadership and captaincy skills."

I'm sure I've heard talk that RNZAF has stated in the past that the current CT4 + B200 mix doesn't produce the higher quality, aggressively decisive type 'flying mindset' that the higher performance aircraft can offer - especially at high-speed down low. Situational awareness in a B200 is apparently significantly limited by being both offset & in a side-by-side cockpit that restricts visibility for 'fast & low' flying.

Yes I guess the Grob 120TP will address that with it's top speed, basically the same as a PC7 Mk2 - and visibility should be excellent.

Will be interesting to see how it goes. PC21 would be great but unrealistic on cost alone, personal preference is Texan 2 followed by PC9-M, on nothing other than the blatant 'sexy factor' alone!

I'm not convinced the trainer needs to be the same as whatever Aussie goes for - we do basically run our own syllabus - but I would like to see a split so that ab-initio is done like the aussies 'off base'.

Also with regards to need for side-by-side vs in-line - moving to simulators (excellent idea) will help transition trainees 'onto type'. If in-line type is chosen for APT the transition will be more than manageable thru use of simulators.