Royal New Zealand Air Force

[htbrst]

I'm almost looking forward to this contract to see if international relations comes into it at all...

From memory (and I might be a bit young!) international relations, or industrial offsets has not really been a big factor in NZ big ticket defence purchases in what we choose - with the exception of the recent 'anything but USA' period (LAV, NH-90 etc)

But with this purchase:

NZ is trying hard to get a free trade agreement with South Korea, could a KT-1 order tip that in our favour finally ?

A Grob TP bid could leverage the composites industry built up around the America's Cup boats - a politically good news story at the time when the Goverment may need to be justifying more money spend on a new defence of the cup (hopefully!, or another challenge)

A T-6 order could look nice to the USA, and if they allowed us to order through FMS could be a good example of normalised relations

Could be interesting

 

[Gibbo]

I'm almost looking forward to this contract to see if international relations comes into it at all...

From memory (and I might be a bit young!) international relations, or industrial offsets has not really been a big factor in NZ big ticket defence purchases in what we choose - with the exception of the recent 'anything but USA' period (LAV, NH-90 etc)

But with this purchase:

NZ is trying hard to get a free trade agreement with South Korea, could a KT-1 order tip that in our favour finally ?

A Grob TP bid could leverage the composites industry built up around the America's Cup boats - a politically good news story at the time when the Goverment may need to be justifying more money spend on a new defence of the cup (hopefully!, or another challenge)

A T-6 order could look nice to the USA, and if they allowed us to order through FMS could be a good example of normalised relations

Could be interesting

Yep you're right there - this is one of the most interesting projects yet... so many factors to include.

Actually double checking I see the Grob 120TP isn't quite as fast as PC7 Mk2, but for basic training it'd be an awesome platform, if backed up by say a PC9-M APT (to keep it all Swiss!).

Beechcraft could do a good Texan2 & B350 combo for continuation training, not sure what a B(asic)TP would be if they strung together a package - Bonanza!?!

 

[MrConservative]

Yep Gibbo - Contract out the ab-initio / screening to Massey University just 20 minutes down the road from OH on their Diamond DA20s. Massey is a government institution after all.

Then on to the Grob TP 120 TP for the first half of the Wings course then finishing off with one of the high performance advanced tandems out there - that can also do a bit more in the wider context NZDF training context than just an advanced pilot trainer.

In the 99/00 fiscal year of their operation the A-4s provided 560 hours of support to the Navy and 300 hours to the Army (ACF Review 2/2000) . I believe that the Macchis provided 130 hours to support NZDF activities around that same time (sorry no source for that but a memory of a conversation awhile ago but it is indeed plausible). Thus what I am suggesting is that beyond the advanced course there is near on 1000 hours of missing capability training for the wider NZDF and that we have the window of opportunity with this project to close that capability gap. This is another reason why I think that the one size fits all approach mooted is short-sighted.

Cheers MrC

 

[ngatimozart]

Yep Gibbo - Contract out the ab-initio / screening to Massey University just 20 minutes down the road from OH on their Diamond DA20s. Massey is a government institution after all.

Then on to the Grob TP 120 TP for the first half of the Wings course then finishing off with one of the high performance advanced tandems out there - that can also do a bit more in the wider context NZDF training context than just an advanced pilot trainer.

I think that the RNZAF should follow the RAAF practise of contracting out the ab-initio training and basic flying training to some one like Massey. In the long term it would be a money saver because those who don't make the grade will be weeded out before the RNZAF expends resources on them training them in service ways etc., you know knife, fork and spoon course so they know what tool to use at dining ins. The advanced flying training can then be done by the RNZAF using a tandem trainer turbo prop trainer.

In the 99/00 fiscal year of their operation the A-4s provided 560 hours of support to the Navy and 300 hours to the Army (ACF Review 2/2000) . I believe that the Macchis provided 130 hours to support NZDF activities around that same time (sorry no source for that but a memory of a conversation awhile ago but it is indeed plausible). Thus what I am suggesting is that beyond the advanced course there is near on 1000 hours of missing capability training for the wider NZDF and that we have the window of opportunity with this project to close that capability gap. This is another reason why I think that the one size fits all approach mooted is short-sighted.

Cheers MrC

My preference would be the armed Embrear EMB314 Super Tucano two seater as the advanced trainer. Why I suggest this is that it's already in service and it would give the RNZAF an aircraft that could fill that missing capability for the RNZN and Army. The Super Tucano has two .50cal HMGs in the wings, able to fire rockets and drop 500lb bombs. It can be used as an FAC and is used in a COIN role. There maybe 20 A29 Super Tucanos for resale in the US because the US Senate has written a clause in the next budget to forbid the DoD from funding and exporting them and Mil17 choppers to the Afghan AF. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...canos-mi-17s-from-appropriations-bill-389041/ So Sierra Nevada and Embrear may be looking for new homes for them. However IIRC most are single seaters, bugger. Beechcraft have just flown the first AT6 which is claimed to handle like the F18. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/production-at-6-aircraft-makes-first-flight

 

[Gibbo]

I think that the RNZAF should follow the RAAF practise of contracting out the ab-initio training and basic flying training to some one like Massey. In the long term it would be a money saver because those who don't make the grade will be weeded out before the RNZAF expends resources on them training them in service ways etc., you know knife, fork and spoon course so they know what tool to use at dining ins. The advanced flying training can then be done by the RNZAF using a tandem trainer turbo prop trainer.

My preference would be the armed Embrear EMB314 Super Tucano two seater as the advanced trainer. Why I suggest this is that it's already in service and it would give the RNZAF an aircraft that could fill that missing capability for the RNZN and Army. The Super Tucano has two .50cal HMGs in the wings, able to fire rockets and drop 500lb bombs. It can be used as an FAC and is used in a COIN role. There maybe 20 A29 Super Tucanos for resale in the US because the US Senate has written a clause in the next budget to forbid the DoD from funding and exporting them and Mil17 choppers to the Afghan AF. So Sierra Nevada and Embrear may be looking for new homes for them. However IIRC most are single seaters, bugger. Beechcraft have just flown the first AT6 which is claimed to handle like the F18.

Agree ab-initio would be a perfect fit for Massey.

I do agree that something like PC9-M could (should IMHO) be purchased for APT and also used for JTAC training - USAF do it... USAF Uses Pilatus PC-9s to Train JTACs | Aviation & Air Force News at DefenceTalk

However the tender clearly doesn't ask for an armed aircraft so we won't be getting them - although I too would love to see that! I can't see why at least basic level JTAC training couldn't be done up at Waiouru with an un-armed aircarft. They could then go on to complete that training in Aussie (as I currently understand is done).

This way the wider Army may benefit from aircraft drills rather than just JTAC's - for example the grunts could start to think about how to take action in the event they are on the receiving end. This can be anything from getting your camo & positioning right, to simply developing the mindset that you need to be prepared.

Regarding the talk of a straight thru trainer - I understood the tender was a replacement for the CT4 + B200 combo that also provided for an APT. So although it's a project to replace the entire training aircraft suite in one hit, I don't understand that to mean 1 aircraft type for straight thru training is envisaged!?! Wasn't the tender fairly open as to what could be offered?

 

[t68]

My preference would be the armed Embrear EMB314 Super Tucano two seater as the advanced trainer. Why I suggest this is that it's already in service and it would give the RNZAF an aircraft that could fill that missing capability for the RNZN and Army. The Super Tucano has two .50cal HMGs in the wings, able to fire rockets and drop 500lb bombs. It can be used as an FAC and is used in a COIN role.

The irony of what you are proposing is for aircraft to conduct training in Close Air Support (CAS), Forward Air Controller - Airborne (FAC-A) and training in Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTAC) a role most suited for your ex RNZAF Aermacchi MB-339 which were sold to Draken International

 

[Gibbo]

The irony of what you are proposing is for aircraft to conduct training in Close Air Support (CAS), Forward Air Controller - Airborne (FAC-A) and training in Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTAC) a role most suited for your ex RNZAF Aermacchi MB-339 which were sold to Draken International

RNZAF will (with any luck) getting a decent advanced trainer out of this. Those of us who saw the folly of dumping the Macchi's & A4's are the ones suggesting it'd be even better if once in service they could use them for a little CAS; FAC-A; & JTAC training.

It's not the Govt or even RNZAF that are proposing that, just us armchair experts, so I wouldn't say there's any irony per se.

 

[MrConservative]

If we reflect on the fact that the Argies bought 10 new Grob 120TPs for $26.5m and that Andre Hiebeler, chief executive of Grob Aircraft, said at Avalon this year that the G120TP can "eat into" up to 60-70% of the syllabus provided by higher-end tandem-seat turboprop aircraft the Grob starts to make economic sense. The Indonesians have also started delivery of the Grob 120TP. Back of the envelope stuff but NZD$50m for a package 12 Grob 120TPs with a sim and some spares thrown in would not be too far off. Essentially replacing the CT4 airframe for airframe. Knowing that it can do say 2/3rds of the wings course as well as the QFI course would mean something a little special, creative, dare I say different, for the remaining 1/3rd in the advanced course and hopefully some hours allocated to recover the lost army/navy integration capability.

This it is swings and roundabouts. We would be saving big time on the Grob in acquisition and operating cost, savings which can counter balance the cost of a better and more expensive advanced trainer option. It means we should therefore get the best platform, future proofed and proven. So to paraphrase Sir Humphrey Appleby, " If you walked into an advanced pilot trainer showroom you would buy the PC-21 – it’s lovely, it’s elegant, it’s beautiful. It is quite simply the best. And New Zealand should have the best. In the world of the advanced trainers it is the Saville Row suit, the Ferrari 458 Italia, the Château Lafitte 1945. It is the advanced pilot trainer Harrods would sell you. What more can I say?

Nah its too expensive. Its Golden Eagle money.

The T-6C+ ticks the boxes. It does all we need it to do and priced a heck of a lot less than Emb AT-29B and can do all that the Emb can do without paying the extra money to do things like COIN ops which are not part of the NZDF mission set. The AT-29B is heading towards PC-21 money at USD17.5m a unit once the support package is factored it.

The capability to do some BLOC integrated training as a bonus does not mean we need all the extra bells and whistles. We need to remember that if there is a NZDF money tree at the bottom of the garden it has stuff all money of it. The first objective is too train modern competent military pilots. If the platform is affordable and can provide basic integrated training without huge further cost commitments that will need to be taken from somewhere else in the defence budget or forcing us to compromise on getting something less (I am thinking getting bog standard used B200s when we could be getting B350ERs / Do 228 NGs with mission modules) as I said it is a bonus.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Grob G120TP does look interesting G 120TP - GROB Aircraft. It does include functions, such as the virtual tactical training capability that I think would fit in well with RNZAF training. We wouldn't necessarily need the bang seat capability. I wonder if they will bring a simulator out to compliment the aircraft package. I agree that the Dornier 228 looks ugly, but it appears to offer quite a good capability package that could fit within the capability needs that the RNZAF require. Methinks 8.34 hours duration in the Dornier might be more comfortable than the same time in a B350. I wonder what the costings would be vis a vis the Beechcraft B350 ER MPI.

 

[MrConservative]

Elbit have been working on a Sim system for the Grob. If 20% of the course can be transferred onto a Sim and the Grob can comfortably handle the 500+ hours p.a that each CT-4 manages then with its low costs - it must be in with a chance.

I would keep the hot seats and not delete them - as this aircraft will be far more capable than a CT4 and will take wings course pilots towards complex flight profiles.

The T-6 Texan II's in the States are averaging about 400 hours per annum and at the moment. Which is pretty good. The whole business is really a big numbers game. For example when one totes up PTS, CTS and APT hours of the RNZAF you are looking at around 8800 hours. That is not including the post wings MEPT conversion role at 42Sqd. Thus we are needing to look at an aircraft which can cover those hours.

If a single solution is sort as advocated in the Pacific Wings article and indications within Defence and we allow for a 20% reduction in airframe hours p.a due to the use of Sim techs (lets say 7000 hours) this would mean we would require at least 17 airframes if we choose the T-6 Texan II going by what the aircraft flies p.a as the basic training platform in the US. If we wanted to provide a further 400-800 hours as support to the Army and/or Navy then a further couple of airframes would be needed.

If 65% of the airframe hours was Grob based we would require 4550 hours and roughly 9-10 aircraft. Ten would be a good safe bet. The remaining 35% of the hours (2450 hours p.a) if we were to use the T-6 would mean that 6 airframes would be required. Possibly eight airframes if we were to take the opportunity to enhance the overall effectiveness of the NZDF and add those missing integrated training hours. The Army side of things more doable than Navy as pretending a T-6 50ft off the deck is real fast air will have to take some liberties.

The point is that a mix of 10 Grobs (using minimums and not allowing for extra pilots to be trained) plus at minimum six T-6 Texans is far more cost effective than a single fleet 17 T-6's.

The savings may mean that we would be able to fund a good MEPT aircraft platform that can replace the B200s and double as an adequate Coastwatcher.

Furthermore more while I think of it, my gut feeling is telling me that an extra basic AW109s should be purchased instead of the extra 3 mooted. We are going to add extra rotary capacity once the SupaDupaSprites are introduced training wise and my guess is that the AW109 will be popular with the pollies more than the B-200. I do think there should be at least a further 109LUH in the inventory as well.

Cheers MrC

 

[Lucasnz]

Interesting discussions. One question I have is that G120TP is that the flight certification document doesn't allow for flights into known icing conditions: see (see page 7). Is that going to be an issue.

I don't think the tandem option would be a realistic option for basic flight training. I more inclined to contract that out and stick with a more capable aircraft for advanced flight training. I'm not to concerned as the type / brand. Anything is better than want we have now.

 

[40 deg south]

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. Cheers MrC

I’ve been following the update of the Dornier 228 with some interest. It looks a handy size for short-medium range maritime patrol and light passenger/utility work.
Positives
Available now
Good selection of off-the-shelf sensor equipment
Cheap, and with economical Honeywell (formerly Garret engines)
Motivated vendor – RUAG really need to make some credible sales or the programme will die
Handy utility/VIP transport
STOL capability

Negatives
Honeywell/Garret engines much less widely used that P&W PT-6
Engine bloody noisy if you aren't in the aircraft
Unpressurised, so limited to about 10,000 ft unless oxygen used
Shorter range than KingAir 350ER (I think)
Possible limits on supply of spare parts due to small fleet
No geopolitical brownie points from buying Swiss/German aircraft

Since re-launching the aircraft a couple of years ago, RUAG have only shifted a handful. Two to Bangladesh Navy, two to Japanes commuter airline,one to Norway offshore operator, one to German Navy etc. There is a risk the programme will die, and NZ will be stuck with an orphan aircraft.

On the other hand, RUAG will be highly motivated to strike a deal. They have also discussed a lease/PFI arrangement with South Africa(unsuccessful to date), which might be attractive to our cash-strapped government.

While I would generally view the garret engines as a disadvantage (vs. the PT6, which is the Toyota Corolla of the turboprop skies), aren't they the type RNZAF techies now train on with the grounded MU-2s?

 

[MrConservative]

Interesting discussions. One question I have is that G120TP is that the flight certification document doesn't allow for flights into known icing conditions: see (see page 7). Is that going to be an issue.

I don't think the tandem option would be a realistic option for basic flight training. I more inclined to contract that out and stick with a more capable aircraft for advanced flight training. I'm not to concerned as the type / brand. Anything is better than want we have now.

I don't think the ice issue will be a huge issue in the NZ context - just don't fly through blizzards on training sorties.

Your right the contract for the primary stage is worth big consideration. Massey in my view is a natural fit, the question is how much then of the syllabus can be DA20 that they use can develop trainees before the switch over to the more capable aircraft.

 

[KH-12]

I don't think the ice issue will be a huge issue in the NZ context - just don't fly through blizzards on training sorties.

Your right the contract for the primary stage is worth big consideration. Massey in my view is a natural fit, the question is how much then of the syllabus can be DA20 that they use can develop trainees before the switch over to the more capable aircraft.

I think the issue is more around flying through active thunderstorms and the issue of lightening strikes on a composite structure, bad idea anyway !

Apparently you can change the power characteristics of the G120TP to suit different stages in the training regime, the concern with outsourcing to a private training facility would be ensuring standards are maintained, often a different training mentality involved in training civilian pilots, and would it be much cheaper anyway.

 

[ngatimozart]

I don't think the ice issue will be a huge issue in the NZ context - just don't fly through blizzards on training sorties.

Icing has to do with the ambient air temperature of the air that the aircraft is flying through. As a general rule the higher the altitude the lower the air temperature and the freezing level can quite often be below the altitude that the aircraft is capable of operating in. So for example a CT4 without O2 will operate below 10,000ft. The freezing level in NZ can quite often be below that level and in winter has been known to be down to sea level in southern parts of the country occasionally. So if the Grob has icing issues then I would think that they need to be sorted before it comes to NZ. Lightening strikes I an unsure about. I know on a normal metal aircraft lightening strikes are not normally an issue. Will have to ask around.

 

[KH-12]

Icing has to do with the ambient air temperature of the air that the aircraft is flying through. As a general rule the higher the altitude the lower the air temperature and the freezing level can quite often be below the altitude that the aircraft is capable of operating in. So for example a CT4 without O2 will operate below 10,000ft. The freezing level in NZ can quite often be below that level and in winter has been known to be down to sea level in southern parts of the country occasionally. So if the Grob has icing issues then I would think that they need to be sorted before it comes to NZ. Lightening strikes I an unsure about. I know on a normal metal aircraft lightening strikes are not normally an issue. Will have to ask around.

Doesn't seem to have any deicing boots on the wing leading edge , maybe they would compromise the aerodynamics and maybe routing turbine bleed air is not an option on the CFRP structure, there was a case a few years back in the UK when a composite glider was hit by lightening and the wing virtually exploded so not good. As a training aircraft you have the luxury of choosing not to fly in ice conditions, different in an operational A/C.

 

[40 deg south]

So if the Grob has icing issues then I would think that they need to be sorted before it comes to NZ. Lightening strikes I an unsure about. I know on a normal metal aircraft lightening strikes are not normally an issue. Will have to ask around.

The Grob 120TP is essentially the existing 120A but with the Lycoming piston engine swapped out for a Rolls Royce 250 turboprop. The 120A is in use as a basic trainer with the French, German, Israeli and Canadian air forces. If it had issues with either lightning strikes or icing, I assume they would have found a solution. Particularly the Canadians!

Come to think of it, the 120A is based on the Grob 115, which is used by the RAF and Royal Navy, as well as the Norwegian Air Force. Again, both the UK and Norway aren't exactly tropical, so I assume they have the icing issue sorted one way or another.

 

[40 deg south]

A bigger issue for the Grob is that the 120TP is largely unproven. The airframe is a known quantity, the RR250 engine has a good track record (mainly in helicopters) and the avionics are from CMC Esterline (same supplier as the Beechcraft Texan, from memory). But this particular combination is new, and our extremely risk-averse defence establishment may reject the Grob for that reason.

A month or so back I asked the guys in the Indonesian Air Force Forum for an update, and their first aircraft were reportedly only just arriving then. So they are some way off having any useful introduction-into-service experiece to inform us.

On paper, it looks a good fit for NZ's needs. But the issue above may rule it out of contention.

 

[KH-12]

A bigger issue for the Grob is that the 120TP is largely unproven. The airframe is a known quantity, the RR250 engine has a good track record (mainly in helicopters) and the avionics are from CMC Esterline (same supplier as the Beechcraft Texan, from memory). But this particular combination is new, and our extremely risk-averse defence establishment may reject the Grob for that reason.

A month or so back I asked the guys in the Indonesian Air Force Forum for an update, and their first aircraft were reportedly only just arriving then. So they are some way off having any useful introduction-into-service experiece to inform us.

On paper, it looks a good fit for NZ's needs. But the issue above may rule it out of contention.

Didn't stop us from embarking on some highly complex and risky upgrades to the C-130 and P3 fleets , a training aircraft is very basic in comparison, as you point out all 3 major components are proven in their own way so technical risk should be low, the NH90 was not exactly a mature platform when it was ordered either.

 

[MrConservative]

All these concerns are indeed valid. We are always going to be constrained by the relative small size of our defence force and that defence in the modern era has never been higher than a 2nd tier ministry and often lower, with respect to influence, importance and requisite funding. The cost - benefit - risk quantum will always remain.