Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ngatimozart]

Apparently Alenia & Airbus having been having a bit of a slanging match at the Singapore Airshow regarding their respective aircraft, the C27J and the C295. In Singapore, Alenia and Airbus Trade Barbs Over Transport Capability | Defense News | defensenews.com Anyway near the end of the article it is mentioned that the Portuguese Air Force C295 on display at Singapore is heading to New Zealand for demonstrations. Now I am of the opinion that the C295 does not meet the requirements of NZDF, because of its short legs, low cargo capacity and it being underpowered.

The article cites some Peruvian Air Force evaluation documents regarding their evaluation of the C295 and the C27J. It notes the cost of moving freight between Lima and Juliaca and the author kindly converts the Peruvian currency into US dollars (for the C27J) being US$70,000. I wanted to see what the C295 cost was in US dollars, so as a check I converted the C27J cost (137,489 nuevo soles) into US dollars using XE Currency Converter - Live Rates which converted to US$48,772.41. When I converted the C295 cost it came to US$72,052.37, so I think the author made a typo. The exchange rate I used was 1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 0.354737 USD and this was Mid-market rates: 2014-02-13 07:11 UTC. So based on the Peruvian figures cited, the C295 would take 18 hrs 20 min longer, to move 2.6 tons less, at a cost of US$23,279.96 more than the C27J over the same route (457 nautical miles). If those figures are correct, even at a 20% higher procurement cost, the C27J would be a far wiser and more economical procurement in the longer term. That could be attractive to the bean counters.

Edit: Update. According to Flight Global the C295 will be in NZ to perform a maritime patrol demonstration for NZDF. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...e-unit-targets-new-sales-then-airlift-395850/

 

[ADMk2]

Apparently Alenia & Airbus having been having a bit of a slanging match at the Singapore Airshow regarding their respective aircraft, the C27J and the C295. In Singapore, Alenia and Airbus Trade Barbs Over Transport Capability | Defense News | defensenews.com Anyway near the end of the article it is mentioned that the Portuguese Air Force C295 on display at Singapore is heading to New Zealand for demonstrations. Now I am of the opinion that the C295 does not meet the requirements of NZDF, because of its short legs, low cargo capacity and it being underpowered.

The article cites some Peruvian Air Force evaluation documents regarding their evaluation of the C295 and the C27J. It notes the cost of moving freight between Lima and Juliaca and the author kindly converts the Peruvian currency into US dollars (for the C27J) being US$70,000. I wanted to see what the C295 cost was in US dollars, so as a check I converted the C27J cost (137,489 nuevo soles) into US dollars using XE Currency Converter - Live Rates which converted to US$48,772.41. When I converted the C295 cost it came to US$72,052.37, so I think the author made a typo. The exchange rate I used was 1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 0.354737 USD and this was Mid-market rates: 2014-02-13 07:11 UTC. So based on the Peruvian figures cited, the C295 would take 18 hrs 20 min longer, to move 2.6 tons less, at a cost of US$23,279.96 more than the C27J over the same route (457 nautical miles). If those figures are correct, even at a 20% higher procurement cost, the C27J would be a far wiser and more economical procurement in the longer term. That could be attractive to the bean counters.

Edit: Update. According to Flight Global the C295 will be in NZ to perform a maritime patrol demonstration for NZDF. SINGAPORE: Airbus defence unit targets new sales, then airlift rival - 2/12/2014 - Flight Global

What Airbus also "surprisingly" continues to neglect to mention is that the mission systems, comms, navigation and EW packages that the C-27J's have available are included in the price comparison they use, versus a bare-bones C-295 without any "tactical" kit.

Want the same tactical capability as the C-27J provides, well you can get it from the C-295 but you'll be up for a few development costs, risk and the acquisition price difference will significantly narrow.

All to get a less capable airlifter...

 

[Gibbo]

Latest RNZAF News - incl T6C details

Latest Air Force news has, amongst other things, a 2 pager about the T6C purchase. Nothing that we don’t largely know already, but there is a clear confirmation that the B200 will remain in service for MEPT & light-transport work. I think we all pretty much guessed that but now we have it from the horses mouth!

Also mentions an upgrade for No. 1 Hangar and a new training/simulation centre.

Can someone clarify which is No.1 hangar?

http://www.airforce.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/airforce-news/afn155.pdf

 

[RegR]

Latest Air Force news has, amongst other things, a 2 pager about the T6C purchase. Nothing that we don’t largely know already, but there is a clear confirmation that the B200 will remain in service for MEPT & light-transport work. I think we all pretty much guessed that but now we have it from the horses mouth!

Also mentions an upgrade for No. 1 Hangar and a new training/simulation centre.

Can someone clarify which is No.1 hangar?

http://www.airforce.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/airforce-news/afn155.pdf

No. 1 hanger is PTS current hanger next to the soon to be retired air movements building. The 2 main hangers you can see from SH1 are 2 and 3 with 1 tucked in behind. No.4 has made way for the new Air move terminal. No.1 also houses historic flight which I guess may have to move due to the 14 Sqn expansion but there is space in No.2 as it only houses the 4 kingairs + some extra non-military(therefore non-priority).

Actually should be a lot of real estate freeing up shortly when 3 Sqn fully transitions to NH90 and the hueys finally retire as then No.3 hanger will be empty and in need of some aircraft to keep warm......now who or what to put in there????

 

[Gibbo]

No. 1 hanger is PTS current hanger next to the soon to be retired air movements building. The 2 main hangers you can see from SH1 are 2 and 3 with 1 tucked in behind. No.4 has made way for the new Air move terminal. No.1 also houses historic flight which I guess may have to move due to the 14 Sqn expansion but there is space in No.2 as it only houses the 4 kingairs + some extra non-military(therefore non-priority).

Actually should be a lot of real estate freeing up shortly when 3 Sqn fully transitions to NH90 and the hueys finally retire as then No.3 hanger will be empty and in need of some aircraft to keep warm......now who or what to put in there????

Ah ok thanks! Yes it's quite clear in aerial shots & I wondered if it might be that one. Those same aerial shots suggest it's probably got about the same overall foot-print as No's 2 & 3 - although impossible to tell how much inside space is open floor-space vs offices, storerooms etc.

Yeah I guess shoving the historic flight in No 3 longer term makes sense, as I guess No 3 isn't any real use to aircraft using the new movements terminal!?! Mind you I assume the CT4E's will get shifted to there during the transnational phase before they disappear.

 

[RegR]

Ah ok thanks! Yes it's quite clear in aerial shots & I wondered if it might be that one. Those same aerial shots suggest it's probably got about the same overall foot-print as No's 2 & 3 - although impossible to tell how much inside space is open floor-space vs offices, storerooms etc.

Yeah I guess shoving the historic flight in No 3 longer term makes sense, as I guess No 3 isn't any real use to aircraft using the new movements terminal!?! Mind you I assume the CT4E's will get shifted to there during the transnational phase before they disappear.

No.1 is rather large and would easily accommodate the new Texans(it also doubled as pax customs area for large ops/exs on occasion) I just suppose it depends on how much space the sim will take up, for example the A109 sim got its own building and is rather large but I also think that one is full motion. therefore if it is on that scale/type and is going in the hanger as well then could be a cosy fit.

Not sure if historic would get the entire hanger, would be alittle overkill unless they doubled, tripled or more their current fleet. Another option could be to base the boeings in No.3 once the hueys finally retire, would actually make sense being closer to their main customer(army) and next door to the new Air move terminal. Ohakea is (in comparison to Whenuapai anyway) a major departure/arrival point for excersises, operations and taskings anyway so just save transit time really, only downside is 40 would have a det and be split or even worse lose them altogether, maybe an enlarged 42 Sqn?

 

[Gibbo]

No.1 is rather large and would easily accommodate the new Texans(it also doubled as pax customs area for large ops/exs on occasion) I just suppose it depends on how much space the sim will take up, for example the A109 sim got its own building and is rather large but I also think that one is full motion. therefore if it is on that scale/type and is going in the hanger as well then could be a cosy fit.

Not sure if historic would get the entire hanger, would be alittle overkill unless they doubled, tripled or more their current fleet. Another option could be to base the boeings in No.3 once the hueys finally retire, would actually make sense being closer to their main customer(army) and next door to the new Air move terminal. Ohakea is (in comparison to Whenuapai anyway) a major departure/arrival point for excersises, operations and taskings anyway so just save transit time really, only downside is 40 would have a det and be split or even worse lose them altogether, maybe an enlarged 42 Sqn?

I guess the refurb of No1 will start soon so the CT-4E's may need to squeeze into No.3 beside the Hueys soonish? With the CT4's around for another couple of years it will be a wee while before No.3 is available.

Wonder if it would be considered 'cheaper' to shove the historic flight into No.2 with 42sqn (ie: cheaper to leave No.3 cold & dark) - or whether it's makes stuff all difference & therefore they can put the historic guys into No.3... yes it does seem a pity to have No.3 empty longer term.

I guess they could find some 'other' role for it... undercover car-parking!?! :lol2

 

[Gibbo]

MAG58 mount in the AW109

On another subject from Feb AF news (pg's 14 & 15).... http://www.airforce.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/airforce-news/afn155.pdf

I'm no expert but the clearances for the MAG58 shown in 2 photos in the article look far too tight. Look at the one with the tape measure, 20cm - the operator can't get in an aiming position if the gun is swivelled into the position.

Looks to me like the gun will need to remain fairly 'straight' out the door & the aircraft will be required to manoeuvre to assist clear targeting!?!

If a chopper is providing 'top cover' (in this case that's pushing the definition surely!) would it normally keep mobile by circling the 'point of concern' (like the Auckland Police chopper does - never hovers) in which case perhaps door clearance isn't so much a concern!?!

To be fair the AW109 was never designed as a gun platform, and they are a damned nice little piece of kit, to the layman at least.

How practical is the MAG58 mount - interested in others opinions.

 

[recce.k1]

Hey Gibbo, there appears to be a reasonable firing arc in the first pic judging by the swivel mount system (albeit better optimised for firing "forward" rather than aft). Perhaps the second pic is that of the MAG58 in a stowage position (inside the aircraft and facing aft)?

Probably not as ideal as the UH-1 or NH-90 but unlike these two types at least the AW-109 won't usually be carrying troops and may be utilised for armed reconnaissance etc. There was mention on the WoNZ forum of the AW-109 possibly receiving a future FLIR and armament upgrade if a business case could be made (presumably assuming buy in from Army etc)? Having the AW-109 with MAG58 and deploying them may be a good start in terms of gaining practical experience of what works and what doesn't in terms of future options?

 

[Gibbo]

Hey Gibbo, there appears to be a reasonable firing arc in the first pic judging by the swivel mount system (albeit better optimised for firing "forward" rather than aft). Perhaps the second pic is that of the MAG58 in a stowage position (inside the aircraft and facing aft)?

Ah yeah, good point, forward firing arc does look reasonable in the 1st shot & yes the other could well be stowage position.

I guess AF wouldn't be pursuing it if they felt is wasn't workable.

The MAG58 still isn't quite as sexy as a combo gun / rocket pod that comes off the shelf for the AW109, but I'd be dreaming on that count! :crazy

Thanks for the feedback

 

[ngatimozart]

Hey Gibbo, there appears to be a reasonable firing arc in the first pic judging by the swivel mount system (albeit better optimised for firing "forward" rather than aft). Perhaps the second pic is that of the MAG58 in a stowage position (inside the aircraft and facing aft)?

Probably not as ideal as the UH-1 or NH-90 but unlike these two types at least the AW-109 won't usually be carrying troops and may be utilised for armed reconnaissance etc. There was mention on the WoNZ forum of the AW-109 possibly receiving a future FLIR and armament upgrade if a business case could be made (presumably assuming buy in from Army etc)? Having the AW-109 with MAG58 and deploying them may be a good start in terms of gaining practical experience of what works and what doesn't in terms of future options?

Looking forward from the WONZ comment I would hope that the posited three extra birds are armoured and fitted for but not with extra armaments, the same as the current five. Then it is easy and inexpensive, per se, to add the extra armament because all the wiring etc., is a already fitted. However nothing has yet behoven the pollies to fund said armament.

 

[RegR]

The extra 3 are supposed to be stock standard off the shelf civi versions and take up the training role releasing the milspec 5 for operationally demanding duties. Could even end up being another lease option depending on costs if their role is dedicated.

I wouldn't mind something bigger such as the aus chook mini-guns before we go all out, ease into it first and appease the rainbow watching ministers out there. A 'gunship' might cause some banner waving if not introduced correctly these days.

 

[RegR]

I guess the refurb of No1 will start soon so the CT-4E's may need to squeeze into No.3 beside the Hueys soonish? With the CT4's around for another couple of years it will be a wee while before No.3 is available.

Wonder if it would be considered 'cheaper' to shove the historic flight into No.2 with 42sqn (ie: cheaper to leave No.3 cold & dark) - or whether it's makes stuff all difference & therefore they can put the historic guys into No.3... yes it does seem a pity to have No.3 empty longer term.

I guess they could find some 'other' role for it... undercover car-parking!?! :lol2

I suppose the handy thing about having free hanger space about the place does come into its own when re-furbs and modifications need doing, just solves a few headaches and doesn't leave anyone homeless for any period of time.

 

[Gibbo]

I suppose the handy thing about having free hanger space about the place does come into its own when re-furbs and modifications need doing, just solves a few headaches and doesn't leave anyone homeless for any period of time.

What's in the historic flight now? Harvard, Tiger Moth, Sioux, will there be a Huey? There's also the TA-4K (composite hack) & the Strikemaster, both of which were in the Ohakea branch of the museum - crikey there's a small squadron strength already that would take up hangar space

Wouldn't it be nice to see some foreign airforce bring there lead-in jet trainers & operate out of No.3 hangar, but I suspect that horse has bolted!?!

 

[t68]

Wouldn't it be nice to see some foreign airforce bring there lead-in jet trainers & operate out of No.3 hangar, but I suspect that horse has bolted!?!

thought I read sometime ago that Singapore was going to base some trainers in NZ similar to the French deal?

Be interesting to see some Aermacchi M-346 Master going about their business.

 

[Gibbo]

thought I read sometime ago that Singapore was going to base some trainers in NZ similar to the French deal?

Be interesting to see some Aermacchi M-346 Master going about their business.

Yeah AFAIK apparently that was dependent on a specific contractor / vendor getting the contract but they lost out to another. Hopefully however someone in MinDef and/or Treasury has seen the potential for a revenue stream here & will keep an eye out for similar opportunities.

 

[Joe Black]

I have been wondering if RNZAF would ever go back to the jet age. I would image getting, say, 8 FA-50/T-50 Golden Eagles as a lead in fighter trainer would be excellent to maintain a level of competency in operating jet fighters. RNZAF could also have a similar arrangement with RAAF like they used to have with teh Skyhawks to train against RAAF's Hornets.

I do understand that it is quite costly to operate fighter jets. But can RNZAF really afford to lose the competency they used to have? Once you lose that skill it is takes a lot of effort to regain it. I think selecting the T-6C is the first step for them to rebuild this capability.

 

[ngatimozart]

I have been wondering if RNZAF would ever go back to the jet age. I would image getting, say, 8 FA-50/T-50 Golden Eagles as a lead in fighter trainer would be excellent to maintain a level of competing jet fighter. RNZAF could also have a similar arrangement with RAAF like they used to have with teh Skyhawks to train against RAAF's Hornets.

I do understand that it is quite costly to operate fighter jets. But can RNZAF really afford to lose the competency they used to have? Once you lose that skill it is takes a lot of effort to regain it. I think selecting the T-6C is the first step for them to rebuild this capability.

Hi Joe. This has been hashed, thrashed & beaten well and truly on this thread and other forums. Short answer, for the foreseeable future the RNZAF will not operate fast jets unless there is a major fundamental change in political policies by one or both of the major political parties. I did a rough calculation based on replacing the Air Combat Force as it stood numbers wise in 1999 with the F16s having replaced the Skyhawks. To stand up an ACF to that standard would require around NZ$4 billion. For the aircraft I based it on 28 SAAB Gripen C/Ds and 18 KAI TA50s. I've discounted the F16 and the Hawk trainers, or the Macchis because they are old technology and we would be operating these aircraft for 40 years. Therefore based on those numbers it is a very expensive exercise and is over 10% of the current annual NZDF budget.

The reason I have used the aircraft and numbers is because that is what is thought that is the capability that the RNZAF would need to fullfill its basic ACF mission and allow for attrition. It was found that 18 Skyhawks were needed to give a minimum of operational capability. For more info read back through this thread. It will give you a good understanding of the why's and how's.

Of note the basic T6C has six underwing hard points, two of which are plumbed for fuel. They are also fitted with the FN Herstal weapons control system. What would be interesting is if the RNZAF T6Cs will come with those still installed.

 

[MrConservative]

But can RNZAF really afford to lose the competency they used to have? Once you lose that skill it is takes a lot of effort to regain it. I think selecting the T-6C is the first step for them to rebuild this capability.

The competency has long gone. Any senior RNZAF officer will candidly tell you that. I have yet to hear a plausible rationale for bringing the ACF back and I have heard many attempts to explain why. What is the military relevance of a 2nd or 3rd tier ACF for NZ in the broader geo-political let alone future warfare matrix? Not a hell of a lot to be honest. Our allies/friends are more interested in us enhancing what we do well rather than having to hold our hand starting up what they and indeed the NZ Govt a futile exercise that will add little credibility or credence. They would prefer, just like the NZG does, that we look to a future tier 1 asset to replace the P-3 for example. The ACF is a Dead Parrot.

 

[40 deg south]

The ACF is a Dead Parrot.

Nicely put!

Back in the real world, I'm not sure what to make of the visit by a Portuguese C295MPA. If I understand correctly it was contracted by Airbus Military to attend the Singapore Air Show earlier this month, then fly down to NZ via Timor-Leste and Australia. The Singapore bit makes perfect sense, but the subsequent trip is an expensive exercise to carry out 'on spec'. I can't help wonder if Airbus has been hearing encouraging noises from Wellington. There is nil chance of an order from Australia, but perhaps Timor is seen as a prospective customer in the future as well as NZ? A few links:

Alenia and Airbus trade insults in Singapore
Medium airlift and the big sales spat - The DEW Line

Map of aircraft journey fro Portuguese Air Force
Demonstração de capacidades | Força Aérea Portuguesa

If you click the arrow to the right of 'Montijo' below the map you get a photo-tour of the trip, ending in fog-bound Wellington and some nice airborne shots of the Wairarapa

Here is the original announcement that Portugal picked the C295 over the C27J. 12 aircraft for US$322 million, mostly in baseline transport config.
Casa C-295 beats Spartan to Portuguese deal - 2/21/2006 - Flight Global

If NZ is seriously considering the C295, what for? And when? Andover light-transport replacement? Eventual successor to P3 Orion? Lower-tier maritime patrol to conserve airframe life on the Orions? VIP Transport for Gerry Brownlee, who can no longer fit on the B200s?

Or is the Airbus sales office just being over-optimistic?