Royal New Zealand Air Force

[RegR]

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?

All of the above hopefully but except more hopefully not P3 replacement as such and more supplement.

With the costs of P8 pretty much killing any 1 for 1 scenario then a tiered system such as P8/mariner UAV/C295 with individual specialties achieving a common goal could provide a more flexible and ultimately more useful solution. Overland surveillance, maritime surveillance, SAR, fisheries, patrols and even missile options are all available depending on what degree of response as to which asset to task.

The 295(type) also covers off some other known deficiancies within defence such as andover replacement, taking pressure off 40 Sqn (A400 would probably mean less frames as well due to cost), SATs and smaller taskings again providing for more flexibility and options.

Whether it's C295 or C27 that potentially fills the void is all dependant on costs, numbers, operating, overall capability etc but personally I would be more than happy with either as regardless at the end of the day a major gap will be plugged and some improved options made available.

The ACF option is well done but I'm sure people out there (esp new) still have opinions and views therefore see no harm in them discussing (as this is what the site is for), you do not have to reply to everything posted if you don't feel the need and a subject will cease/carry on from there dependant on interest. Most capabilities/policies/plans/aqquisitions on here have been re-hashed multiple times and theories and possibilities are sometimes just as good as fact until it becomes reality, problems of a small Air Force with decade long lead in times in an ever changing world I suppose.

 

[htbrst]

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?

It's not unheard of for low-teir MPA's to make an optimistic trip all the way to NZ despite the low probability of an order - see here for a report on a trip by a decked out Learjet in 1980...Sea Lear | Pacific Wings

But they may know what they are doing given the 2010 white paper included many mentions of introducing a short-ranged patrol aircraft, e.g.:

Significant capabilities proposed for the next five years include a replacement pilot training capability; the introduction of short-range maritime patrol aircraft...;

We've just seen the first item on that list ticked off ...

(Here is a link to the white paper if you haven't seen it before: http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/2010/defence_white_paper_2010.pdf )

 

[ngatimozart]

Yes I too have been mulling over the Portuguese Air Force C295MPA being here at Airbus's behest and expense. It's a lot of money and a long to come purely on spec especially when CAF was in that part of the world last year going for a ride in an A400. I have to admit I far prefer the C27J as the Andover replacement because of it s performance capabilities compared to that of the C295M. However the C295 is a more versatile airframe in that it can do maritime patrol / ASuW / ASW / AEW etc.

1) If the C295 was procured by the NZG for a MPA role I would see it as a component of the maritime force alongside the P8. I do have great difficulty seeing a NZ purchase of the Triton to go with the P8 because of the cost of a Triton acquisition being similar costs to a P8 acquisition. If the C295MPA is acquired I would like to see it acquired with its full capabilities so that when the P3s are replaced by the P8 the two systems seamlessly interlock.

2) A C295 acquired for the MPA role would also mean that the C295 would be acquired for the transport role. It makes logistic and financial sense. The C295W has winglets and uprated engines and due out this year.

 

[chis73]

If a jet trainer ever does make it back into the RNZAF, heres hoping it's officially painted Norwegian Blue!

Joe Black - I agree pretty much with your thoughts on the T-50. A short squadron of jet trainers (not a deployable force) is where I think we should be - ie. a training school (pretty much like gun artillery is in the Army these days). But, as I (and many others) have said before, there are bigger problems to fix first.

The next best thing to our own jet trainers for the next couple of years will be the RAAF Hawks at Wanaka this Easter.

On to the C-295: I would be quite happy if NZ picked the Portuguese mpa version (it seems well spec-ed for NZ conditions & extremely versatile). Airbus seems well ahead with the modular payload systems (though the USCG C27J should close the gap). I see the C-295 (or C27J) acting as a super-sub / floater (or a bench utility player in rugby terms), covering first the Hercules replacement then the Orion replacement, so that we don't go through the mess that the last Hercules/Orion upgrades were again - both fleets got down to one servicable aircraft at times iirc. A small C-295/C27J fleet should prove itself so incredibly useful that it should be kept on afterwards. But if they do need to divest themselves of a few aircraft then the C-295 would be perfect for the Chathams as a Convair replacement.

What spec on the C-295 would we want?

The main advantage of the AN/APN-241 navigation/weather radar on the Portuguese version, over the standard Honeywell RDR-1400C, I assume is the terrain mapping / terrain avoidance mode (we only need to recall the unfortunate events of Anzac Day 2010 to note why that would be useful). The Elta 2022 surface search radar is already common to the Orions. Could also possibly pick the AN/APS-143C (likely to be on the ex-Aussie Seasprites and integrated to USCG HC-144s & probably C27Js)

I wonder though if it would be worthwhile for NZ to also incorporate the water bomber module currently in testing on the C-295. Seems like a large capability gain for little marginal cost. Also, it would be worth putting the wiring in for the ASW version (ie just the wiring, not the sensors or the electronics) - cheaper to put it in during construction than to have to retrofit it I think. Then you could add a MAD or torpedoes on wing hardpoints or ESM if things got truly desperate.

Chis73

 

[RegR]

Yes I too have been mulling over the Portuguese Air Force C295MPA being here at Airbus's behest and expense. It's a lot of money and a long to come purely on spec especially when CAF was in that part of the world last year going for a ride in an A400. I have to admit I far prefer the C27J as the Andover replacement because of it s performance capabilities compared to that of the C295M. However the C295 is a more versatile airframe in that it can do maritime patrol / ASuW / ASW / AEW etc.

1) If the C295 was procured by the NZG for a MPA role I would see it as a component of the maritime force alongside the P8. I do have great difficulty seeing a NZ purchase of the Triton to go with the P8 because of the cost of a Triton acquisition being similar costs to a P8 acquisition. If the C295MPA is acquired I would like to see it acquired with its full capabilities so that when the P3s are replaced by the P8 the two systems seamlessly interlock.

2) A C295 acquired for the MPA role would also mean that the C295 would be acquired for the transport role. It makes logistic and financial sense. The C295W has winglets and uprated engines and due out this year.

A good salesman needs to be proactive and put his product out there in a competitive marketplace, good on airbus I reckon nothing beats up close and personal and even the trip to get here is a demonstration in itself of the aircrafts capabilities.

Agreed on costs Ngati that is why I purposely suggested mariner vs triton or more figuratively $20m vs $200m. Aus may be keen on a P8/triton mix but their requirements in this area are alittle different to ours therefore this is another one of those occasions we could afford (literally) to take a slightly different path on that otherwise common road.

I would also see the CN MPA as what the OPV is to the ANZAC, suited to certain tasks and therefore fitted out accordingly, whatever that might be. Save the big jobs for a P8 type and the less strenuous ones could be handled by the CN type, ie from Pirate hunting in the Aden gulf to watching Joe fisherman in the Hawkes bay and anything in between. We can't afford to have everything top tier when the majority of our jobs are low risk otherwise something has to sacrifice (numbers, equipment, hours etc).

Chis also brings up a good point that would be beneficial in that if C295(type) were purchased then they would be able to help cover the transition period come replacement time for both the P3 and C130 as I'm sure for example 3 Sqn has had difficulties transitioning to the 90s and effectively trying to run 2 Sqns (UH/NH) of varying size over this period. Larger Air Forces probably would not have this problem as they would have at least a second squadron of whichever type/role that could cover.

 

[ngatimozart]

The problem with the MPA / ASW /ASuW skill set is that it is not something that can be taught and learned quickly. So whilst Tane idea of fitted for and not with would be ideal from a cost perspective, it is not from the skill and knowledge aspect. These skills have to be learned and practiced regularly and often. Secondly, the system used in the C295MPA for sensor data analysis, display etc., is F.I.T.S., which is most probably different to that used currently by the P3K2. So in the long term it is actually more logical and cost effective to have a good capability with this aircraft so that it can indeed work in well the Orions & the P8s.

 

[40 deg south]

It's not unheard of for low-teir MPA's to make an optimistic trip all the way to NZ despite the low probability of an order - see here for a report on a trip by a decked out Learjet in 1980...Sea Lear | Pacific Wings

But they may know what they are doing given the 2010 white paper included many mentions of introducing a short-ranged patrol aircraft, e.g.:


We've just seen the first item on that list ticked off ...

(Here is a link to the white paper if you haven't seen it before: http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/2010/defence_white_paper_2010.pdf )

Thanks for that htbrst. I wasn't aware of that Lear Jet trip back in 1980.

I've seen the 2010 White Paper but haven't looked at it for a long time.The 2011 Defence Capability Plan summarised it as

The Defence White Paper 2010 noted that a number of low-end regional surveillance tasks, for both defence and other agencies, could be performed more cost-effectively by using a short-range maritime patrol aircraft instead of the P-3K Orion aircraft. Opportunities for acquiring a suitable aircraft that would both increase surveillance capacity in the Exclusive Economic Zone and the South Pacific, as well as perform a transport and multi-engine flying training and consolidation function, will be investigated.

The reference to multi-engine training made me suspect some variation of the Beechcraft KingAir was being lined up, such as the 350ER.

I understand the Air Transport Review is due to completed this year, in time to inform the next White Paper in 2015. Presumably decisions on a lower-tier MPA or light airlifter will flow from that analysis.

 

[ADMk2]

Yes I too have been mulling over the Portuguese Air Force C295MPA being here at Airbus's behest and expense. It's a lot of money and a long to come purely on spec especially when CAF was in that part of the world last year going for a ride in an A400. I have to admit I far prefer the C27J as the Andover replacement because of it s performance capabilities compared to that of the C295M. However the C295 is a more versatile airframe in that it can do maritime patrol / ASuW / ASW / AEW etc.

1) If the C295 was procured by the NZG for a MPA role I would see it as a component of the maritime force alongside the P8. I do have great difficulty seeing a NZ purchase of the Triton to go with the P8 because of the cost of a Triton acquisition being similar costs to a P8 acquisition. If the C295MPA is acquired I would like to see it acquired with its full capabilities so that when the P3s are replaced by the P8 the two systems seamlessly interlock.

2) A C295 acquired for the MPA role would also mean that the C295 would be acquired for the transport role. It makes logistic and financial sense. The C295W has winglets and uprated engines and due out this year.

I'd imagine something like Australia's 'Coastwatch' DASH-8's would be more up NZ's alley?

It seems that something low cost but reasonably capable is the driver here so that funding can be freed up for maximum higher level capability.

I can't see a C-295 MPA being considered necessarily for the RNZAF in either the high- end (not capable enough) or low end (too expensive) roles, it seems like a bit of a fence sitter really...

 

[Cadredave]

I'd imagine something like Australia's 'Coastwatch' DASH-8's would be more up NZ's alley?

It seems that something low cost but reasonably capable is the driver here so that funding can be freed up for maximum higher level capability.

I can't see a C-295 MPA being considered necessarily for the RNZAF in either the high- end (not capable enough) or low end (too expensive) roles, it seems like a bit of a fence sitter really...

I too agree with this assessment AD, NZDF is after capability that's all that's counts now the C-295 will never be used as a part time tier 1 asset (full on integrated war fighter) with our allies if RNZAF do look for a Coast Watch aircraft it will be a airborne version of the Navy IPV or OPV.

CD

 

[ngatimozart]

I'd imagine something like Australia's 'Coastwatch' DASH-8's would be more up NZ's alley?

It seems that something low cost but reasonably capable is the driver here so that funding can be freed up for maximum higher level capability.

I can't see a C-295 MPA being considered necessarily for the RNZAF in either the high- end (not capable enough) or low end (too expensive) roles, it seems like a bit of a fence sitter really...

Then it'll have to be something that has good range and loiter time. The F27 Friendships had external wing tanks added to extend their range. NZ has a very large EEZ. I have in mind a long view cross capability option being taken with an aircraft that offers the capability to undertake the requirements laid out in the 2010 DWP and be able to operate in conjunction with the P8 in the future, given that the Triton is highly unlikely to be obtained by NZDF due to cost. It is probably a given that a one for one replacement of the P3K2 by the P8 is not going to happen and therefore maybe four P8s will be acquired. Obviously four P8 will clearly not be enough to replace the current 6 P3K2. So a second tier platform should be obtained that can work with and supplement the P8 and also do the EEZ monitoring requirement. Basically it's a lot cheaper to buy one fully guccied C295MPA than one Triton. The difference in opinion appears to be is a fully capable C295MPA needed or not. If one takes the long view I would say yes and if a twin engined tactical airlifter requirement is identified and recommended by the NZDF Air Transport Review then there is the opportunity to have airframe compatibility over two different roles which would be a significant cost saving in the long term.

Another option would be as suggested by CD and ADMK2 a modified civilian aircraft. But what? It would still need a maritime surface search radar and associated equipment. How much different would be the costs over its full service life compared to that of the C295MPA including purchase? Or do we do what NZ govts have done before and take the short sighted real cheap option. Maybe they'll buy five second hand civil twin engined turboprops and fit the surface radars from the SH2G(NZ) Seasprites to them as the munted sprites are replaced and disposed of.

 

[40 deg south]

I'd imagine something like Australia's 'Coastwatch' DASH-8's would be more up NZ's alley?

It seems that something low cost but reasonably capable is the driver here so that funding can be freed up for maximum higher level capability.

I can't see a C-295 MPA being considered necessarily for the RNZAF in either the high- end (not capable enough) or low end (too expensive) roles, it seems like a bit of a fence sitter really...

That's kind of how I see it too, and there are a number of twin turboprops with an off-the-shelf MPA package.There could be additional support cost advantages if they could select a type already in commercial use in NZ. AirNZ runs a big fleet of the Dash 8 (Q300)'s used by your Coastwatch. It would be dead sitter for the role, of only Bombardier hadn't closed the production line in favour of the larger Q400. AirNZ also has a lot of ATR72s, but they may be considered too big/expensive.
ATR Aircraft
The Italian customs service runs them in a border patrol configuration, from memory.

The only way I could see NZ getting the C295 as an MPA is if the Air Transport Review recommends buying a light airlifter. Then there would be a painful decision between getting commonality with Australia on the C27j vs. going with lower purchase and running costs for the C295.

I'd forgotten about this piece at Australian Aviation in May last year about Airbus aiming an A400/C295 deal to NZ. Looks like the journo hit the nail squarely on the head.
A400M and C295W to be pitched to NZ | Australian Aviation Magazine

 

[RegR]

The problem with going civi aircraft is that while cheaper to operate, maintain and purchase upfront it is just that, a civilian standard built aircraft with it's inherent functions (or lack of) and in the long term does this still equate to wise spending? It may tick some but not all options required or may cover all but with some areas lacking, what do we sacrifice in the end?

A big plus for the C295 is the ramp which would allow for a myriad of military type operations to be undertaken along with the other mil-spec options that would come standard, negating the need for retro-fitting military equipment into a civilian derived platform which hasn't always worked well for us in the past.

As stated in the DWP(therefore is at least someone high ups idea) having one aircraft type that can cover 3 roles (transport, MPA, MEPT) whilst being seen as expensive in some areas compensates in others by not requiring multiple types to cover roles separately (or not at all), you can't have capabilities without capability. An aircraft that is true multi-role vs one that is solely focussed will inevitably cost more but other factors such as options, training, suitability, future growth and longevity all add up in the savings corner over time.

In the future the more versatile our platforms can be whilst being able to effectively do their core functions the better as we will more than likely not have the numbers of C130 and P3 types we do now due to costs (I'd say 4 of each). This will in turn have a negative impact on operations and some task priorities will need to be made to the detriment of others. C295 could supplement both usefully, relieving pressure on the lesser jobs and yes a civi type could as well but to a completely different standard, you get what you pay for.

Although commonality is a good thing in terms of training, sharing ideas and economies of scale it's also not a deal breaker. It works extremely well with minor equipment, consumables, B line vehicles etc in terms of inter-use and 'borrowing' but for major assets it is not as simple. For example it's not as if we share actual ANZAC frigates, C130Hs, major parts or P3s as opposed to 'use' them and even then a certain degree of signing off is required due to our slightly differing methods. As long as the fundamentals for type are the same exact models can be modified to suit for things such as fit out/options, tasking and cost.

 

[kiwipatriot]

A bit off topic, but i wondered why if Nh90s cost $70 million each ,and with only 8 operating, augustas too small for heavy lift, why didnt nz buy new blackhawks? they are a third of the cost, plenty of compatibiliy as australia and usa still use them,loads of various models available too for specific tasks, a proven helicopter in battle too. We could of replaced all of our hueys one for one basis, and had hundreds of millions left over, maybe enough to buy a few new C130J transports and equip both helicopters and C130J transports with defensive capabilities

 

[ngatimozart]

A bit off topic, but i wondered why if Nh90s cost $70 million each ,and with only 8 operating, augustas too small for heavy lift, why didnt nz buy new blackhawks? they are a third of the cost, plenty of compatibiliy as australia and usa still use them,loads of various models available too for specific tasks, a proven helicopter in battle too. We could of replaced all of our hueys one for one basis, and had hundreds of millions left over, maybe enough to buy a few new C130J transports and equip both helicopters and C130J transports with defensive capabilities

Ok. Easy bit first.The Blackhawk is old technology and didn't meet NZDFs requirements. It would actually cost more to procure and operate a 15 Blackhawk fleet than 8 NH90s, plus the Blackhawk doesn't have the lifting capability of the NH90. Aircraft procurement costs are not just the individual aircraft. Included within the total cost are things like training, manuals, spares, logistics support, spare engines, new capabilities required to operate the aircraft etc. So just dividing the the total cost by the number of aircraft is very misleading. The combination of the NH90 and the AW109 gives NZDF a far greater rotary wing capability than it has had up until now. The Blackhawk would have limited NZDF to Iroquois or near Iroquois capabilities without any significant improvements. Note that the ADF are replacing their Blackhawks with the MRH90 (Aussie variant of NH90 - 47 aircraft). NZDF would still have to buy an ab inito training helo so the AW109 would have been procured anyway.

The C130J may not necessarily be the most efficient and capable aircraft for NZDF because it could limit NZDF to what it has now in lifting capacity - 20 tons per aircraft. There are now other aircraft available that a combination thereof would greatly increase NZDFs air transport capability and for less cost. For example the A400M can lift 38 tonnes and it has an inbuilt air2air refuelling capability. 4 A400Ms can move the same amount of freight as 9 C130Js quicker and cheaper. So a combination of A400Ms and say C295s or C27Js would give NZDF a far better capability than it has at present with 5 x 50 year old C130H(NZ)s. The C17 is not a contender because it is to large for NZDFs requirements, to expensive and production ceases next year with the production of long lead items has already ceased.

Finally, have a read back through this thread and it should answer most, if not all, of your questions.

 

[kiwi in exile]

A bit off topic, but i wondered why if Nh90s cost $70 million each ,and with only 8 operating, augustas too small for heavy lift, why didnt nz buy new blackhawks? they are a third of the cost, plenty of compatibiliy as australia and usa still use them,loads of various models available too for specific tasks, a proven helicopter in battle too. We could of replaced all of our hueys one for one basis, and had hundreds of millions left over, maybe enough to buy a few new C130J transports and equip both helicopters and C130J transports with defensive capabilities

AFAIK, thinking like this used to be a lot more common on this thread. I'm glad that the consensus view has shifted in favour of the nh90. apart from the reasons outlined by Ngati, the idea of buying a platform near the end of it's cycle leaves us flying Seasprites. Ditto regards talk of resurecting the ACF. "Bloody Commie Labour, wouldn't it be great if we had some 4th gen F16s" has moved in favour of Gripens.

 

[kiwipatriot]

Yeah, I realise the backhawk isn't a new bulid, but it would have been a jump in capability as it seats twice as many, and looking at tech upgrades done to it, and the way we tend too hang onto airframes and keep them running,also how damn cheap our govt is that's how I come to that conclusion. Ok, c130j isn't an option, but cost wise the a400 is what, 150 million each? depending on what site im on. Yep. fantastic lift and for performance overall but shes a big girl mate, can our airbases handle her, even IF we get them, will we need to upgrade our hangars,runways too? C27 OR C29 seem like a more affordable option for the accountants in treasury, but they lack the load and range for anywhere outside of 2000km fully loaded /wikileaks/ so yes I agree, a mix of both planes, weather or not National can squeased for another $800 million is another story. Christchurch going to cost 40 billion to fix. Buggers at Housing NZ wont even fix my ceiling.

 

[kiwipatriot]

Don't think govt would ever consider grippens, better chance winning lotto! Dreams are free, surely they can be convinced some light tactical armament on the Texan 2c we bought isn't impossible, there is a weaponised version out there used with missiles and 20 mm cannon on its hardpoints under wing, and it has the tech inside to fire them already, just buy another twelve or so? only $6 million each, and the infrastructure for training them,parts ect is in place.

 

[Volkodav]

Yeah, I realise the backhawk isn't a new bulid, but it would have been a jump in capability as it seats twice as many, and looking at tech upgrades done to it, and the way we tend too hang onto airframes and keep them running,also how damn cheap our govt is that's how I come to that conclusion. Ok, c130j isn't an option, but cost wise the a400 is what, 150 million each? depending on what site im on. Yep. fantastic lift and for performance overall but shes a big girl mate, can our airbases handle her, even IF we get them, will we need to upgrade our hangars,runways too? C27 OR C29 seem like a more affordable option for the accountants in treasury, but they lack the load and range for anywhere outside of 4000km so yes I agree, a mix of both planes, weather or not National can squeased for another $800 million is another story. Christchurch going to cost 40 billion to fix. Buggers at Housing NZ wont even fix my ceiling.

With the cuts on orders for the A400 by a number of nations NZ could maybe do a deal with a nation facing major cancelation fees. Wait and see I suppose.

As for commonality with Allies I wouldn't be too surprised if the A400 gets a look in for the RAAF in the long run as a herc replacement too.

 

[ngatimozart]

Yeah, I realise the backhawk isn't a new bulid, but it would have been a jump in capability as it seats twice as many, and looking at tech upgrades done to it, and the way we tend too hang onto airframes and keep them running,also how damn cheap our govt is that's how I come to that conclusion. Ok, c130j isn't an option, but cost wise the a400 is what, 150 million each? depending on what site im on. Yep. fantastic lift and for performance overall but shes a big girl mate, can our airbases handle her, even IF we get them, will we need to upgrade our hangars,runways too? C27 OR C29 seem like a more affordable option for the accountants in treasury, but they lack the load and range for anywhere outside of 4000km so yes I agree, a mix of both planes, weather or not National can squeased for another $800 million is another story. Christchurch going to cost 40 billion to fix. Buggers at Housing NZ wont even fix my ceiling.

The Blackhawk wouldn't increased the numbers numbers of troops lifted per aircraft. 11 for the Blackhawk and at least 11 for the UH1H. The Blackhawk first flew in 1974 so now a 40 year old aircraft. Do we really want to be operating an 80 year old aircraft in 40 years time that gives us no increase in capability? I certainly think not.

 

[t68]

The Blackhawk wouldn't increased the numbers numbers of troops lifted per aircraft. 11 for the Blackhawk and at least 11 for the UH1H. The Blackhawk first flew in 1974 so now a 40 year old aircraft. Do we really want to be operating an 80 year old aircraft in 40 years time that gives us no increase in capability? I certainly think not.

I know that they are used aircraft and all, but just because the original design was way back in the 70's doesn't mean it's not up to the job, one only has to look at the US Army Navy buy new build Black/Seahawks and not only that the USMC is still using the UH-1 Huey and still in production. First flight of the B-52 bomber was way back in 1952 and is expected to still be in service up to 2050 a 100 years old design.

But in saying that the requirements of the end user come first and if it did not meet them all well and good but just because it's a new design doesn't mean it's better.

Don't forget we went Romeo over no the ASW version of the NH-90.