And what would be the opportunity cost? We would no longer remain an effective ISR generator and teir 1 partner which is by far the most significant international security relationship we have or will ever have.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
King Wally
Active Member
I'm not an expert in platforms, so wont pretend to be, but I do know there's a clear and obvious proliferation of Sub's across Asia going on right now. What ever NZ goes for you need it to have teeth and capability. Stay clear of the fast jets by all means but I'd never let go of the capability to have a serious Sub hunt. Just my 2 cents.
You will never hear anything reference the ISR capabilities that the P3K2 currently produce OPSEC being the word, so currently the only thing that can be printed is poachers and crashed aircraft and SAR, since most of our sea borne trade 90% I believe goes thru Asia it makes a lot of sense to have a Tier 1 capability that can fit seamlessly into a coalition of like minded countries.
Satellite bandwidth was at a premium during Timor, Solomon's and Afghanistan since we currently don't own or share a satellite with anyone we have to borrow from our cousins across the ditch. I don't see it at all as overkill I see it as a Priority 1 capability gap that needs closing yesterday.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
I am in total agreement. I think that equipping the new sprites with anti-sub capabilities is a must. As is renewing our torpedo stocks (think they are nearing their best before date).
The P8's are designed for sub hunting. Later increments will be equipped with a high altitude torpedo dropping capability.
AFAIK the standard Triton sensors involve radar and EO, which doesn't suggest any sub hunting capability.
An eminently sensible and very logical idea hence well above the intellectual levels of the pollies both sides of the ditch
The current Aussie Coalition Govt and the Aussie Labour Party have a far closer understanding and agreement on defence than their counterparts in NZ do. They have agreements to have closer defence cooperation and interoperability etc., but more talk than walk. We got stung with the Seasprites when we probably would’ve gone with the Lynx back when both govts bought the Seasprites then the RAN boat was cancelled. $hit happens. The trouble with our lot,of both stripes, is they are loathe to pay money for defence. New Zealand along with Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands and Luxembourg are funding the ninth WGS satellite. NZ Defence Ministry Calls For Tenders On Military... | Stuff.co.nz.
I understand what you’re saying, but we have to throw the proposition out there. The A400 comes fully plumbed for AAR inclusive of pumps. If the fuselage kit is bought that is an extra large tank that slots into the cargo hold and allows for three drogues AAR. The B737-7x/8x/9x/ MAX or A320 family doesn’t have the range that is required. For example, last year when Gillard the Aussie PM had to go to China for APEC (?) the RAAF BBJ (Boeing Business Jet) didn’t have the range so she went in a KC30. To put it into context, a fully laden B737-800 could be borderline to safely do an unrefueled Whenuapai – Darwin leg. The 800 has a range of 3115 nautical miles fully loaded with 189 pax. The distance from Auckland to Darwin is 2774 nautical miles. So if they go down that track again it has to been something larger than a B737 / A320. There are not many aircraft out there now to choose from.
Well the “benign” South Pacific has had some military coups and other troubles and strifes in recent years. More to the point, US$5 trillion is a lot of trade. Don’t forget 99.4% of our trade goes by sea.
Nor AsuW.
Not all of the Tritons capabilities are in the public domain. I have heard that the current Mk46 torpedoes have, or are very close, to their use by dates. So what the plan is I don’t know. The Ex RAN Seasprites were originally spec’d to operate the MU90 LWT. I would think that part of the deal with Kaman would be changing the torpedo specs to the Mk 46 or its successor if NZDF go down that track. Am unsure whether the Seasprites are rated for the depth charges the RNZAF use on the P3s.
I think recent events have shown exactly the purpose of the tiered approach to NZ air ISR and this is just from a civilian tasking standpoint with obvious military applications as required.
We have been supporting the MH370 search with an orion for quite awhile now and due to the large search area which is itself along way out to sea and along way from NZ, the needle in the haystack scenario is using all the available sensors on the P3K2 to its fullest, crew included. A B350/C235/C27 would be of no or little use to us here.
We then had a aerobatic bi-plane go MIA from its overland flight plan and due to its more known localised search area more suitable civilian assets were used along with another orion and a huey. Abit overkill and inefficient. A B350/C235/C27 would have been perfect.
Lastly a yacht has recently gone rouge and cannot be found somewhere within our southern territorial waters and again the mighty orion was despatched to do what IMO it does best, however maybe alittle taxing on an already stretched squadron. A possible task for a modified UAV?
These all happened either concurrently or within a close timeframe of each other and due to our primary search aircraft being the P3 then funnily enough that's what we send but the tasks although overall similar are very different indeed. Distance, object size, terrain, knowns/unknowns etc all add up to either assist or hinder a search therefore a more tailored approach/option would not only be more cost effective but also less demanding on people and equipment and hopefully result in better outcomes.
We have been supporting the MH370 search with an orion for quite awhile now and due to the large search area which is itself along way out to sea and along way from NZ, the needle in the haystack scenario is using all the available sensors on the P3K2 to its fullest, crew included. A B350/C235/C27 would be of no or little use to us here.
We then had a aerobatic bi-plane go MIA from its overland flight plan and due to its more known localised search area more suitable civilian assets were used along with another orion and a huey. Abit overkill and inefficient. A B350/C235/C27 would have been perfect.
Lastly a yacht has recently gone rouge and cannot be found somewhere within our southern territorial waters and again the mighty orion was despatched to do what IMO it does best, however maybe alittle taxing on an already stretched squadron. A possible task for a modified UAV?
These all happened either concurrently or within a close timeframe of each other and due to our primary search aircraft being the P3 then funnily enough that's what we send but the tasks although overall similar are very different indeed. Distance, object size, terrain, knowns/unknowns etc all add up to either assist or hinder a search therefore a more tailored approach/option would not only be more cost effective but also less demanding on people and equipment and hopefully result in better outcomes.
That is not correct. A careful rather than superficial reading of the quoted article will reveal that. Australia is indeed funding the whole of the 6th satellite, the other nations are sharing funding the 9th, and thus will not receive anywhere near the same access that Australia is.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Beyond piracy and hijacking, I think the greatest threat to shipping comes from submarines, or possible the sneaky launch of an antiship missile. A triton would be a valuable ISR resource to combat piracy. My knowlege is limited to what I can glean from casually browsing public access sources, and as far as I can gather, the triton isn't really seen as a sub detecting platform. That's why I argue for an investment of our ASW capabilities (detection and combat) re the Sprites, ships and Orions.
NG did not say otherwise. He made no mention of Australia. He clearly stated that a small group of countries are pooling for the 9th WGS and quoted from the article. Which is a Fairfax article based on another elsewhere. Furthermore your last statement is only partially correct as you have no and never will have any idea of the arrangements in place with respect to Canada and NZ.
And you will get that ASW capability with the P-8. Counter priracy ops are just one of the ISR capabilities of Triton.
Are you saying Australia will receive the same level of access as the other mentioned nations do individually, despite a much greater outlay?
Australia is requiring a larger generator bandwidth capacity within the constellation and spending more for it viz funding the WGS-6 platform. There is a difference between that and what you submise as access which all depends on standing protocols and agreements, in which some nations funding WGS-9 are privy to and some not. And that we are not going to go into. Australia will have benefit from all WGS Sats, and that is all you need to know. Thus your claim that they the WGS-9ers will not receive anywhere near the access of Australia is only partially accurate.
A Boeing 737-700ER or 737 BBJ 3 (which is what the Aussies have) has a range of 5510 NMI, which will easily cover your Whenuapai Darwin leg. Think about it for a minute, no private jet is going to fly with anything close to the maximum take off weight of a fully loaded 737 800/900, a lighter load, with the two axillary tanks fitted in the hold and your range increases dramatically.
I would think the real reason the A330 was used because there were a lot more people on this trip than a typical trip, it was APEC after all not a trip to Wellington.
The natural replacement for the 757 IMO is the A321NEO, with the A321 having a slightly greater range, will easily make Whenuapai Darwin and maintenance would be a no brainer, the RNZAF could contract it to Air NZ.
t68
Well-Known Member
I believe you are correct MRTT was selected due to the large media numbers, which is why the RAAF have a preference for larger VIP aircraft to replace the BBJ
Prime Minister Tony Abbott seeks media deal over VIP jets | News.com.au
Airbus A330, Boeing 777 as next VIP jet for Australian PM? - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller
Air NZ already operate the Boeing 777 this aircraft is being pitched by Boeing for the RAAF VIP fleet, but in an RAAF context A330 should get the nod for commonality with the MRTT fleet.
Operating Fleet - About Air New Zealand - Air New Zealand - Australia Site
Maybe the NZ Government could enter a PPL for a couple of MRTT or 777 which could be reconfigured for freight tasks and VIP when needed in a similar deal as the UK to the AAR aircraft.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
I have a feeling that the 757s will be with us for a good while yet. Over 1000 of them were manufactured, and a fair few older examples have been converted to freighters. So sustainment issues aren't going to arise any time soon.
As I understand it, an Air Transport Review currently underway will feed into the 2015 Defence White paper. This will set the direction on replacing the current air transport fleet for both passengers and cargo.
If tactical and strategic cargo transport is covered by the C130 replacement, you could argue that the 757 is overkill. But the ability to move medium-sized groups of people (e.g. trade delegations, disaster relief personnel) at will is something MFAT and politicians have grown to depend on. I can't see them being willing to give that up, which would be the result of moving to a Gulfstream/Bombardier -type business jet.
If the budget is really tight, the 757s could go and be replaced by greater use of chartered AirNZ aircraft. They new ones already have a bloody great silver fern painted on the back. I think an annual agreement for a certain number of hours of aircraft plus flight crew is more likely than a long-term dry lease. In the latter case, RNZAF would shed a capital cost, but face pretty steep annual lease fees. I'm not convinced they would be any better off.
Now waiting for everyone to jump in and prove me wrong...
As I understand it, an Air Transport Review currently underway will feed into the 2015 Defence White paper. This will set the direction on replacing the current air transport fleet for both passengers and cargo.
If tactical and strategic cargo transport is covered by the C130 replacement, you could argue that the 757 is overkill. But the ability to move medium-sized groups of people (e.g. trade delegations, disaster relief personnel) at will is something MFAT and politicians have grown to depend on. I can't see them being willing to give that up, which would be the result of moving to a Gulfstream/Bombardier -type business jet.
If the budget is really tight, the 757s could go and be replaced by greater use of chartered AirNZ aircraft. They new ones already have a bloody great silver fern painted on the back. I think an annual agreement for a certain number of hours of aircraft plus flight crew is more likely than a long-term dry lease. In the latter case, RNZAF would shed a capital cost, but face pretty steep annual lease fees. I'm not convinced they would be any better off.
Now waiting for everyone to jump in and prove me wrong...
I am not working on the context of moving a few pollies around, but a large body of personnel, for example say 150+ troops. If they want a jet just for pollies then there are lots of business jets that would fill the criteria.
I hadn't thought about PPL and it's not a sill idea. It could work with the KC30MRTT.
I would think our B757s would have a relatively low number of hours and cycles on them. However as time goes by sustainment costs will rise' From memory, I read somewhere that they are due for retirement in 2023.
Correct. However the 2015 DWP outcome is dependant upon the 2014 election result.
Also as mentioned above moving large bodies of troops and also the medivac role. The thing would be to get MFAT to fund the aircraft as well.
I'm not sure about the owning Vs leasing advantages disadvantages. You have made some very good and pertinent points. Mr C doesn't like the B757s and the RNZAF having the capability based on its small size. It must be against his religion
He sees them as money that could be put to what he feels is better use. I don't necessarily agree with him because I can see the advantages of the capability. The RNZAF has had Hastings, DC6s and B727s in the past for bulk pax movement.
A Prime Minister spends about 40 days a year outside NZ on official business. In the past they used both RNZAF aircraft and Air NZ. Often these are multiple hops, which visit a number of places/capitals on a pre-determined itinerary planned many months, sometimes years ahead. There were not many ocassions that a long haul VIP flight was ever urgently required and quick fuel stops at Raro or Honolulu or Cairns or Singapore sorted it. Often a deferred piece of business can be done on the way during a transit fuel stop whether with local officials or a MFAT briefing.
However issues over range is to a certain extent not as relevant as it seems. The major Asian regional capitals are well beyond the B757 range anyway - Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, KL, Bangkok, Beijing and Seoul are all 8500 - 10500 kms away. A good thousand to 2 thousand more than the B757 7200ks. Those aircraft that can go further are discounted on cost of both huge acquistition and operational costs. For what is essentially just a few hundred hours per annum. Remember it is very rare for any other official/VIP - GG, TradeMIn, DefMIn or ForMin to fly VIP overseas other than the PM. All other Mins would not bother to ask and actually prefer the VIP service of Air NZ anyway.
Sorry but the PPL option is not a goer. The International frieght forwarding business is very cut throat. Operating on huge volumes - thin margins to create profitability - there is no way someome will want to get into bed with a Govt and share outlay and op costs of A330s or B777s. It is not in the big guys business models and those who get the crumbs are the ones who fly thrashed 727s and 757s. They would never have the credit lines to get pass reception at Airbus or Boeing. Air NZ may be an option even then it gets complicated surrounding lead time, branding, type availability and like the Freight business operate on cut thoat margins.
So NG you are right about me being anti the B757 or any replacement commercially based transport aircraft post 2023. The B757 is now an abatross from the Helen Clark era. It has had its day. On an opportunity cost trade off basis its gone - a platform just not needed anymore. The CY is now part of the NZDF lift equation and the A400M makes it redundant as both a viable troop transport and strat-lifter.
The A400M is mostly likely how we will carry operational troops on deployment in the future. It regarded as a very quiet aircraft in cruise mode, soldiers in the cargo hold are able to converse normally without shouting and the seating is regarded as very comfortable compared to other similair military airlift transport aircraft, their is ample room to move around, it is fast enough to operate along commercial corridors. It is 21st Century compared to mid 20th century of the C-130. It is in fact one of its big tick items in that it means defence forces can do away with old expensive legacy platform for troop transport. It can take the troops all the way to a forward operating area unlike dinosaurs like the B757 which can only make it to the nearest large runway and established onsite facilities. In the era of rapid reaction that is a huge bonus. Requires less time wasting and logistical hold ups in transit to get troops and material to where we want them. Having two commercial passenger jet aircraft with very limited strategic lift capability and the only positive being an ocassional slightly better economy class style ride for Joe Trooper is a waste of money and must be, I repeat must be spent elsewhere. A B757 let alone an A330 or B777 becaiuse of range / comfort reasons is totally unjustified for the mostly under 4500 km hops in both material and personnel that the RNZAF mainly routinely conducts through to Mactown, SouPac and OZ. The A400M makes them (commercial jet airliners) irrelevant operationally and fiscally in the RNZAF operational context. Good riddance I say, lets build a modern 21st century airforce with the right solutions and not try to drag the past along with it. .
That leaves all that they are now good for now is a very minor role - VIP. 40odd days a year. When you drill down further into that does not even begin to stack up under a simple SWOT analysis.
If people are still keen to see a jet aircraft with RNZAF or Govt of NZ on the side past 2023 they are going to have to do it very cost effectively. Note the 2 B757 are hanger queens often due to the lack of use that in a way compounds the ownership issues. 10-15 hours per week on average tops. They, commercial jet transports like regular use but their is in actuality little for them to do. Thus part of the issue is that all you fans of the capability will have to find a solution that gives them, in fact the singular should be used, gives it a viable reason for being. A single aircraft byitself is an orphan and not so good, therefore it has to be an economical jet that can slot into part of a fleet. It has to be a platform that can be able to be preferably part of the institutional experience of the RNZAF or Air NZ/Safe Group. It should have at least have some form of operational tasking synergy within NZDF / NZ Govt outputs beyond VIP and a possible Medevac role. When this is all laid out their is only a single viable solution a sole B737-800 dry leased or bought second hand that drags up its annual hours in a heavy fixed wing pilot traiining role with respect to familiarisation and handling for 5 and 40 Sqd Drivers. If they ding it well it is not as bad as $300m dollar fubar. Or we could just fly the PM Air NZ, which to be honest most PMs prefered other than Muldoon and Clark.
Cheers MrC
However issues over range is to a certain extent not as relevant as it seems. The major Asian regional capitals are well beyond the B757 range anyway - Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, KL, Bangkok, Beijing and Seoul are all 8500 - 10500 kms away. A good thousand to 2 thousand more than the B757 7200ks. Those aircraft that can go further are discounted on cost of both huge acquistition and operational costs. For what is essentially just a few hundred hours per annum. Remember it is very rare for any other official/VIP - GG, TradeMIn, DefMIn or ForMin to fly VIP overseas other than the PM. All other Mins would not bother to ask and actually prefer the VIP service of Air NZ anyway.
Sorry but the PPL option is not a goer. The International frieght forwarding business is very cut throat. Operating on huge volumes - thin margins to create profitability - there is no way someome will want to get into bed with a Govt and share outlay and op costs of A330s or B777s. It is not in the big guys business models and those who get the crumbs are the ones who fly thrashed 727s and 757s. They would never have the credit lines to get pass reception at Airbus or Boeing. Air NZ may be an option even then it gets complicated surrounding lead time, branding, type availability and like the Freight business operate on cut thoat margins.
So NG you are right about me being anti the B757 or any replacement commercially based transport aircraft post 2023. The B757 is now an abatross from the Helen Clark era. It has had its day. On an opportunity cost trade off basis its gone - a platform just not needed anymore. The CY is now part of the NZDF lift equation and the A400M makes it redundant as both a viable troop transport and strat-lifter.
The A400M is mostly likely how we will carry operational troops on deployment in the future. It regarded as a very quiet aircraft in cruise mode, soldiers in the cargo hold are able to converse normally without shouting and the seating is regarded as very comfortable compared to other similair military airlift transport aircraft, their is ample room to move around, it is fast enough to operate along commercial corridors. It is 21st Century compared to mid 20th century of the C-130. It is in fact one of its big tick items in that it means defence forces can do away with old expensive legacy platform for troop transport. It can take the troops all the way to a forward operating area unlike dinosaurs like the B757 which can only make it to the nearest large runway and established onsite facilities. In the era of rapid reaction that is a huge bonus. Requires less time wasting and logistical hold ups in transit to get troops and material to where we want them. Having two commercial passenger jet aircraft with very limited strategic lift capability and the only positive being an ocassional slightly better economy class style ride for Joe Trooper is a waste of money and must be, I repeat must be spent elsewhere. A B757 let alone an A330 or B777 becaiuse of range / comfort reasons is totally unjustified for the mostly under 4500 km hops in both material and personnel that the RNZAF mainly routinely conducts through to Mactown, SouPac and OZ. The A400M makes them (commercial jet airliners) irrelevant operationally and fiscally in the RNZAF operational context. Good riddance I say, lets build a modern 21st century airforce with the right solutions and not try to drag the past along with it. .
That leaves all that they are now good for now is a very minor role - VIP. 40odd days a year. When you drill down further into that does not even begin to stack up under a simple SWOT analysis.
If people are still keen to see a jet aircraft with RNZAF or Govt of NZ on the side past 2023 they are going to have to do it very cost effectively. Note the 2 B757 are hanger queens often due to the lack of use that in a way compounds the ownership issues. 10-15 hours per week on average tops. They, commercial jet transports like regular use but their is in actuality little for them to do. Thus part of the issue is that all you fans of the capability will have to find a solution that gives them, in fact the singular should be used, gives it a viable reason for being. A single aircraft byitself is an orphan and not so good, therefore it has to be an economical jet that can slot into part of a fleet. It has to be a platform that can be able to be preferably part of the institutional experience of the RNZAF or Air NZ/Safe Group. It should have at least have some form of operational tasking synergy within NZDF / NZ Govt outputs beyond VIP and a possible Medevac role. When this is all laid out their is only a single viable solution a sole B737-800 dry leased or bought second hand that drags up its annual hours in a heavy fixed wing pilot traiining role with respect to familiarisation and handling for 5 and 40 Sqd Drivers. If they ding it well it is not as bad as $300m dollar fubar. Or we could just fly the PM Air NZ, which to be honest most PMs prefered other than Muldoon and Clark.
Cheers MrC
Last edited:
I think we are caught up in the VIP side of the Boeings role and are putting more emphasis on this as one of its main purposes within defence when in actual fact this is not the case. Yes they do VIP tasks but also what else would we use for NZDF/Govt/NZ as a whole? a C130? a P3? Air NZ? A400? but again this is far from the bulk of what they do anyway.
If we have the option of using an asset in other guises apart from its core business ie VIP vs troop transport then why not I say and it just so happens to be more suited therefore even better. There are also other benefits such as availability, adaptability, suitability, representation and yes even cost, whilst a boeing is obviously more expensive PFH to run its initial aqquisition cost is no where near that of say a A400 (which also still has operating costs BTW) therefore is somewhat negated/matched over its life.
Yes A400 can do all and some more that the 757s can at a slightly different pace however putting all our eggs into one unproven basket would be alittle risky IMO as I am willing to bet there will be unforeseen costs that will rear their head, the 757s are at least known they are just comparatively up there.
Trying to run this type of AC at commercial rates/schedules/hours is obviously never going to happen but what air force does anyway? Consistant operating may bring down associated flight hour costs but also raises other related operating costs, a factor of operation in general. Defence aircraft are not supposed to be commercialy viable but more militarily available, a saving in itself.
Whist I do see that this is where a 'saving' could be made (as do the beans) as it is the easiest less risky asset to go the way of the ACF (yet another 'saving') it does still come at a cost in other areas and its just down to personal preference on priorities I guess (again remember not everything NZDF is 'Afghanistan') as to what suits NZ and its future tasks. With worldwide budget restraints and If A400 can do everything then why would'nt our allies solely have A400s in their fleets and reap the apparent rewards? I think we all have similar goals and plans in this area we are just on a comparative scale of size so there are valid reasonings out there.
We will most likely lose the boeings but not out of the goodness of the governments heart but more the welfare of their coffers, it's just the easiest less controversial cut and will be justified by funding A400 (which they should be getting anyway), whats next? OPVs instead of frigates? do we even need a tanker or Poseidon? more civilian slots? outsourcing? Cuts are not just for budgets, budgets just determine the depth and level of bleed out.
If we have the option of using an asset in other guises apart from its core business ie VIP vs troop transport then why not I say and it just so happens to be more suited therefore even better. There are also other benefits such as availability, adaptability, suitability, representation and yes even cost, whilst a boeing is obviously more expensive PFH to run its initial aqquisition cost is no where near that of say a A400 (which also still has operating costs BTW) therefore is somewhat negated/matched over its life.
Yes A400 can do all and some more that the 757s can at a slightly different pace however putting all our eggs into one unproven basket would be alittle risky IMO as I am willing to bet there will be unforeseen costs that will rear their head, the 757s are at least known they are just comparatively up there.
Trying to run this type of AC at commercial rates/schedules/hours is obviously never going to happen but what air force does anyway? Consistant operating may bring down associated flight hour costs but also raises other related operating costs, a factor of operation in general. Defence aircraft are not supposed to be commercialy viable but more militarily available, a saving in itself.
Whist I do see that this is where a 'saving' could be made (as do the beans) as it is the easiest less risky asset to go the way of the ACF (yet another 'saving') it does still come at a cost in other areas and its just down to personal preference on priorities I guess (again remember not everything NZDF is 'Afghanistan') as to what suits NZ and its future tasks. With worldwide budget restraints and If A400 can do everything then why would'nt our allies solely have A400s in their fleets and reap the apparent rewards? I think we all have similar goals and plans in this area we are just on a comparative scale of size so there are valid reasonings out there.
We will most likely lose the boeings but not out of the goodness of the governments heart but more the welfare of their coffers, it's just the easiest less controversial cut and will be justified by funding A400 (which they should be getting anyway), whats next? OPVs instead of frigates? do we even need a tanker or Poseidon? more civilian slots? outsourcing? Cuts are not just for budgets, budgets just determine the depth and level of bleed out.
Cost controls and efficency do matter and more so in a small defence force in a smallish country. We do not have the luxury of allowing a platform to exist on vanity or nostalgic sentiments. Every asset must have a sound operational reason for its existence and role duplication is pointless, but for the limited VIP role. An air force is not a business but then again government departments are all about providing an efficent quality service to the taxpayer by appropriate management of its resources. It has always been the case as even in WW2 when the Govt put in a businessman H.E Avery (albeit fmr WW1 officer and gave him a Brig rank) to oversee the whole quartermaster and acquisition process of the entire military effort, and then kept him on to dispose of unused and uneccessary assets after the war. Removing the B757 (they will be 30 years old in 2023 when the last couple of C130 replacements arrive), as there continued use following that date will be operationally pointless. Yes it is an easy out, yet unlike the ACF it will not be done on ideological grounds, just on pure pragmatism. Their replacement will pay for operating of a medium tactical transport which is a capability set we really need and has gone missing for 20 years. So not all our eggs in one basket at all. The C130H replacement Op budget will be covered that platforms existing budget appropriation. UK studys on the A400M tabled in the House of Commons revealed that the real per hour Op costs was similar to the C130J and 15% less than the C130K viz C130H. Look at it this way - canning the two B757s means that we get say four C-27J's a new capability - this is not a cut - they will be paid for out of the former B757 appropriation. From that we will get around 2400 flight hours p.a and not the 1000 hours of airlift out of the Boeings. The envisaged four A400Ms should provide around 2800 flight hours per annum. That is quite a transformation, some 5200 annual flight hours straddling tactical and strategic airlift spectrum compared to the 3800 annual flight hours we get from the B757 / C130H combo at present - that is including the minor VIP component.
Zero Alpha
New Member
Crystal Ball Gazing
It's probably useful to understand the background to the B757 purchase to understand some of the trade-offs and capability drivers.
The two converted Boeing’s were acquired as a direct replacement for the 727s in the strategic (passenger) transport role. The speed and range of an airliner were considered important because of the relative limitation of using the Hercules in these tasks, and because of the lack of Hercules capacity in the fleet size. The VIP role was very much a low cost adjunct function to the primary role.
At the time the Boeing purchase was made several other options were considered by Cabinet, including an all-Hercules fleet, a C-17 purchase, or converting second-hand aircraft.
The all Hercules fleet concept isn’t a new one, with a discussion paper in the early 1980s suggesting an 8 aircraft fleet for airlift, and a second set of 8 Hercules in the aerial refuelling role supporting the A4s. With a decision on Hercules replacement or upgrade being due around the same time as the expected end of life of the 727s, a contract option on 8 C-130Js was secured as a follow-on to the initial RAAF purchase.
When a recommendation was put to Cabinet, the range and speed limits of the Hercules fleet were causing planners some concern, and the preferred option of a direct replacement of the 727s with C-17s was put to government. The RAAF had recently adopted the C-17 and there were clear synergies in sharing intermediate and heavy maintenance, crew training, and both nations would benefit from a larger fleet size. A long way down the list was converting an existing airliner. The cargo door modification that was eventually settled on did mean the Boeings could carry standard military pallets (reflecting the changing relative importance of cargo versus passengers).
Having a airliner in the strategic transport role hasn’t alleviated the requirement to move bulk equipment by air beyond what a C-130 can practically accomplish. In an effort to extract more utility from the Boeings, an intensive care level aeromedical evac kit was built, and that’s now a role of the squadron as well.
That’s all history now, but what we can draw from it is that at least twice in recent memory the RNZAF has been prepared to trade-away the airliner ‘strategic’ transport in favour of a different fleet mix, and that some level of analysis has shown that if that fleet is C-130 based, then 8 aircraft are the preferred option (versus the current 5 Hercules and 2 Boeings).
The RNZAF is in the unusual position of being one of the few smaller Western air forces that has a true strategic lift requirement for its core operations. Routine destinations include Antartica (4000km), Darwin (5100km) and Singapore. Paradoxically most of the core operating area isn’t served by runways that can support heavy aircraft operations on any sustainable basis.
Airport facilities are particularly problematic for the Boeing, with only a handful of runways in the pacific islands having ground handling equipment to offload pallets. Operationally these means that if Boeing is needed for its capacity, a Hercules invariably needs to be dispatched with handling equipment as well. That leads us to the position that a reconfigured airlift fleet must be able to reliably perform strategic airlift of equipment and personnel, tactical transport and aeromedical evacuation. Ability to operate out of austere environments also features heavily, as does short runways.
With uncertainty around the eventual P-3K2 replacement, some capacity for search and rescue would also be sensible. That capacity being primarily the ability to airdrop MAD and other stores, some observer stations and ideally a electro-optical suite. All of that has utility for the tactical roles, and is inexpensive in the context of the overall acquisition costs.
Efficiency also comes into play. It clearly isn’t efficient to use a C-17 or A400 to move an infantry platoon from Ohakea to Christchurch. Similarly, using a C-130s to move an infantry company or a replacement helicopter engine to Singapore is slow and inefficient.
Commonality with like-minded nations is a thorny issue. We can look at the RNZN and RAN Anzac frigates and see platforms that started similarly, but ended up being quite different, just as we can with the P3s. Even the NH90s of both countries feature different engines and avionics options. In my view, that means a commitment is needed to either keep equipment as close to identical as possible, throughout the asset life, or to seek complimentary capabilities.
So that’ the theory. What does it mean in practice?
Option 1 – Like for like replacement. The Hercules are replaced one for one with another Hercules at the end of their service life. Probably the J model, but ultimately it doesn’t matter too much. It’s a low-risk, low-cost approach, but doesn’t do anything to increase capacity, and with the rise in weight of cargo types, the utility of the Hercules will continue to diminish over time. The Boeings get replaced at the end of their service life with something broadly equivalent. Type doesn’t especially matter. The odds of this option being chosen are at least even.
Option 2 – Single fleet type. Hercules and Boeings are progressively replaced with new Hercules, probably 8. Another low risk approach. Some flexibility is lost, but there are likely operational cost savings. The capacity for strategic airlift significantly diminishes. Not very likely.
Option 3 – A high/low mix. Boeings are replaced with C-17s, the 5 Hercules fleet probably reduced to 4. Low risk. Some increase in cost over Option 1, but offset opportunities with common support from Australia, and a significant increase in strategic airlift. Both aircraft sizes are over capacity for a good proportion of domestic tasks. Not very likely.
Option 4 – Another high/low mix (2). Boeings and Hercules are progressively replaced by A400s. 7 large aircraft are reduced to 5. Operational cost savings are likely. Transport capacity at any given range roughly doubles compared to C-130. Would require a small fleet of short-field, low-capacity aircraft to allow efficient operations. With no C-130 fleet, the advantages of the C-27 diminish. Casa 235 or 295 both contenders, with the C27 and Casa 235 being better for short fields. C-27 probably wins on a flexibility basis, but is likely the more expensive option. C-235 used by France in New Caledonia and the US Coast Guard.
What else is in the mix? If the P-8 is selected for the P3K-2 replacement, the requirements and opportunities change somewhat. The P-8 would introduce a 737 derivative into the fleet. Cost means that one for one replacement is almost certainly out of the question, and a reduction in MPA fleet size from 6 to 5 is likely, 4 not being out of the question. A modified P8, perhaps using a common airframe might be a low-cost way of retaining a jet transport aircraft and using the common skill base. It would be hard to rule out a like for like replacement of the C-130s and a P-8 airframe being used to replace the Boeings. Little change to transport fleet operating costs, no particular advantage, but some advantages in having attrition airframes available for the P-8 fleet (or the basis to expand the fleet in future).
Estimating costs is incredibly difficult to do reliably; the one obvious point is that the initial purchase price of any large transport aircraft (Hercules, A400 or C-17) is roughly the equivalent to purchasing some form of sealift asset. With Endeavour’s replacement likely to be optimised more for cargo than fuel, strategic transport capacity in the NZDF has significantly increased over the years, and there may be some appetite to keep looking at naval platforms. While the marginal operating costs are much higher, the capacity a third transport ship would give to the NZDF would be significant too.
My preference – It’s time to move past the Hercules. It’s done NZ great service, but the capacity constraints on the aircraft are becoming too much of an issue. Option 4 wins on a best-compromise basis. Fit a pair of both types with an electro optical turret, and have a pair of palletised mission kits for basic maritime search and rescue interchangeable between C-235 and A400. The prospect of competition for the MPA contract will drive down pricing on the P-8, and increases availability of the MPA for higher-end tasks. If the P-8 isn’t chosen, then either a C-235 or A400 derivative almost certainly will be, reducing support costs across the RNZAF. I’d also be inclined to add some transport capacity to the proposed Littoral Support Vessel in the form of a small vehicle deck, a 2-3 spot hangar and maybe a dozen ISO containers.
It's probably useful to understand the background to the B757 purchase to understand some of the trade-offs and capability drivers.
The two converted Boeing’s were acquired as a direct replacement for the 727s in the strategic (passenger) transport role. The speed and range of an airliner were considered important because of the relative limitation of using the Hercules in these tasks, and because of the lack of Hercules capacity in the fleet size. The VIP role was very much a low cost adjunct function to the primary role.
At the time the Boeing purchase was made several other options were considered by Cabinet, including an all-Hercules fleet, a C-17 purchase, or converting second-hand aircraft.
The all Hercules fleet concept isn’t a new one, with a discussion paper in the early 1980s suggesting an 8 aircraft fleet for airlift, and a second set of 8 Hercules in the aerial refuelling role supporting the A4s. With a decision on Hercules replacement or upgrade being due around the same time as the expected end of life of the 727s, a contract option on 8 C-130Js was secured as a follow-on to the initial RAAF purchase.
When a recommendation was put to Cabinet, the range and speed limits of the Hercules fleet were causing planners some concern, and the preferred option of a direct replacement of the 727s with C-17s was put to government. The RAAF had recently adopted the C-17 and there were clear synergies in sharing intermediate and heavy maintenance, crew training, and both nations would benefit from a larger fleet size. A long way down the list was converting an existing airliner. The cargo door modification that was eventually settled on did mean the Boeings could carry standard military pallets (reflecting the changing relative importance of cargo versus passengers).
Having a airliner in the strategic transport role hasn’t alleviated the requirement to move bulk equipment by air beyond what a C-130 can practically accomplish. In an effort to extract more utility from the Boeings, an intensive care level aeromedical evac kit was built, and that’s now a role of the squadron as well.
That’s all history now, but what we can draw from it is that at least twice in recent memory the RNZAF has been prepared to trade-away the airliner ‘strategic’ transport in favour of a different fleet mix, and that some level of analysis has shown that if that fleet is C-130 based, then 8 aircraft are the preferred option (versus the current 5 Hercules and 2 Boeings).
The RNZAF is in the unusual position of being one of the few smaller Western air forces that has a true strategic lift requirement for its core operations. Routine destinations include Antartica (4000km), Darwin (5100km) and Singapore. Paradoxically most of the core operating area isn’t served by runways that can support heavy aircraft operations on any sustainable basis.
Airport facilities are particularly problematic for the Boeing, with only a handful of runways in the pacific islands having ground handling equipment to offload pallets. Operationally these means that if Boeing is needed for its capacity, a Hercules invariably needs to be dispatched with handling equipment as well. That leads us to the position that a reconfigured airlift fleet must be able to reliably perform strategic airlift of equipment and personnel, tactical transport and aeromedical evacuation. Ability to operate out of austere environments also features heavily, as does short runways.
With uncertainty around the eventual P-3K2 replacement, some capacity for search and rescue would also be sensible. That capacity being primarily the ability to airdrop MAD and other stores, some observer stations and ideally a electro-optical suite. All of that has utility for the tactical roles, and is inexpensive in the context of the overall acquisition costs.
Efficiency also comes into play. It clearly isn’t efficient to use a C-17 or A400 to move an infantry platoon from Ohakea to Christchurch. Similarly, using a C-130s to move an infantry company or a replacement helicopter engine to Singapore is slow and inefficient.
Commonality with like-minded nations is a thorny issue. We can look at the RNZN and RAN Anzac frigates and see platforms that started similarly, but ended up being quite different, just as we can with the P3s. Even the NH90s of both countries feature different engines and avionics options. In my view, that means a commitment is needed to either keep equipment as close to identical as possible, throughout the asset life, or to seek complimentary capabilities.
So that’ the theory. What does it mean in practice?
Option 1 – Like for like replacement. The Hercules are replaced one for one with another Hercules at the end of their service life. Probably the J model, but ultimately it doesn’t matter too much. It’s a low-risk, low-cost approach, but doesn’t do anything to increase capacity, and with the rise in weight of cargo types, the utility of the Hercules will continue to diminish over time. The Boeings get replaced at the end of their service life with something broadly equivalent. Type doesn’t especially matter. The odds of this option being chosen are at least even.
Option 2 – Single fleet type. Hercules and Boeings are progressively replaced with new Hercules, probably 8. Another low risk approach. Some flexibility is lost, but there are likely operational cost savings. The capacity for strategic airlift significantly diminishes. Not very likely.
Option 3 – A high/low mix. Boeings are replaced with C-17s, the 5 Hercules fleet probably reduced to 4. Low risk. Some increase in cost over Option 1, but offset opportunities with common support from Australia, and a significant increase in strategic airlift. Both aircraft sizes are over capacity for a good proportion of domestic tasks. Not very likely.
Option 4 – Another high/low mix (2). Boeings and Hercules are progressively replaced by A400s. 7 large aircraft are reduced to 5. Operational cost savings are likely. Transport capacity at any given range roughly doubles compared to C-130. Would require a small fleet of short-field, low-capacity aircraft to allow efficient operations. With no C-130 fleet, the advantages of the C-27 diminish. Casa 235 or 295 both contenders, with the C27 and Casa 235 being better for short fields. C-27 probably wins on a flexibility basis, but is likely the more expensive option. C-235 used by France in New Caledonia and the US Coast Guard.
What else is in the mix? If the P-8 is selected for the P3K-2 replacement, the requirements and opportunities change somewhat. The P-8 would introduce a 737 derivative into the fleet. Cost means that one for one replacement is almost certainly out of the question, and a reduction in MPA fleet size from 6 to 5 is likely, 4 not being out of the question. A modified P8, perhaps using a common airframe might be a low-cost way of retaining a jet transport aircraft and using the common skill base. It would be hard to rule out a like for like replacement of the C-130s and a P-8 airframe being used to replace the Boeings. Little change to transport fleet operating costs, no particular advantage, but some advantages in having attrition airframes available for the P-8 fleet (or the basis to expand the fleet in future).
Estimating costs is incredibly difficult to do reliably; the one obvious point is that the initial purchase price of any large transport aircraft (Hercules, A400 or C-17) is roughly the equivalent to purchasing some form of sealift asset. With Endeavour’s replacement likely to be optimised more for cargo than fuel, strategic transport capacity in the NZDF has significantly increased over the years, and there may be some appetite to keep looking at naval platforms. While the marginal operating costs are much higher, the capacity a third transport ship would give to the NZDF would be significant too.
My preference – It’s time to move past the Hercules. It’s done NZ great service, but the capacity constraints on the aircraft are becoming too much of an issue. Option 4 wins on a best-compromise basis. Fit a pair of both types with an electro optical turret, and have a pair of palletised mission kits for basic maritime search and rescue interchangeable between C-235 and A400. The prospect of competition for the MPA contract will drive down pricing on the P-8, and increases availability of the MPA for higher-end tasks. If the P-8 isn’t chosen, then either a C-235 or A400 derivative almost certainly will be, reducing support costs across the RNZAF. I’d also be inclined to add some transport capacity to the proposed Littoral Support Vessel in the form of a small vehicle deck, a 2-3 spot hangar and maybe a dozen ISO containers.