Royal New Zealand Air Force

[RegR]

I just find it strange that for the past 30+ years we have been running this inefficient, under-utilised and over priced service and only now has someone figured this out? Guess it has nothing to do with our current financial state or bad future planning by govt or an effort to yet again cut another NZDF option and roll into one(always works well).

The mooted medium transport fleet (ala CN/C27 type) is not a new concept that would replace B757 and create new options but merely an old capability already lost in the andover fleet so no above and beyond there that again isn't purely cost driven.

I don't see a combi pax/freight airliner type as merely a nostalgic historic AC to shine up and park in the garage only to be taken out on weekends but an actual working force multiplier providing a niche service and if we ever did go P8 then would also provide a valuable trainer (as in 737 series) as well due to the small numbers we would aqquire of the touted need to have type. @4 P8s would be hard pressed to cover off operational tasks as it is nevermind hours for conversion to type and required pilot currencies.

We would only gain the pros of A400 (bigger, quieter range?) if we actually got it, same can be said for P8, and there are no firm guarantees yet and is still even more un-proven than NH90 so there will be all those associated headaches, downtime and costs. Again not all, in fact most of NZDF flights are not to austere airfields and we don't go around constantly avoiding normal runways (its not all doom and gloom people), just like our MRV and tanker do not always go into combat zones as that's the frigates main specialty.

The only thing historic and nostalgic to me here is the funding and capabilities that are now paying the price of a govt with a lack of forward planning and commitment. Our current capabilities are stretched as it is and should be enhanced to keep pace with the times (in their current form) not combined and passed off as enhancements as whilst it may seem like we are gaining we are actually slowly diminishing in some areas.

 

[Zero Alpha]

The only thing historic and nostalgic to me here is the funding and capabilities that are now paying the price of a govt with a lack of forward planning and commitment.

Most people who are pro-defence spending have a habit of blaming governments and the state of the economy when things don't go well.

Since the Mid-1970s, we've had 9 different governments (arguably 10 if you count the post-1996 NZ first minority). We've had boom times, and times where money across government has been extremely tight. National + partners and Labour + partners have declined upgrades and talked about efficiencies regardless of the state of the economy.

In the various interactions I've had with politicians of all flavours, the common themes are skepticism about efficiencies within the defence force, agreement that it's generally very difficult for politicians to engage with, and a view that collectively defence is poor at adopting innovative practices from other industries.

Blaming the politicians might be easy, but if that's the answer, don't expect things to change much.

 

[MrConservative]

Zero Alpha welcome and thanks for the considered points and the summary you made. Your selection of option 4 then option 1 as the most preferable with respect to Airlift in my view is spot on. You have done an excellent job of crystallizing the issues. Look forward to more from you.

Cheers, MrC

 

[Todjaeger]

I just find it strange that for the past 30+ years we have been running this inefficient, under-utilised and over priced service and only now has someone figured this out? Guess it has nothing to do with our current financial state or bad future planning by govt or an effort to yet again cut another NZDF option and roll into one(always works well).

The mooted medium transport fleet (ala CN/C27 type) is not a new concept that would replace B757 and create new options but merely an old capability already lost in the andover fleet so no above and beyond there that again isn't purely cost driven.

I don't see a combi pax/freight airliner type as merely a nostalgic historic AC to shine up and park in the garage only to be taken out on weekends but an actual working force multiplier providing a niche service and if we ever did go P8 then would also provide a valuable trainer (as in 737 series) as well due to the small numbers we would aqquire of the touted need to have type. @4 P8s would be hard pressed to cover off operational tasks as it is nevermind hours for conversion to type and required pilot currencies.

We would only gain the pros of A400 (bigger, quieter range?) if we actually got it, same can be said for P8, and there are no firm guarantees yet and is still even more un-proven than NH90 so there will be all those associated headaches, downtime and costs. Again not all, in fact most of NZDF flights are not to austere airfields and we don't go around constantly avoiding normal runways (its not all doom and gloom people), just like our MRV and tanker do not always go into combat zones as that's the frigates main specialty.

The only thing historic and nostalgic to me here is the funding and capabilities that are now paying the price of a govt with a lack of forward planning and commitment. Our current capabilities are stretched as it is and should be enhanced to keep pace with the times (in their current form) not combined and passed off as enhancements as whilst it may seem like we are gaining we are actually slowly diminishing in some areas.

Strange, perhaps? Surprising... Not really.

Consider the C-130H SLEP, with a projected programme cost of ~$250 mil. to get an extra decade of service from five airlifters purchased in the Sixties. IIRC at the time the SLEP was decided on, four new C-130J's could have been purchased for ~$260 mil. The decision was made in favour of the SLEP because that was the "less expensive" option, without any apparent attention to, or concern about the through life cost. Effectively the RNZAF is spending $5 mil. per aircraft, per year for a decade, for the upgrades. Nevermind any other costs associated with operations, maintenance, training, etc. Had the RNZAF actually replaced the C-130H's with J's, the RNZAF would likely have gotten 25+ years of service out of them, or ~$2.6 mil. per aircraft, per year, not including operations, maintenance, training, etc.

As for the B757's in NZ service, yes, they provide a niche capability, no argument there. What absolutely is arguable is how important that niche capability is, how much is it costing to maintain (which means funding is not available for other areas within the NZDF) and are there 'better' alternatives? I believe Mr. C and I went over this further back in this very thread. From what I remember, the cost to fly a B757 from Auckland to the US West Coast, assuming the RNZAF had a full passenger load, worked out to a per seat price in the Business Class price range.

Here is a link to the example I did about a year ago.

Given how (in)frequently NZ has to move a sizeable number of personnel without heavy equipment over a long distance between secure airports, and the fact that such a capability can be charted from a commercial airline... It would seem sensible for the NZDF to save some money (in a number of areas and ways) by chartering such airlift as needed. By way of example, when Oz still had troops deployed in Iraq, Air NZ had a charter contract with the ADF to fly troops into and out of Iraq, until some Kiwi politicians decided to make a fuss about it. Australia selected Air NZ because the price for Air NZ to carry out the personnel air movements was less than it would have been using RAAF airlift. Having the capability contracted out would also reduce the RNZAF exposure to the <insert long string of unprintable/unpostable colourful language here> Capital Charge. The money which the NZDF no longer has to spend maintaining and operating the B757's, less the amount spent chartering commercial airliners to cover those times when airlift by jetliner is desirable, could then be spent maintaining existing NZDF capabilities.

I think few amongst us are unaware that the NZDF has been seeing capabilities get whittled back by many successive years of scant funding, coupled some idealogically driven funding and acquisition decisions. The loss of the ACF, tracked armoured vehicles, Andovers, reduction in surface combat vessel numbers, delays in LWT replacement, loss of MANPAD capability, and sadly many others.

My interest, and likely that of others like Mr. C, CD, Ng to name a few, is for the NZDF as a whole to be able to make the best possible use of what funding it can/does get, to fufill the roles which it gets called upon for. With that in mind, I am less interested in a specific platform and more interested in what can provide the required type of capability.

-Cheers

 

[RegR]

Most people who are pro-defence spending have a habit of blaming governments and the state of the economy when things don't go well.

Since the Mid-1970s, we've had 9 different governments (arguably 10 if you count the post-1996 NZ first minority). We've had boom times, and times where money across government has been extremely tight. National + partners and Labour + partners have declined upgrades and talked about efficiencies regardless of the state of the economy.

In the various interactions I've had with politicians of all flavours, the common themes are skepticism about efficiencies within the defence force, agreement that it's generally very difficult for politicians to engage with, and a view that collectively defence is poor at adopting innovative practices from other industries.

Blaming the politicians might be easy, but if that's the answer, don't expect things to change much.

I think everyone, pro or against, should blame the government and the state of the economy for the current and future condition of the NZDF because they are the reason, cause and judgement of the overall NZDF, pro defence is merely an influence to be taken or not, usually not. Short answer is they at the end of the day are solely responsible and have the final word NZDF just puts forward suggestions for their consideration.

The interactions I have had with politicians is that they generally know nothing about defence other than a basic knowledge of big spend items that invariably make the news. I liken them to some in the top brass, they have their ideas and the rest of the actual NZDF has theirs and they rarely marry up (hence our current state). I would also struggle to take a politicians word on efficiencies, defence is not the only portfolio in NZ in a dismal state.

Agreed Todj we should have taken the J option for slightly more cost initially but again trying to save costs in the short term have ended up costing us in the long run (surprise not the first time we have passed on options, taken 'shortcuts' or extended LOT). In saying that however we would not be in a position to contemplate A400 and its advancements as we would still be in the honeymoon phase of a renewed 40-50 year marriage.

 

[chis73]

Regarding the C-130s: I guess I must be one of the few who consider the original decision to upgrade the H-models rather than to buy J-models as the right decision at the time (early 2000s). The C-130J came perilously close to being binned by the US in 2004-5, due to major problems (vibration issues from the more powerful engines, wing spar cracks, software faults resulting in increased maintenance etc), and massive cost increases.

I don't think anyone then making the decisions for the NZ government expected the A400M to take as long to enter service as it has. A quick update to get us through until we could buy the A400M was a reasonable choice. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Continuing with the H-model upgrade after it had stalled (this would have been about 2008 - 2010 from memory) is less defensible. Many of the issues with the J-model had been improved by then, and the total cost of the upgrade vs buying new aircraft has proven to be marginal. Again, the spectre of the A400M on the horizon, and the issue of money already spent, were probably the deciding factors.

As to what we should get for the future:

a) at least a couple of aircraft the size of the A400M or C-2 are essential (it would allow the NH90 to be deployed quickly, and would help with returning say damaged NH90s or LAVIIIs quickly to NZ for repair).

b) what should constitute the main transport fleet is a more difficult question. I would say that the airfields that the aircraft would be expected to land upon would be a major factor, as well as the long distances to get there from NZ. To borrow a phrase Mr C is fond of - "tactical loads, strategic distances". Many of the airfields in our region (ie the Pacific) would struggle to support larger / heavier aircraft than the C-130, and a heck of a lot of places won't even take a C-130 (see Fig 1 here). It's claimed that the A400 can land in the about the same length as a C-130, but being perhaps twice as heavy, it's likely to mess up rough airfields a lot quicker. You don't see many C-17s doing rough-field landings (though it was designed to be capable of making them). The main transport aircraft needs to be capable of tactical airlift. So, I would favour the C-130J here.

c) It's possible that we could shift to a hub-and-spoke delivery model, opening up more use of a smaller tactical airlifter (eg CN235, C295, C27J). But given the vast area of the Pacific, how long would the spokes have to be? Would it be less efficient overall? Would we need to build-up forward staging bases throughout the Pacific? A smaller airlifter would be useful for within-NZ jobs though.

The airlift review recommendations should make interesting reading (presuming they will be released to the public).

Chis73

 

[htbrst]

Here is an update on the A-109 simulator and the new training structure:

Simulator cuts training costs | Stuff.co.nz

Squadron Leader Ron Thacker, the Synthetic Flying Instructor, believes that New Zealand's military may be the only one in the world to take on basic training in an advanced helicopter in the manner the new course does. Of the 110 hours flying trainee pilots will do over seven to eight months, about half will be in the simulator, he says.

An hour in a helicopter costs about $3000, while an hour in the simulator costs about $300

That's quite a bit of the curriculum in the simulator! (and the price difference should keep the bean counters happy)

 

[Zero Alpha]

Regarding the C-130s: I guess I must be one of the few who consider the original decision to upgrade the H-models rather than to buy J-models as the right decision at the time (early 2000s). The C-130J came perilously close to being binned by the US in 2004-5, due to major problems (vibration issues from the more powerful engines, wing spar cracks, software faults resulting in increased maintenance etc), and massive cost increases.
Chis73

From memory the software suite wasn't cleared for tactical roles at the time either.

I think the issue isn't so much that the decision not to buy J models at the time was wrong, but more the alternative (upgrade) doesn't seem to stack up.

$250M for C-130 upgrades and $200 million for Boeing purchase and modifications is a significant investment.

Clearly some way had to be found of making the Hercules last longer. What I would have liked to have seen is an analysis on what a short/medium transport (like C295) would do to preserve Hercules flight hours. Five short/medium transports were estimated by MoD at $200M. Could the remaining $300M given us a longer term solution that would fit with future choices? That's enough to lease a C-17 capability, or buy one outright. A pair of C-17s and a some small aircraft would almost certainly take enough load of the Hercs to get a few more years service out of them.

 

[ngatimozart]

A couple of updates from the latest Air Force News.

Pilot Training Capability
The RNZAF are expecting to take ownership of the first seven T6C aircraft by December 2014. The RNZAF project pilot has started his validation flying and he will conduct the acceptance flights of each aircraft as it comes of the production line. the first QFIs are to begin their training Wichita in August. The first seven aircraft will be used to instruct and train the more QFIs at Ohakea next year, plus the OP testing & Eval, training and procedure development. The two simulators are due at Ohakea mid way through next year.

SH-2G(I)
NZ3611 was the first aircraft to fly and now two aircraft have been modified to NZ requirements. Deliveries of all 10 aircraft are scheduled for mid 2015. The simulator is due at Whenuapai early 2015.

Does anyone know what the NZ modification requirements are? The obvious one is converting the aircraft back to a three crew aircraft.

 

[RegR]

From memory the software suite wasn't cleared for tactical roles at the time either.

I think the issue isn't so much that the decision not to buy J models at the time was wrong, but more the alternative (upgrade) doesn't seem to stack up.

$250M for C-130 upgrades and $200 million for Boeing purchase and modifications is a significant investment.

Clearly some way had to be found of making the Hercules last longer. What I would have liked to have seen is an analysis on what a short/medium transport (like C295) would do to preserve Hercules flight hours. Five short/medium transports were estimated by MoD at $200M. Could the remaining $300M given us a longer term solution that would fit with future choices? That's enough to lease a C-17 capability, or buy one outright. A pair of C-17s and a some small aircraft would almost certainly take enough load of the Hercs to get a few more years service out of them.

I think the need for the short range transports is now even more important then just plugging a known deficiency and relieving pressure but also providing a bridge to the new C130 replacement to take up the slack of transition as with the small amount of crews that will need to be either legacy or new type qualified there will be downtime. This will leave a shortfall in one or both for a period depending on phase producing numbers related problems. Same will happen with maritime patrol when that time comes so would be better to stand up the relief sooner rather than later. If you can cover both with a common platform even better as surely efficiencies and savings can be made in acquisition, training and operation.

3 Sqn would not have had as much of a problem due to its larger number of crews (@16vs@6) and could transition abit easier however 40 and 5 could struggle. This would be a problem for anything running small numbers ie naval vessels and would equate to some unavailability due to time needed to learn, train and use before becoming safely proficient and adequately experienced.

 

[A4kscooter]

The problem is NZ is notoriously bad at procurement.
In hindsight a purchase of 5 C130Js or 130J-30s would have been a much cheaper option than spending $250m on upgrades for 10 years extra service on 45 years old aircraft. The same problem with the SH2G purchase - buying an obsolete helicopter in stead of the Lynx scrapping it after 15 years and replacing it with old refurbished helicopter that none of NZs allies use.

​

It is the same in the UK we are governed by politicians who don't care and are shortsighted in many areas.

 

[ngatimozart]

The problem is NZ is notoriously bad at procurement.
In hindsight a purchase of 5 C130Js or 130J-30s would have been a much cheaper option than spending $250m on upgrades for 10 years extra service on 45 years old aircraft. The same problem with the SH2G purchase - buying an obsolete helicopter in stead of the Lynx scrapping it after 15 years and replacing it with old refurbished helicopter that none of NZs allies use.

​

It is the same in the UK we are governed by politicians who don't care and are shortsighted in many areas.

Actually I think recently our procurement has improved somewhat. It is far better than the likes of India and Canada. The current govt have finally realised that cheap turns out to be highly costly in the long term. If you look at the SH2G(NZ) buy they were bought in conjunction with the RAN who were going to fly them off an OPV size vessel which they didn't go ahead with. Then the RAN decided to spec the hell out of them so now we get a nice deal for 10 aircraft. I agree we should've gone Lynx and we would be looking at the Wildcat being phased in. We could've bought extra Lynx aircraft as the need for more helos became apparent. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing but at the end of the day it is the 9th Floor of the Beehive who make the final decisions and write the cheques. They ask for NZDF expert advice but they are not required to take it.

 

[KiwiRob]

As you say we should have bought Lynx then, and we should be buying Wildcat now, rather than another fleet of orphan aircraft which only Poland and Egypt operate. Not smart procurement if you ask me. I also wonder how difficult these new (but very old, 30 plus years) Sprites will be to support in 10 years time?

 

[Gracie1234]

I do not see the Seasprites lasting more than about 10 years. By then they will be unsupportable. The replacements are just a stop gap measure that was a good price for the number. What will replace the Seasprites that will be interesting and they will feed into the new Frigate requirements.
Does anyone know the operating cost of a wildcat vs NH90? At this stage to me they seem to be the likely options.

 

[RegR]

NFH90 should be matured by then and we will be well versed in everything NH90. Only issue is the OPVs however we would also have the extra 3 A109s so just optimise a couple for maritime ops instead along with 3 NFH90s for the frigates and 3 marinised NH90s for the supporties and that way we keep commonality, streamline training and cut down on fleets.

 

[A4kscooter]

I have a read report that states they expect the SH2 to remain in service until 2030 - 29 years after the USN Reserves retired their fleet. It will be interesting to see how good Kaman will be supporting a bespoke fleet over the next 16 years.
There is an alternative the AS565 Panther another Eurocopter product which is operated around the world and is cheaper than Wildcat - although I don't know if it to big for the OPVs?
Although the deal is signed I suspect this is another procurement mistake.

 

[Todjaeger]

I have a read report that states they expect the SH2 to remain in service until 2030 - 29 years after the USN Reserves retired their fleet. It will be interesting to see how good Kaman will be supporting a bespoke fleet over the next 16 years.
There is an alternative the AS565 Panther another Eurocopter product which is operated around the world and is cheaper than Wildcat - although I don't know if it to big for the OPVs?
Although the deal is signed I suspect this is another procurement mistake.

IMO (take that for what it is worth...) the AS565 would not be a suitable alternative, for a number of reasons.

The AS565 Panther/AS365 Dauphin/HH-65 Dolphin is in service with a number of nations around the globe, but not for the same mission set that the SH-2G(I) can be used. Apart from the inclusion of MG and/or rocket pods, the Panther does not really have a combat role, and it also lacks the avionics and E/O systems to be utilized in a surveillance role.

Something else which is significant is the Panther's weight class. While it does include a high percentage of composite materials which can reduce weight, the MTOW of a Panther is about 100kg more than the empty weight of Seasprite. Also a Seasprite's load can be ~700kg more than a Panther, and the Seasprite airframe already is fitted with hardpoints, APS-143 sea search radar, combat data systems, etc.

Looking at the AW Wildcat, that helicopter is also in the same weight class as a Seasprite, and is also already kitted out with the gear a naval helicopter requires in order to be effective.

-Cheers

 

[Zero Alpha]

Looking at the AW Wildcat, that helicopter is also in the same weight class as a Seasprite, and is also already kitted out with the gear a naval helicopter requires in order to be effective.

-Cheers

The Wildcat is also relatively expensive, has few (any?) customers outside the UK, and would introduce another aircraft type into the mix.

My money would be on a mix of NH90s (with palletized mission kits) and A109s. The NH90s would do the ASuW, surveillance, vertrep and support for forces ashower, while the A109s would be fine for the low level EEZ tasks, or as a 'cheap and cheerful' option when the operating requirements aren't as high.

The interesting part of the equation is just how many aircraft are needed.

The new SH-2 buy is for 8 operational aircraft and 2 spares to support 3 embarked helicopters. The review of reliability and support of the SH-2G(NZ) pointed out that the RN uses a ration of 3.4:1 helicopters per heli-capable ship, while the RAN was planning on 3:1.


Fast forward 10 years, and the RNZN will have the 2 ANZACSs 2 OPVs, the LWSV and two logistics platforms all helicopter capable (7 decks). At least two of those platforms are likely to be capable of operating at least two aircraft.

Exact aircraft numbers will depend on purchase agreements, but it isn't inconceivable that around 20 aircraft will be needed to support the fleet to its potential, with half being at the low-end and the other half being a mix of larger-airframe, full-capability, and larger-airframe and lower-capability.

 

[ngatimozart]

Two quick comments. The SH2G(I) buy is a stroke of luck buy and a real bargain. Theoretically they should do 20 years IF they aren't thrashed like the SH2G(NZ) were and if the maintenance program is followed.

The AW159 Wildcat is a totally new aircraft and it would be ideal for NZDF because it would fill two separate roles and introduce a new capability it to NZDF. It is expensive when compared to the current Seasprite purchase, but it is comparable to the MH60R and cheaper than the NFH90. The Wildcat is about to enter service with the British Army Aviation Corp and the RN. It has very good export potential because of a lot of existing satisfied Lynx customers.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Two quick comments. The SH2G(I) buy is a stroke of luck buy and a real bargain. Theoretically they should do 20 years IF they aren't thrashed like the SH2G(NZ) were and if the maintenance program is followed.

I agree it's a short-medium term bargain. The infrastructure is largely in place to support the fleet already, the transition costs are low and the project can be completed quickly. I don't think we'll get anything close to 20 years from them, but that really doesn't matter - the service life is nothing more than an economic trade-off. IF they only get 10 years then the cost of ownership is still low.

The AW159 Wildcat is a totally new aircraft and it would be ideal for NZDF because it would fill two separate roles and introduce a new capability it to NZDF. It is expensive when compared to the current Seasprite purchase, but it is comparable to the MH60R and cheaper than the NFH90. The Wildcat is about to enter service with the British Army Aviation Corp and the RN. It has very good export potential because of a lot of existing satisfied Lynx customers.

Wildcat would need new infrastructure that isn't already in place. The cost of maintaining another unique airframe and support infrastructure isn't something to be taken lightly. I'd want to see some detailed modeling to be sure that introducing another type into the mix was very solid financially and operationally. I'm just not convinced Wildcat provides enough of a difference in capability to increase the complexity of supporting a deployment by a third (assuming A109 and NH90 already deployed).

It really comes down to what can Wildcat do that NH90 or A109 can't? How much are you prepared to pay for the incremental capability?