Royal New Zealand Air Force

[John Fedup]

Why does NZ insist on upgrading the Hercules when other C130H operators such as Australia, Canada, UK, Denmark etc have already replaced theirs with the C130J? I suspect they decided on retiring the C130H because it is old, expensive to operate and doesn't have the performance required and in the longterm will save money.
2 x C17, 2 x C130J -30 and 2 x C130J would be great mixture offering enormous flexibilty.
Buying the 757 was always a mistake because it lacks flexibility and requires ground support equipment everywhere it flys too while the 737 with integrated steps for passenger operations does not require the same support although it lacks the range
The MPA force has realistically has 3 options
continue with the current old P3K, 2nd hand younger ex RAAF ?P3C or P8. Because of New Zealand huge EEZ anything smaller probably will lack the required range.
They could also look at the SC130J but would they really want to be the sole operator of this Hercules variant?

Had it not been for our involvement in Afganistan, the RCAF may have been forced to go the upgrade route as well instead of obtaining new C-130Js. I believe the RCAF still uses the H model but they may have less flight hours than NZ's. The C-17 purchase was due in large part to Canada's failure to get our DART team's equipment to Indonesia in a timely manner after the tsunami.

 

[Gibbo]

...Buying the 757 was always a mistake because it lacks flexibility and requires ground support equipment everywhere it flys too while the 737 with integrated steps for passenger operations does not require the same support although it lacks the range...

It was probably the best buy at the time given the Govt of the day weren't pre-disposed to treating the RNZAF to too many new 'goodies'. Since their mods they've certainly earned their keep & taken some pressure of the Hercs which is a bonus.

Just a point about the integrated steps - the RNZAF B757 got a set (starboard rear from memory) as part of those mods so the pax are easily handled, but yes your point about freight handling still stands - requires pallet lifts etc but that's easy to plan given they tend to stick to established airbases / airports.

If we do get C17's then I imagine it'll be to replace the B757 which is an obvious move, but I'm a fan of the latter & it'd be nice to see them retained in their current pax role to provide RNZAF with more options & good long-range surge capability, but I do agree that's extremely unlikely. AirNZ charters or RAAF A330 will presumably be used for moving larger groups of pax around.

 

[STURM]

Why does NZ insist on upgrading the Hercules when other C130H operators such as Australia, Canada, UK, Denmark etc have already replaced theirs with the C130J?

I think it depends largely on when their Hercs were bought and how many hours they have flown over the years. Some of the operators you mentioned probably thought that it made no sense to upgrade their aircraft and that it would be more cost affective to order 'Js'. There are quite a number of 'H' operators that have no immediate plans to replace their 'H's - an example would be Malaysia's 15 'Hs' [the ''youngest'' arrived in 1995 and the ''oldest'' in 1976]. The fleet has flown all over - from supporting troops in Afghanistan to delivering humanitarian aid to Indonesia and flying troops to Australia for an exercise - yet there are no immediate plans to retire any of them; despite having 4 A400Ms on order.

 

[MrConservative]

Had it not been for our involvement in Afganistan, the RCAF may have been forced to go the upgrade route as well instead of obtaining new C-130Js. I believe the RCAF still uses the H model but they may have less flight hours than NZ's. The C-17 purchase was due in large part to Canada's failure to get our DART team's equipment to Indonesia in a timely manner after the tsunami.

The C-130H (NZ) have been upgraded under the LEP project - its done and nearly dusted - just the engine life extension is now all that is needed.

For the LEP there was a CWB completed as well as HCW fastening on the airframe, rewired, new avionics and all mechanical systems overhauled. The only thing missing was the 3.5 upgrade on the engines and props to complete the task and support the aircraft beyond the originally envisaged 2018-2023 time frame - Now RR are on board with the USAF, the testing and certing has been done at Edwards and ongoing support makes this possible for us. It completes the missing link of the LEP. The 3.5 upgrade completed during their next major engine o/h means they will be good to go for another few thousand flight hours at not much extra cost to the $250m invested.

I do not see the rush to replace them as being so time critical anymore. They will be able to continue doing the medium tactical airlift capability perfectly well until the C-130 replacement comes online. Thus we dont need to rush into buying new C-130Js at a billion plus per fleet. I think the NZ Govt knows this.

 

[MrConservative]

It was probably the best buy at the time given the Govt of the day weren't pre-disposed to treating the RNZAF to too many new 'goodies'. Since their mods they've certainly earned their keep & taken some pressure of the Hercs which is a bonus.

Just a point about the integrated steps - the RNZAF B757 got a set (starboard rear from memory) as part of those mods so the pax are easily handled, but yes your point about freight handling still stands - requires pallet lifts etc but that's easy to plan given they tend to stick to established airbases / airports.

If we do get C17's then I imagine it'll be to replace the B757 which is an obvious move, but I'm a fan of the latter & it'd be nice to see them retained in their current pax role to provide RNZAF with more options & good long-range surge capability, but I do agree that's extremely unlikely. AirNZ charters or RAAF A330 will presumably be used for moving larger groups of pax around.

The DTA produced a paper earlier in the year regarding the LEP about the CWB and HCW fastening and were very positive about the structural integrity of the C-130Hs.

Grab two C-17 whitetails now - in fact go for three airframes while we can, run the clock down on the B757 and replace that reduced capability (gone is its strategic lift role) and retain VIP, the spasmodic troop transport, medevac and add a heavy jet conversion role with a single 73 800ERX airframe. The 800ERX is the base platform for the P-8, it has the B757 range but are way less to operate per flight hour. Note the synergies gained with the future P-8 buy.

 

[Reaver]

The C-130H (NZ) have been upgraded under the LEP project - its done and nearly dusted - just the engine life extension is now all that is needed.

Mr C, you are incorrect in your assertion that the upgrade will extend the life beyond 2020, the upgrade only focussed on the issues that were highlighted in the "Life of Type" structual study carried out by Marshals (circa 2001) that would prevent the A/C from meeting the then planned withdrawal date of 2017 (since slipped to 2020 due to less flying hours caused by project delays). Hence that is why the date of 2020 is given as the withdrawal date for the C-130.

You will also find there are a number of other systems (other than engines) that are causing problems (Hydraulics, fuel, etc) that were not part of the upgrade.

 

[Nick underscore]

Grab two C-17 whitetails now - in fact go for three airframes while we can, run the clock down on the B757 and replace that reduced capability (gone is its strategic lift role) and retain VIP, the spasmodic troop transport, medevac and add a heavy jet conversion role with a single 73 800ERX airframe. The 800ERX is the base platform for the P-8, it has the B757 range but are way less to operate per flight hour. Note the synergies gained with the future P-8 buy.

Synergies yes, but what about force multipliers? A dedicated VIP/ Transport without an AAR capability seems a waste on utilisation when considering 'spasmodic' troop transport and medevac needs vs cost.

If NZ Govt get rid of the 757 and are looking for snyergies with a 737-800 purchase, then turn to the Israeli's and convert it to an MMTT, such as what they have done with the 767 series. It's quite cheap to convert (ala Colombia 2010), so could be a plus (not calling yourselves cheap per se, but politically.. hmmm)

2 x C-17, 4/5 x C-27 & 2 x 737-8 MMTT - plus the 4 x P-8 and possibly 4-6 Triton UAV. That's Hi/Low for transport and VIP & AAR. P-8 is logical choice and should be mature by 2020.

So by 2020, retire the 757, C-130 & P-3. Forget about A400 and seriously look at the window now closing on the whitetails. Dovetailing into Aust support chain could work..

What's the pricing (full life) on the above, excluding Triton?

EDIT; Boeing apparently offered a KC737-200 variant to the USAAF as a 'tactical' tanker quite some time ago. Nothing happened with it, from what I recall.

 

[ngatimozart]

The C-130H (NZ) have been upgraded under the LEP project - its done and nearly dusted - just the engine life extension is now all that is needed.

For the LEP there was a CWB completed as well as HCW fastening on the airframe, rewired, new avionics and all mechanical systems overhauled. The only thing missing was the 3.5 upgrade on the engines and props to complete the task and support the aircraft beyond the originally envisaged 2018-2023 time frame - Now RR are on board with the USAF, the testing and certing has been done at Edwards and ongoing support makes this possible for us. It completes the missing link of the LEP. The 3.5 upgrade completed during their next major engine o/h means they will be good to go for another few thousand flight hours at not much extra cost to the $250m invested.

I do not see the rush to replace them as being so time critical anymore. They will be able to continue doing the medium tactical airlift capability perfectly well until the C-130 replacement comes online. Thus we dont need to rush into buying new C-130Js at a billion plus per fleet. I think the NZ Govt knows this.

I agree regarding the financial side of your argument because it would free up a significant amount of money however after spending $250 million and now say another $50 - 100 million at a guess on these aircraft, we could've bought C130Js for that amount of money to be brutally frank. Hence in a way it's putting good money after bad and in a small defence force with very limited resources we cannot do that.

Mr C, you are incorrect in your assertion that the upgrade will extend the life beyond 2020, the upgrade only focussed on the issues that were highlighted in the "Life of Type" structual study carried out by Marshals (circa 2001) that would prevent the A/C from meeting the then planned withdrawal date of 2017 (since slipped to 2020 due to less flying hours caused by project delays). Hence that is why the date of 2020 is given as the withdrawal date for the C-130.

You will also find there are a number of other systems (other than engines) that are causing problems (Hydraulics, fuel, etc) that were not part of the upgrade.

I think that hydraulics, fuel systems etc., can be upgraded if need be and would be if NZDF and NZG thought it worthwhile to go ahead with. However I do have some concerns about the suggestion but I am not an engineer so am not qualified to professionally comment on it. I do know some who are.

There are differing viewpoints here and they do present different options. But the main point is that the NZG is only looking at acquiring an unspecified quantity of C17As at the moment. How this impacts upon the rest of the Air Transport Plan remains to be seen.

 

[htbrst]

You will also find there are a number of other systems (other than engines) that are causing problems (Hydraulics, fuel, etc) that were not part of the upgrade.

Quite a bit of fuel and hydralic work was done as part of the let the LEP I think - the inital business case for the project was based on getting 15 years out of the C-130 upgrade:

18 Nov 2002: Cabinet approved the Review's recommendation to initiate a project based on a 15 year life extension of the C-130H. Cabinet authorised MoD to engage with industry.

It would be pretty disappointing if 15 years of life wasn't at least somewhat achievable. I'm all for buying a couple of C-17's and retaining C-130's for a few years afterwards, maybe mothballing one or two for spare parts as per the NH-90 and Seasprite.

In addition to the engines, the next biggest hang-up IIRC were related to the propellers - the 8-bladed props as fitted to the T-56 on the E-2 Hawkeye were being mooted for USAF C-130H's - did that ever get past testing?

 

[Reaver]

18 Nov 2002: Cabinet approved the Review's recommendation to initiate a project based on a 15 year life extension of the C-130H. Cabinet authorised MoD to engage with industry.

It would be pretty disappointing if 15 years of life wasn't at least somewhat achievable. I'm all for buying a couple of C-17's and retaining C-130's for a few years afterwards, maybe mothballing one or two for spare parts as per the NH-90 and Seasprite.

As per your quote a 15 year extension from 2002 is 2017 and as I said due to the delays in the project that has now been formally reviewed and extended to 2020 so effectivly the upgrade gave the C-130(H) a 18 year life extension. (Note - the C-130 was beyond its structual fatigue life i.e. out of life, at contract signiture)

Mr C was intimating that the upgrade would allow the C-130 to be retained beyond this timeframe which is incorrect as there are a number of both Structual (e.g. outer wings) and System (over and above engines/props) issues that would have to addressed to allow another life extension.

I believe that NG is correct that it would be wasting money going down this path, money that would be better spent buying C295s to act as tactical airlift thus allowing the 2 C-17s to act as strategic airlift

 

[Gibbo]

As per your quote a 15 year extension from 2002 is 2017 and as I said due to the delays in the project that has now been formally reviewed and extended to 2020 so effectivly the upgrade gave the C-130(H) a 18 year life extension. (Note - the C-130 was beyond its structual fatigue life i.e. out of life, at contract signiture)

Mr C was intimating that the upgrade would allow the C-130 to be retained beyond this timeframe which is incorrect as there are a number of both Structual (e.g. outer wings) and System (over and above engines/props) issues that would have to addressed to allow another life extension.

I believe that NG is correct that it would be wasting money going down this path, money that would be better spent buying C295s to act as tactical airlift thus allowing the 2 C-17s to act as strategic airlift

I agree keeping existing C130H post 2020 is not an option, but if NZ do get the much suggested 2 x C17 (still a big 'if') then I think there's still a real need for the C130J - how many would depend on C17 numbers.

My reasoning is that with NZ's unique 'tryanny of distance' it's not so much distinctly about strategic vs tactical requirements but more about having a fleet that's all reasonably capable of strategic reach (& importantly with a meaningful payload) which can then operate in theatre tactically. The C17 is capable of both with a little tactical limitation (just field sizes), the C130 is pretty much proven as perfect for both in NZ's context, whereas the C295 would generally lend itself best only to the latter.

We will always have a small fleet hence lending weight to bigger a/c is always going to be my priority. The C130H & B757 mix currently gives us 7 long-range aircraft which is probably about right numbers wise. 2 - 3 C17's would (assuming the B757 gets dropped) will not be enough on their own, due to maintenance & other taskings requirements. So I'd suggest C17 & C130J mix would be priority, perhaps with a small number of C295 if the Govt could be convinced to stump up the $$$ for purchase & ongoing operating costs.

 

[RegR]

Somehow I think if by some miracle we get C-17 then we will not be getting new Js as well but more likely the smaller option (27/295 or similar once the Hs run their course) to complement them as that is the identified shortage now with our current fleet and we definitely won't get all 3 options (C17, C130J, C27/295) A. due to cost, B. added problems of multiple types such as individual maintanence, training, infrastructure etc and C. because it would inevitably diminish any usable fleet numbers of each even more (not looking good now).

If Aus is eventually considering A400 for their J replacements anyway shouldn't we just pre-empt and transition straight to A400 (as UK is currently doing) as remember going either type is a 40-50 year marriage in RNZAF terms so we should take this oppournity to futureproof and not just catch up to today (we are currently still in last week and counting).

Numbers will always be an issue for us with any C-17 purchase due to cost and numbers is the game changer as Aus is sorting out now. C-17 would take the 757 slots in the family tree and possibly even a couple of legacy C130 spots and as with the frigates and OPVs minimum numbers present their own issues. Whilst a single C-17 may be equivalent to a couple of C-130s (or three) or B757s (same cost to run combined as well) and there is definitely merit in their performance, unless we can keep semi-decent numbers of each then we can only realistically become a wing of the RAAF to sustain.

C27/295 extra, C130J costly, A400 expensive, C17 really expensive, I wouldn't even like to bet on this one but either way needs to be sorted. Good luck NZG.

 

[MrConservative]

Mr C, you are incorrect in your assertion that the upgrade will extend the life beyond 2020, the upgrade only focussed on the issues that were highlighted in the "Life of Type" structual study carried out by Marshals (circa 2001) that would prevent the A/C from meeting the then planned withdrawal date of 2017 (since slipped to 2020 due to less flying hours caused by project delays). Hence that is why the date of 2020 is given as the withdrawal date for the C-130.

You will also find there are a number of other systems (other than engines) that are causing problems (Hydraulics, fuel, etc) that were not part of the upgrade.

OK I do accept that. Though it did focus on more than fixing just the structural weaknesses indicated by the Marshals of Cambridge assessment, there was considerable mechanical work undertaken, new avionic fitout, new flight deck comms and nav system.

I seems a shame that these issues were not addressed if you have a list of further work needed it would be interesting reading.

My point was that there is a keenness (admittedly by beancounters) to find a solution to have the C-130 stretch out its expected cut off date as it is fiscally convenient to do so. That the significant barrier was over the ongoing support of the engines - which when the process was scoped that was not an option. My hunch was that Ok now hurdle has been solved for us by the 3.5 upgrade - therefore they (which does include treasury, the finance select committee will have its say also) they will have another good hard look at getting more life out of them.

Probably not popular with people here but nevertheless - but they are wanting to stretch the dollars out.

It is just that with so much money going to be needed and with the borrowing aspect clearly off the agenda - somethings are going to be looked at really hard. That is why I think some things will not be as what we want and that they will squeeze the life out of stuff before they get shipped off to the knackers yard..

 

[MrConservative]

I agree keeping existing C130H post 2020 is not an option, but if NZ do get the much suggested 2 x C17 (still a big 'if') then I think there's still a real need for the C130J - how many would depend on C17 numbers.

My reasoning is that with NZ's unique 'tryanny of distance' it's not so much distinctly about strategic vs tactical requirements but more about having a fleet that's all reasonably capable of strategic reach (& importantly with a meaningful payload) which can then operate in theatre tactically. The C17 is capable of both with a little tactical limitation (just field sizes), the C130 is pretty much proven as perfect for both in NZ's context, whereas the C295 would generally lend itself best only to the latter.

We will always have a small fleet hence lending weight to bigger a/c is always going to be my priority. The C130H & B757 mix currently gives us 7 long-range aircraft which is probably about right numbers wise. 2 - 3 C17's would (assuming the B757 gets dropped) will not be enough on their own, due to maintenance & other taskings requirements. So I'd suggest C17 & C130J mix would be priority, perhaps with a small number of C295 if the Govt could be convinced to stump up the $$$ for purchase & ongoing operating costs.

I dont think we will get the perfect solution either Gibbo. I think that the C-17 is marvellous - an aircraft for the decades ahead - but what if we buy 2 and down the line we tragically lose one? What happens then? They are now the poster child of scarcity. We would need 3 to be risk adverse.. Of course too offset that it is likely they will be part of an Anzac Airlift solution anyway so there will be work arounds. If it does become the Strat lift option then the tactical option will be C-130J. If so there will not be an Andover replacement - something which I have always felt a need for. But maybe that sentimentality on my part

 

[KiwiRob]

Has C-17's been on the cards since August or even earlier this year? In the comments section of this article a Mr Peter Clark mentions on August the 18th that the RNZAF are looking at 2 of them?

Defence Minister flags additional KC-30s, C-17s | Australian Aviation

 

[MrConservative]

As per your quote a 15 year extension from 2002 is 2017 and as I said due to the delays in the project that has now been formally reviewed and extended to 2020 so effectivly the upgrade gave the C-130(H) a 18 year life extension. (Note - the C-130 was beyond its structual fatigue life i.e. out of life, at contract signiture)

Mr C was intimating that the upgrade would allow the C-130 to be retained beyond this timeframe which is incorrect as there are a number of both Structual (e.g. outer wings) and System (over and above engines/props) issues that would have to addressed to allow another life extension.

I believe that NG is correct that it would be wasting money going down this path, money that would be better spent buying C295s to act as tactical airlift thus allowing the 2 C-17s to act as strategic airlift

Reaver have you got the latest hours on the C-130H(NZ)s? Are they in excess of 45000? I am going to ask some Lockheed guys I know here - who drew my attention to the 3.5 upgrade and the HCW fastening on the airframe. The outer wings issue - how significant is that since the CWB was done?

Cheers MrC

 

[MrConservative]

Synergies yes, but what about force multipliers? A dedicated VIP/ Transport without an AAR capability seems a waste on utilisation when considering 'spasmodic' troop transport and medevac needs vs cost.

What's the pricing (full life) on the above, excluding Triton?

EDIT; Boeing apparently offered a KC737-200 variant to the USAAF as a 'tactical' tanker quite some time ago. Nothing happened with it, from what I recall.

I should have clarified. The 73 would be leased and not owned by defence, but a whole of Govt costing on a ZK reg. i.e DPMC, MFAT, NZCA NZDF et al. Parked at WP, tinkered with under commercial contract, flown by RNZAF pilots as an offset. No capital charge required.

 

[Volkodav]

The C-17 would take a lot of load off the C-130 fleet which should also help extend their lives further and if worse comes to worse another type could be leased to fill the gap at minimal cost, i.e. the BAE 146s done up for the RAF in Afghanistan, or similar.

There are a few options if the Hercs can't be extended but to be honest having two, or preferably three C-17s would pretty much replace the entire existing capability of the C-130 force. The number of active Hercs could be reduced to two to share out the remaining flight hours and something as small as a Kingair could even fill the gap until a more permanent solution is procured.

 

[MrConservative]

Has C-17's been on the cards since August or even earlier this year? In the comments section of this article a Mr Peter Clark mentions on August the 18th that the RNZAF are looking at 2 of them?

Defence Minister flags additional KC-30s, C-17s | Australian Aviation

It may have been a sought option but I personally dont think it has been seriously entertained until October when the two DefMins met in Perth. It possibly was only then when the political pieces started falling into place that it was a real option or possibility. Lets be honest it is still only a real option of possibility. C-17s in NZ or even Anzac colours were always going to have RAAF hand holding and essentially be ADF initiated.

 

[Reaver]

We will always have a small fleet hence lending weight to bigger a/c is always going to be my priority. The C130H & B757 mix currently gives us 7 long-range aircraft which is probably about right numbers wise. 2 - 3 C17's would (assuming the B757 gets dropped) will not be enough on their own, due to maintenance & other taskings requirements.

It has been quoted by other posters that the Defence Capital Plan has $3.5 - $4 B for P3/C-130 replacement so I assume that is approx $1.8B for the FAMC project. So if C17 provides Strat Air Lift and costs guesstimate $800M then that leaves $1B for Tact Air Lift. At approx US$35M for C295 you can afford a Andover sized fleet i.e 15 or more allowing for greater flexibility of where and when you deploy. at US$120M for a C-130J you can afford less aircraft. Effectively you get 3 C295 for each C-130J and if you choose the C295 as the P3 replacement the benefits of a single type fleet only improve