Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Reaver]

Reaver have you got the latest hours on the C-130H(NZ)s? Are they in excess of 45000?

Cheers MrC

Highist 30,000 Hrs, Lowist 26,000

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).

The A400 is still a developmental aircraft with only a few basic Capabilities released, it is essentially where the NH90 was 7-8 years ago. Eventually it will become a great capability but there is a lot of water to go under the bridge before this happens. The UK will not declare a A400 FOC until 2022 (assuming no problems arise).

http://aviationweek.com/defense/a400m-capability-delays-won-t-impact-uk-operations

The C-17 is fully mission capable on day one and as the T-6C & A109 projects have shown it is a lot easier introducing into service a mature platform as opposed to a developmental one (NH90).

 

[A4kscooter]

The C295MPA although probably the more affordable option as a future P3 replacement has one disadvantage - lack of range for NZs need with it vast EEZ.
Providing the SC130J is ordered by another country such as Canada or UK it maybe a realistic option especially as it has palletised mission module and can be used in the transport role.
A fleet of 2 x C17, 3 x C130J and 6 x SC130J maybe an affordable combination

 

[t68]

The C295MPA although probably the more affordable option as a future P3 replacement has one disadvantage - lack of range for NZs need with it vast EEZ.
Providing the SC130J is ordered by another country such as Canada or UK it maybe a realistic option especially as it has palletised mission module and can be used in the transport role.
A fleet of 2 x C17, 3 x C130J and 6 x SC130J maybe an affordable combination

Have they built a test mule for the SC130 as I have only seen it in Glossy photos

 

[John Fedup]

Have they built a test mule for the SC130 as I have only seen it in Glossy photos

It is 10 years too late for LM to get into this game. Canada's RCAF wanted P-8s but the government decided to put another 1.5 billion in upgrades into our remaining (and aging P-3s (CP-140 Auroras). With P-8 orders for the USN, India, and Australia, Boeing owns this market now along with the Triton UAV. Given the recent embarrassment of the mystery sub in UK waters which required foreign MPAs to assist, the UK really can't wait for 5-10 years while LM comes up with something. P-8s are ready now.

 

[John Fedup]

The C295MPA although probably the more affordable option as a future P3 replacement has one disadvantage - lack of range for NZs need with it vast EEZ.
Providing the SC130J is ordered by another country such as Canada or UK it maybe a realistic option especially as it has palletised mission module and can be used in the transport role.
A fleet of 2 x C17, 3 x C130J and 6 x SC130J maybe an affordable combination

Too bad there is no MPA version for the C-27 as it has a lot in common with the C-130J including engines.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Too bad there is no MPA version for the C-27 as it has a lot in common with the C-130J including engines.

The US coast guard has recently inherited some ex USAF C27s:
“The company also anticipates the USCG will immediately begin the process for expanding the C-27J’s capabilities with tailored mission kits to include surface-search radars, electro-optical sensors and mission suites installed on all 14 planes,”

U.S. Coast Guard Inherits Air Force C-27J Spartans | Defense: Aviation International News

While I like the idea of NZDF having MPA capable C27's a king air type platform could do this cheaper. I'm still for (just) transport C27s.

IE
king air: light transport/vip/MPA/overland ISR
C27: Tacticla medium transport
P8: high level ISR/MPA?ASW/ASuW
C130J/A400/C17: strategic/tactical transport.

 

[ngatimozart]

The C295MPA although probably the more affordable option as a future P3 replacement has one disadvantage - lack of range for NZs need with it vast EEZ.
Providing the SC130J is ordered by another country such as Canada or UK it maybe a realistic option especially as it has palletised mission module and can be used in the transport role.
A fleet of 2 x C17, 3 x C130J and 6 x SC130J maybe an affordable combination

The Sea Herc is a dead rubber, is a paper design only and does not offer capabilities that the P8 does. The C295MPA doesn't offer the capabilities that the P8 does, however it does offer capabilities that would be useful in a littoral sense.

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

I think for 2 x C17 the cost may be around US$800 million going by the recent DSCA approval notification for the Australian four. If we go C17 then we do need something like the C130 because if we just have a C17 and C27J / C295 fleet we have a large capability gap in the middle where you have something that is two large for the small aircraft but far too small and costly to utilise a C17. So that is why I'm loathe to lose a A400 / C130 sized capability. IMHO if we were given the choice of two capabilities, I'd rather lose the small end of the range than the mid end, or go A400 and C27J if we don't get the C17s. However we do have to remember there is a limited amount of money in the pot and it does have to be utilized wisely. I would like to see 3 x C17s acquired just as a precaution and future proofing as has been mentioned above.

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)

I did mention previously about this but I do really like this idea. I have been having a look at the B737-8 & 9 series. The 800ERX doesn't appear to be in production any more so the 900ER appears to be the best option because of its range and capabilities. Unlike Mr C, I would prefer RNZAF ownership and do as Nick suggests. We don't have to have it converted for freight as per the B757 but if extra auxiliary fuel tanks were installed in part of the cargo compartments, then it would make for a good AAR capability, especially if we don't get the A400. Three such converted aircraft would add significant capability to NZDF and to working with the ADF and wider forces. The C17s and P8s have AAR capability plus the C130s and if these B737-900ERs were acquired they could be given AAR receiving capability as well. They would most definitely be force multipliers and cheaper to acquire than KC30MRTTs. Plus they can handle any trooping, medivac, evac and VIP roles. We would get our moneys worth out of them if we could get funding for them.

 

[Gibbo]

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

My worry with 2 x C17 is that the high cost ends up leaving nothing else in the $$$ pot for purchase of other transports, and in the latter category I still err towards the C130J rather than the C295 on issues of effective payload and / or range in the transport & MPA roles.

I agree there wouldn't be much moolah left for C130J after 2 x C17, but I still feel the former is the better backup to the latter due to the C130J's superior range / payload capability compared to the C295. 2 x C17 would struggle with this role on their own.

Having said that, I'd love to see 3-4 C295 with 42 sqn for light tactical transport & SATS plus some local maritime SAR etc.

 

[Volkodav]

The C-17 can do pretty much everything a C-130 can do but better and there is nothing mission a C-17 can't do or is uneconomical for that couldn't be done by a CN295 or C-27J more economically or efficiently than a C-130.

Sure you could tailor your transport fleet to cover all missions perfectly but then you would end up with a pair each of C17s, A400s, C-130s, C27Js, CN295s, CN235s, Kingairs and 737s to cap it off. Just imagine the logistics, training and maintenance bill. Yes its an exaggeration I know, but it illustrates the trap of trying to save money by perfectly assigning platforms to missions but forgetting about the support and sustainment costs associated with multiple platforms.

Basically, while there are missions that a C-130 can carry out more efficiently than a C-17 that are also beyond the capabilities of a tactical lifter, they would be few and far between. There would be many more missions that are outside of the C-130 ability or would require multiple sorties to complete, while pretty much everything else would be within the capability if a tactical lifter. The C-17 can do things the C-130 can't as well as being able to do other things in fewer sorties, over longer distances at higher speeds i.e. in less time. The C-27J can do a large percentage of the same missions as the C-130 but more efficiently and from shorter rough fields, anything they can't do the C-17 can, as well if not better than the C-130.

To me the sensible way forward is to do pretty much as Mr C suggested, introduce the C-17 and P-8 in minimal numbers and support them, for as long as is viable, with the existing C-130 and P-3 fleets. As they are operating in a support role it should be possible to get more useful time out of their remaining fatigue lives before replacing them with new capabilities. While the P-8 could be supported by additional P-8s and / or Tritons, the C-17 fleet could be supported by a tactical lifter and possibly by a tanker transport. How much more useful would a transport fleet of KC-30, C-17 and C-27J be than a mix of 737, C-130 and CN295?

 

[ADMk2]

My worry with 2 x C17 is that the high cost ends up leaving nothing else in the $$$ pot for purchase of other transports, and in the latter category I still err towards the C130J rather than the C295 on issues of effective payload and / or range in the transport & MPA roles.

I agree there wouldn't be much moolah left for C130J after 2 x C17, but I still feel the former is the better backup to the latter due to the C130J's superior range / payload capability compared to the C295. 2 x C17 would struggle with this role on their own.

Having said that, I'd love to see 3-4 C295 with 42 sqn for light tactical transport & SATS plus some local maritime SAR etc.

Bear in mind that the C-17A gives you roughly 4 times the airlift capability of a C-130H, plus a ton more range and higher cruise speed. Brand new C-17A's will have much more availability too. The argument I've seen about '2 airframes can't be everywhere' is true to an extent but funnily enough doesn't seem to apply to the B757 fleet and doesn't account for the advantages of the C-17A fleet compared to your existing C-130 fleet.

Even a C-17A fleet of 2 will improve your airlift capability out of sight, compared to what it is now and a dual fleet of C-17A / C-27J / C-295 I think would provide a far better balance than what you have now, as well as (likely) more airframe numbers overall.

RAAF dropped from 24 Hercules to 6 C-17 and 12 Hercs. Overall numbers dropped a fair bit, but overall lift capacity improved enormously. It would be the same situation with the RNZAF, IMHO.

 

[Gibbo]

Bear in mind that the C-17A gives you roughly 4 times the airlift capability of a C-130H, plus a ton more range and higher cruise speed. Brand new C-17A's will have much more availability too. The argument I've seen about '2 airframes can't be everywhere' is true to an extent but funnily enough doesn't seem to apply to the B757 fleet and doesn't account for the advantages of the C-17A fleet compared to your existing C-130 fleet.

Even a C-17A fleet of 2 will improve your airlift capability out of sight, compared to what it is now and a dual fleet of C-17A / C-27J / C-295 I think would provide a far better balance than what you have now, as well as (likely) more airframe numbers overall.

RAAF dropped from 24 Hercules to 6 C-17 and 12 Hercs. Overall numbers dropped a fair bit, but overall lift capacity improved enormously. It would be the same situation with the RNZAF, IMHO.

Granted I know the C17 capacity blows the C130J out of the water, and if you're talking about employing a 'hub & spoke' type scenario where C17 does the strategic lift in with the payload & tactical transports follow in to provide the 'spokes' then I get your drift, and it makes perfect sense. Just hope the tactical fleet carry the necessary self protection kits. Obviously the heavy lifter can then do tactical work as required, but it would probably be kept busy with supply flights to & from 'the hub'.

I still however don't believe 2 C17s are enough to rely solely on the strategic role of supplying 'the hub' - and to my mind a C130J would be a better back-up for this role, but yes perhaps the C27J may fit the bill adequately for RNZAF (more than the C295 would anyway I'd suggest).

The question of having only 2 B757 is largely because there was a recognised strategic lift gap that needed plugging quickly (due to B727 & legacy C130H obsolescence) & 2 is all the Govt would pay for. Another consideration is the B757 doesn't perform the C17 role in any real shape nor form so having 2 x B757 with 5 x C130H backup is not a biggie whereas only C17 doing all the heavy lift definitely requires a decent backup fleet. 2 x C17 can only ever do a maximum of 2 concurrent taskings, and then when you factor in unavoidable maintenance & training requirements, it will be 1 possible tasking much of the time. Grant you though I'd expect RAAF could help out in the need for a C17 'surge' but I'd like to see RNZAF having less reliance on others, not more.

I don't advocate for a moment a little bit if everything as there wont be the $$$ to either purchase, maintain & operate a fleet with too many types, frankly I think 2 types max in the transport fleet is the aim to reduce overheads. Maybe I'm just showing my age & my love of the Herc, given that I'm almost exactly the same age as RNZAF's oldest C130

 

[ngatimozart]

Bear in mind that the C-17A gives you roughly 4 times the airlift capability of a C-130H, plus a ton more range and higher cruise speed. Brand new C-17A's will have much more availability too. The argument I've seen about '2 airframes can't be everywhere' is true to an extent but funnily enough doesn't seem to apply to the B757 fleet and doesn't account for the advantages of the C-17A fleet compared to your existing C-130 fleet.

Even a C-17A fleet of 2 will improve your airlift capability out of sight, compared to what it is now and a dual fleet of C-17A / C-27J / C-295 I think would provide a far better balance than what you have now, as well as (likely) more airframe numbers overall.

RAAF dropped from 24 Hercules to 6 C-17 and 12 Hercs. Overall numbers dropped a fair bit, but overall lift capacity improved enormously. It would be the same situation with the RNZAF, IMHO.

Bearing in mind our tyranny of distance maybe 3 x C17 and at least 1/2 doz C27Js.

Mr Cs original idea of extending the C130s and P3K2s service life is worth an investigation to see if it is feasible to undertake, given that it would release funding and then things like Triton can be seriously looked at when funding streams free up after 2030. I think it'd be a VfM to undertake a feasibility study of a SLEP into the C130s and P3s out to, say 2033 max. Whilst I think that, when combined with the money we've already spent on the current SLEP for the C130H(NZ), it's money that could've bought Js, I do not want to totally discount the idea without an investigation, because it does have a valid logic, that would enable funding to be used for other areas of much needed NZDF capability, whilst also obtaining greater and better strategic air transport capability and phased in maritime airborne MMA capability, without breaking the bank.

 

[KiwiRob]

I did mention previously about this but I do really like this idea. I have been having a look at the B737-8 & 9 series. The 800ERX doesn't appear to be in production any more so the 900ER appears to be the best option because of its range and capabilities. Unlike Mr C, I would prefer RNZAF ownership and do as Nick suggests. We don't have to have it converted for freight as per the B757 but if extra auxiliary fuel tanks were installed in part of the cargo compartments, then it would make for a good AAR capability, especially if we don't get the A400. Three such converted aircraft would add significant capability to NZDF and to working with the ADF and wider forces. The C17s and P8s have AAR capability plus the C130s and if these B737-900ERs were acquired they could be given AAR receiving capability as well. They would most definitely be force multipliers and cheaper to acquire than KC30MRTTs. Plus they can handle any trooping, medivac, evac and VIP roles. We would get our moneys worth out of them if we could get funding for them.

Why go for 737's? I think it would be much better going for A320 or A321's, they both have longer ranges than the 737's, plus the RNZAF could tie into ANZ's maintenance program.

Do you really think the NZ govt would want to pay the development costs for and be the only operator of AAR 737's? That's kinda nuts, and would be crazy expensive.

 

[A4kscooter]

The A320 has some of the restrictions of the B757 due to its height off the ground. It requires ground support equipment in place baggage loading etc while the B737 with passenger steps fitted requires less ground support giving the type more flexibility.
I stated the SC130J would be a MPA candiadate if ordered by another nation first but the problem is the P8 is probably too expensive while the C295MPA lacks the range

 

[MrConservative]

Highist 30,000 Hrs, Lowist 26,000

I was hoping you would provide the EBH and not SLH. If you do know the EBH as well could you also provide the measued severity factor on the fleet?

It would also be interesting to know - Were the airframes sent to L3 then laterly Safe in order of their EBH and higher severity factor and was the comprehensive Operational Usage Evaluation undertaken post LEP on each airframe?

Also was a low G limit flight rule imposed post the Marshals assessment by 40 Sqd and during the time the airfraft operated following the assessment and its subsequent introduction into the LEP? Also did during that period did the GAG cycles / tasking profiles change in light of the introduction of the B757, which may have an effect on the severity factor as range and flight profiles effect that number.

I am thinking that maybe the first of the airframes would have been those with the higher EBH and severity factor. So an exit from RNZAF service would be around 2020 for that first airframe as its CWB would have rated out the 45000 mandatory EBH for scrapping. The service life hours are not that relevent it is the EBH that matters. If the EBH is for example under 35000 for say three 3 of these post LEP C-130s then I would say with fleet management, some flight rules regarding G loading, the likelihood that their tasking profiles or GAG cycles would change with the C-17/? intro, some post 2020 canabalisation of the first airframe to have hit the magic 45K then some of the fleet could be eeked out further. You may not know those answers offhand but the questions would at least give us the wherewith all to make an informed decision outstanding remedial work is plausible.

Cheers MrC

 

[MrConservative]

The A320 has some of the restrictions of the B757 due to its height off the ground. It requires ground support equipment in place baggage loading etc while the B737 with passenger steps fitted requires less ground support giving the type more flexibility.
I stated the SC130J would be a MPA candiadate if ordered by another nation first but the problem is the P8 is probably too expensive while the C295MPA lacks the range

We are not after a MPA capability. It has moved onto higher ISR capabilities with the P-3K2 introduction.

There is only one replacement for the P3K2 and that is the P-8. TINA!

 

[MrConservative]

Why go for 737's? I think it would be much better going for A320 or A321's, they both have longer ranges than the 737's, plus the RNZAF could tie into ANZ's maintenance program.

Do you really think the NZ govt would want to pay the development costs for and be the only operator of AAR 737's? That's kinda nuts, and would be crazy expensive.

With the C-17 or even the A400M the current strat lift role of the B757 is left to under a few hundred annual hours of VIP work, occassional troop transport and the odd battlefield commemmeration trip. I agree there is not a policy requirement for any A2A role. So I agree with that.

The 73 in later variants used 800ER / new 900ER which do have the range or enough for our needs are as I said fit better in a fleet management sense with the likely P-8 as it can be used in flight training roles / hours builder ect to make up its sheer lack of economic use in the basic VIP/TT role and possibly Medivac. So it makes more sense on that stand point. However it is one of those "capabilities" that in my view is not entirely enough of a core activity that justifies a gold plated solution.

There are numerous low hours run of the mill later 73's out there on the used / commercial lease market. That is all that is needed. If they did buy/lease a A320 I wouldnt careless either way. As long as they did not spend too much. I would rather the money be spent on the real stuff thast matters. The stuff about range is not entirely relevant because as I have in the past outlined PMs trip itinerary is crafted months ahead by MFAT/DPMC and set downs on route are normal.

 

[A4kscooter]

We are not after a MPA capability. It has moved onto higher ISR capabilities with the P-3K2 introduction.

There is only one replacement for the P3K2 and that is the P-8. TINA!

I agree it should be the P8 but with NZ defence doesn't seem to be a priority and money is scarce and regardless of what is on the wishlist doesn't guarantee the military gets what its wants. They may compromise and purchase a cheaper alternative.
The same with the C17 - do you think NZ will purchase 2 aircraft.

 

[Nick underscore]

Bearing in mind our tyranny of distance maybe 3 x C17 and at least 1/2 doz C27Js.

Mr Cs original idea of extending the C130s and P3K2s service life is worth an investigation to see if it is feasible to undertake, given that it would release funding and then things like Triton can be seriously looked at when funding streams free up after 2030. I think it'd be a VfM to undertake a feasibility study of a SLEP into the C130s and P3s out to, say 2033 max. Whilst I think that, when combined with the money we've already spent on the current SLEP for the C130H(NZ), it's money that could've bought Js, I do not want to totally discount the idea without an investigation, because it does have a valid logic, that would enable funding to be used for other areas of much needed NZDF capability, whilst also obtaining greater and better strategic air transport capability and phased in maritime airborne MMA capability, without breaking the bank.

Spot on IMV. C-17/C-27J mix. I'll be amazed if your H's will make 2030's. I love the Herc, but with money a question I think retiring the Herc from the fleet is the best option, early 2020's.

Why go for 737's? I think it would be much better going for A320 or A321's, they both have longer ranges than the 737's, plus the RNZAF could tie into ANZ's maintenance program.

Do you really think the NZ govt would want to pay the development costs for and be the only operator of AAR 737's? That's kinda nuts, and would be crazy expensive.

Because the 73 is a derivative of the looming P-8 purchase (which will happen for NZ). Why get a non-common platform to the fleet considering logistical reqs? You 'MMTT' a pair of 73's and it will have longer range than the standard A320/1.

As mentioned the Israelis have been converting 76's to the open client mrkt for some time and there was talk it could be done on the 73.. And reasonably cheaply too.

 

[Nick underscore]

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.

cheers for clarifying, not a big fan of commercial lease w.r.t defence. Strangely, I prefer a clear disconnect.

I did mention previously about this but I do really like this idea. I have been having a look at the B737-8 & 9 series. The 800ERX doesn't appear to be in production any more so the 900ER appears to be the best option because of its range and capabilities. Unlike Mr C, I would prefer RNZAF ownership and do as Nick suggests. We don't have to have it converted for freight as per the B757 but if extra auxiliary fuel tanks were installed in part of the cargo compartments, then it would make for a good AAR capability, especially if we don't get the A400. Three such converted aircraft would add significant capability to NZDF and to working with the ADF and wider forces. The C17s and P8s have AAR capability plus the C130s and if these B737-900ERs were acquired they could be given AAR receiving capability as well. They would most definitely be force multipliers and cheaper to acquire than KC30MRTTs. Plus they can handle any trooping, medivac, evac and VIP roles. We would get our moneys worth out of them if we could get funding for them.

Agree, don't think you should get the 400's unless the whitetails are off the table.

Admittedly there maybe some appetite for an MPA C-27/ C-295, but the P-8 should be the platform selected considering the capabilties on offer. The ONE area I think the NZ Govt need to stay focused to committing and purchasing, once the P-3K's are knackered.