Royal New Zealand Air Force

[RegR]

What's worse, having a capability that you do not need to work to death but is available for missions that none of your other assets can conduct, as well as missions you previously didn't participate in because you lacked the capability to do so, or not having the capability to do things you need to do at all?

The Hs are not overworked due to oversized loads (not even factored in for LAV or NH90) it is due to there not being enough frames to cover all tasks, training and ops individually. How Long do you seriously think 2 A/C will last coverving these tasks?Lack of numbers is how you overwork transports (NZ) not really weight and dude, your talking as if all we move in NZDF is some NZLAV and a few NH90. When have we regularly sent multiple C-130 to an ex, op or even disaster relief all at once

Less numbers equals more work and more unavailability due to lack of rotation and back up. Bulk moves are good but what exactly do we bulk move enough to justify such token numbers? The fleet is small enough as it is numbers wise, it will be like buying a bus to move the family around when all you needed was a van.

 

[Volkodav]

The Hs are not overworked due to oversized loads (not even factored in for LAV or NH90) it is due to there not being enough frames to cover all tasks, training and ops individually. How Long do you seriously think 2 A/C will last coverving these tasks?Lack of numbers is how you overwork transports (NZ) not really weight and dude, your talking as if all we move in NZDF is some NZLAV and a few NH90. When have we regularly sent multiple C-130 to an ex, op or even disaster relief all at once

Less numbers equals more work and more unavailability due to lack of rotation and back up. Bulk moves are good but what exactly do we bulk move enough to justify such token numbers? The fleet is small enough as it is numbers wise, it will be like buying a bus to move the family around when all you needed was a van.

The C-17s are to replace the 757 and complement, not replace, the C-130, what you have written makes no sense as there is no reduction in numbers,only an increase in capability. Down the track, after the C-17s have proven their versatility, the RNZAF may decide to replace the C-130H fleet with a smaller cheaper to procure and operate tactical lifter, or alternatively if there is the strategic requirement, a larger type could still be in the game.

 

[RegR]

The C-17s are to replace the 757 and complement, not replace, the C-130, what you have written makes no sense as there is no reduction in numbers,only an increase in capability. Down the track, after the C-17s have proven their versatility, the RNZAF may decide to replace the C-130H fleet with a smaller cheaper to procure and operate tactical lifter, or alternatively if there is the strategic requirement, a larger type could still be in the game.

Actually know one knows exactly what they are replacing as it is all just speculationat this stage, we are not locked into a C-17 buy, govt has just asked for costings to evaluate.

Even tho it may be most logical lets not start rumours as gospel just yet.

 

[KiwiRob]

The C-17s are to replace the 757 and complement, not replace, the C-130, what you have written makes no sense as there is no reduction in numbers,only an increase in capability. Down the track, after the C-17s have proven their versatility, the RNZAF may decide to replace the C-130H fleet with a smaller cheaper to procure and operate tactical lifter, or alternatively if there is the strategic requirement, a larger type could still be in the game.

I don't thing the C-17 can replace all the missions the 757's do, I doubt the PM and other pollies would be all to happy being transported around the globe in a cargo hauler, although if Gerry keeps eating the pies......a C-17 might be needed. I still think there is a place in the Airfore for the VIP 757 or similar.

 

[John Fedup]

Er - no.

Start with 10.
2 sold to an un-named customer = 8
Australia asks for up to 4. Not 4 plus 2 options. Nobody has suggested that Australia would buy 6.
So there are 4 to 6 free before Canada stakes a claim.

The defence-aerospace's editor's choice site had an article saying 6 C-17s in the title but upon reading the article only 4 jets are mentioned so indeed only 4 remain. Canada's intention to buy 1 more is rumoured to be announced in Trenton, Ontario by the defence minister today.

 

[John Fedup]

I believe NZs interest in the C-17, I say NZ because this is obviously a government level interest rather than a service or even whole of defence interest only, may have come from the Australian, UK and other operators of small fleets of C-17s experience.

As I understand it the C-17 has, in every case, proven itself to be far more than just a military strategic airlifter. Initially acquired to replace the use of leased capacity on Antonovs, actually having the assets available led to them being used for missions that leased capacity would never even be considered for. It was discovered that the C-17, rather than just doing the missions the C-130 couldn't do, actually ended up efficiently replacing the C-130 in many of it's day to day missions. For example, once the full potential of the C-17 was realised, the RAAF ended up retiring the C-130H, cancelling additional C-130J and moving the existing Js to the tactical role, while increasing the size of the C-17 fleet and finally acquiring the, long delayed, tactical air lifter. The C-17 facilitated a much more capable, flexible and versatile transport / movement capability for the ADF while reducing overall aircraft numbers.

The NZ government would have been looking very closely at the overseas experience before considering such an outlay. This acquisition, if it occurs, will go through because the NZ government considers the extra capability the C-17 brings being worth the outlay. If the C-130, A-400 or a combi version of a commercial airliner was up to the job the traditionally frugal, almost anti defence in some instances, NZ parliament would obviously go for one of them over the C-17. The simple fact that NZ is considering the C-17 shows that they have been impressed by the experience of their neighbour and see the capability as, not only a good value acquisition, but also a sustainable, peerless capability going forward.

I agree. Both the UK and Canada have noticed the same advantages of the C-17 as Australia has. It explains why everyone is grabbing a few more while they still can.

 

[MrConservative]

The defence-aerospace's editor's choice site had an article saying 6 C-17s in the title but upon reading the article only 4 jets are mentioned so indeed only 4 remain. Canada's intention to buy 1 more is rumoured to be announced in Trenton, Ontario by the defence minister today.

Canada buys 5th C-17 military transport plane | CTV News

Now confirmed. Well done Canada!!

 

[John Fedup]

Canada buys 5th C-17 military transport plane | CTV News

Now confirmed. Well done Canada!!

Two would have been better but getting one more is one more than I thought Canada would get! Hopefully NZ can luck in with a C-17 as well.

 

[MrConservative]

Two would have been better but getting one more is one more than I thought Canada would get! Hopefully NZ can luck in with a C-17 as well.

What I find interesting John is that ''two have been spoken for'' to quote the Boeing spokesman.

That means they may have not technically been ''sold'' at this stage. It may mean that pre-contractual or early contractual negotiations are in process and that during the course of those negotiations even prior to a formal memorandum of understanding is reached, let alone a signed contract has been completed, what is known in the commercial law world as a "letter of comfort" has been offered as part of a mutual understanding for the goods in question, which may state that during the course of these negotiations the seller in good faith will not sell to another client whist the buyer is still negotiating to buy in good faith. could be the actual situation.

The inability of the parties to conclude a contract may mean that those two aircraft which "have been spoken for'' may become available once more to another party.

 

[John Fedup]

What I find interesting John is that ''two have been spoken for'' to quote the Boeing spokesman.

That means they may have not technically been ''sold'' at this stage. It may mean that pre-contractual or early contractual negotiations are in process and that during the course of those negotiations even prior to a formal memorandum of understanding is reached, let alone a signed contract has been completed, what is known in the commercial law world as a "letter of comfort" has been offered as part of a mutual understanding for the goods in question, which may state that during the course of these negotiations the seller in good faith will not sell to another client whist the buyer is still negotiating to buy in good faith. could be the actual situation.

The inability of the parties to conclude a contract may mean that those two aircraft which "have been spoken for'' may become available once more to another party.

Very interesting, I guess we will know in the next few months.

 

[chis73]

There was a nice piece by David Lomas in the Sunday Star Times yesterday (not online) that sheds some more light on the government's thinking.

Following the incident last year with the 757 (with Foreign Minister Murray McCully onboard) that was forced to make an emergency landing at McMurdo in whiteout conditions (it didn't have the fuel remaining to fly back again) an aircraft that can fly Christchurch - McMurdo & back again without landing is being prioritised. The total distance would be roughly 8000km return (7500km if diverted to Invercargill on the way back). A C-17 can fly this sort of range with roughly 50% of it's full payload weight (say 40t). An A400M can only manage this distance at roughly 20%-25% of its full payload weight (say 7t). I'm guessimating from internet figures, so don't expect much accuracy from the numbers above.

So, if forced to operate with this new restriction in place, C-17 wins hands down if you're shifting heavy freight. For passenger-only loads, it is less clear cut. Alternative risk mitigation strategies such as using in-flight refueling (say having a tanker aircraft on standby at Christchurch) are probably considered too expensive.

The C-130 of course doesn't have the ability to fly all the way to McMurdo and all the way back without refueling. Not that that has been a showstopper, it has been standard operating procedure since flights started (with the increased risk satisfactorily managed and a slightly greater proportion of cancelled 'boomerang' flights as a result).

If this is indeed the government's thinking, then I suggest a complete separation of Antarctic Support from the C-130 replacement project is necessary, otherwise it skews the airlift requirements too much. Antarctic support needs to be treated as a separate new requirement and funded accordingly.

Possible alternatives to buying C-17s:
a) pay for additional US or Australian C-17s to be operated over the Antarctic summer season. RNZAF gives up it's own Antarctic flights.
b) Buy a few A400Ms (at least 3) and 4-5 replacement C-130Js. Operate the A400M as a tanker for the C-130s on Antarctic flights.
c) Buy or lease a dedicated tanker aircraft
d) Acquire more than 3 A400Ms, and operate one as a tanker.

Article now on Australian Aviation website (here)

Chis73

 

[MrConservative]

I wouldnt say that it is the only part of the governments thinking but one of them - and something that the public can quite well understand.

The C-17 will be more than useful of course for strategic lift on operational military missions, regional HADR support, in support of MOAT like Scott Base, delivering NZ Aid into the Pacific, but one of the key things - is that because we are now back in the hunt with the US and the Pacific pivot, the amount of training exercises that we are going to be a part of is dramtically increasing and with our stratlift requirements.

The A400M could cope with this but it does have its limitations. The C-17 does not have that many limitations other than its more expensive. One thing though - it is future proofed and is a very long term investment.

The article does show the limitations of both the A400M and B757. The C-17 is a better fit to support the McChord team including the ability to conduct winter flight ops. The Mactown runs are less than 10% of our annual stratlift requirements but it is a significantly important requirement - one amongst the NZ public and Government.

 

[MrConservative]

There was a nice piece by David Lomas in the Sunday Star Times yesterday (not online) that sheds some more light on the government's thinking.

Possible alternatives to buying C-17s:
a) pay for additional US or Australian C-17s to be operated over the Antarctic summer season. RNZAF gives up it's own Antarctic flights.
b) Buy a few A400Ms (at least 3) and 4-5 replacement C-130Js. Operate the A400M as a tanker for the C-130s on Antarctic flights.
c) Buy or lease a dedicated tanker aircraft
d) Acquire more than 3 A400Ms, and operate one as a tanker.

Article now on Australian Aviation website (here)

Chis73

Chris the whole air mobility study is not just about the replacement of the C-130 and B757. They have been looking at ALL options across the spectrum. Strategic and Tactical and not limited to fixed wing only. (There is a 3 Sqd pilot with RAF Chinooks right now and he is there their to learn - they dont place pilots in irrelevant exchange slots). That could even include a large tactical rotary such as yes - the CH-47, which with a C-17 and in the context of where and how we are likely to operate in the future as a JATF is not to be discounted as much as any number of possible operating vignettes we suggest.

The air mobility study is also about transitioning from the current way we operate with the current capabilities into new capabilities centred around the JATF. That is why I argue that keeping the C-130 around longer cannot be ruled out and the the time frame of this transition has flexible dates. So if we are speculating alternatives or possibilities the net is wider than people think beyond the obvious. I'd say there are going to be some surprises.

 

[ngatimozart]

Andrew McLaughlin has a piece on todays Australian Aviation website Reports: NZ considering C-17 acquisition | Australian Aviation that discusses the NZ C17 option. He mentions the fact that nobody is talking and that very little is actually known than other than what has been mentioned in the media. Has anyone got a copy of David Lomas's Sunday Star Times piece that they could scan or photograph and either post here or pm me please. I didn't get a copy of the paper and hence missed it. Would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Edit: Didn't see Chris's link to the same story. My apologies. Then saw the comment to the story which I've quoted in full

newt says
December 22, 2014 at 5:09 pm

F/A-18 never met expectations or requirements, which is why the A-7 and the F-14 it was supposed to replace kept flying for years after they were meant to be retired. It lacks range, speed, altitude, and payload capabilities relative to comparable teen-series aircraft. Canada and Australia bought the F-18 mostly because it was cheap, and because in Canada’s case there were significant industrial tradeoffs, and for Australia because the F-15E was not a version of the F-15 on offer. The E/G series is primarily an electronic warfare platform. F/A-18 is not a good choice for New Zealand. F-15SG or more realistically used F-15E ex USAF inventory is a far more sensible and practical option.

An ANZAC airforce is plain stupid, unless you want to go the whole hog and become a state of Australia.

C-17 as an additional capability would be an asset for New Zealand. As a replacement for C-130 and B757 it would be a stupid acquisition. Two planes can only be in two places at once. Five Hercs and two Boeings can be in seven places at once. C-17 is a cargo plane, B757 is configured as a passenger aircraft in RNZAF use. It was a poor choice at the time relative to B767 or even B737, but it is still a better passenger plane than a C-17.

Sensible choice? Two to four refurbished C-5, six new A400M, 12 new C-27J, 18 new Orion 21, 36 used import F-15E, 24 new KAS F/A-50. B737 for VIP and passengers.

Emphasis mine.
Don't know where to start with the reply. Haven't stopped laughing yet nfloorl: nfloorl: :ar15 :drunk1

 

[t68]

Andrew McLaughlin has a piece on todays Australian Aviation website Reports: NZ considering C-17 acquisition | Australian Aviation that discusses the NZ C17 option. He mentions the fact that nobody is talking and that very little is actually known than other than what has been mentioned in the media. Has anyone got a copy of David Lomas's Sunday Star Times piece that they could scan or photograph and either post here or pm me please. I didn't get a copy of the paper and hence missed it. Would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Edit: Didn't see Chris's link to the same story. My apologies. Then saw the comment to the story which I've quoted in full
Emphasis mine.
Don't know where to start with the reply. Haven't stopped laughing yet nfloorl: nfloorl: :ar15 :drunk1

Sensible choice? Two to four refurbished C-5, six new A400M, 12 new C-27J

Actually that's not a bad capabilty strategic and tactical wise, I have read in numerous article that the C5 fleet still has a lot of life left in them would not be in a international partnership arrangement you lose a lot of synergy unlike the C17 which as said is part of an global sustainment partnership.

I won't comment on the rest

 

[chis73]

Speaking of wacky ideas, and seeing we are considering splashing around the big money, how about this one: In return for unlimited US C-17 access during the Antarctic season, we refit and operate (via the RNZN) the USCG polar-class icebreaker Polar Sea (sister to Polar Star). Refit for a 25 year life extension was USD 400m in 2008 (full replacement USD 925m). These icebreakers are just as vital to operation of McMurdo & Scott Base as the aircraft flights are (if not more so), and there is a desperate shortage. It could provide a cheaper way of access for the heavy stuff. It might even work out cheaper in the long run (isn't the future of the Pegasus ice runway threatened by global warming, ie it gets too slushy). We could perhaps look to rent it out during the off season to earn it's keep. Would make the ideal Southern Ocean Patrol vessel.

Antarctica's warming temperatures make plane landings impossible

Chis73

 

[MrConservative]

C-130J's can also be big money once you factor in everything but the kitchen sink.

Brunei

 

[MrConservative]

Speaking of wacky ideas, and seeing we are considering splashing around the big money, how about this one: In return for unlimited US C-17 access during the Antarctic season, we refit and operate (via the RNZN) the USCG polar-class icebreaker Polar Sea (sister to Polar Star). Refit for a 25 year life extension was USD 400m in 2008 (full replacement USD 925m). These icebreakers are just as vital to operation of McMurdo & Scott Base as the aircraft flights are (if not more so), and there is a desperate shortage. It could provide a cheaper way of access for the heavy stuff. It might even work out cheaper in the long run (isn't the future of the Pegasus ice runway threatened by global warming, ie it gets too slushy). We could perhaps look to rent it out during the off season to earn it's keep. Would make the ideal Southern Ocean Patrol vessel.

Antarctica's warming temperatures make plane landings impossible

Chis73

Mmmmm wacky indeed.

You must have missed the bit where I outlined our Stratlift lift requirements a few posts back. The possible C-17 acquisition is not solely about supply Scott Base.

 

[MrConservative]

Sensible choice? Two to four refurbished C-5, six new A400M, 12 new C-27J

Actually that's not a bad capabilty strategic and tactical wise, I have read in numerous article that the C5 fleet still has a lot of life left in them would not be in a international partnership arrangement you lose a lot of synergy unlike the C17 which as said is part of an global sustainment partnership.

I won't comment on the rest

A 300% increase in flight hours per annum with no doubt a 500% increase in operating hours with that suggested fleet.

 

[ngatimozart]

Chris the whole air mobility study is not just about the replacement of the C-130 and B757. They have been looking at ALL options across the spectrum. Strategic and Tactical and not limited to fixed wing only. (There is a 3 Sqd pilot with RAF Chinooks right now and he is there their to learn - they dont place pilots in irrelevant exchange slots). That could even include a large tactical rotary such as yes - the CH-47, which with a C-17 and in the context of where and how we are likely to operate in the future as a JATF is not to be discounted as much as any number of possible operating vignettes we suggest.

The air mobility study is also about transitioning from the current way we operate with the current capabilities into new capabilities centred around the JATF. That is why I argue that keeping the C-130 around longer cannot be ruled out and the the time frame of this transition has flexible dates. So if we are speculating alternatives or possibilities the net is wider than people think beyond the obvious. I'd say there are going to be some surprises.

There was one helo pilot on exchange with a RAF chook squadron who came back recently after a TOD in Afghan with that chook squadron. Going by memory he received an award too for his conduct in theatre whilst under fire etc.

I'll broaden my horizons somewhat then and suggest maybe be some chooks but draw the line at Ospreys. I do think that possibly 2 x C17, 4 x A400, 4 - 6 x C27J, 3 - 4 x chooks, 2 more NH90s and some more AW109s. I have chosen the A400 because the Herc is coming to the end of its life and the A400 is new technology with good chance of surviving 40 years. I think the NZG is starting to realise now that it has to look at what will last that long and still may be around then. The USAF is already looking at the C130 replacement. The next DWP is going to be interesting and the Air Mobility Study will make interesting reading when (if) it's released.

This is all pure supposition on my part and just a guess.