Royal New Zealand Air Force

[RobWilliams]

That's if the bean counters stump up with the $ for the C17( i am not overly confident that it will happen)and as far as I am awere the CH47 does not fit into a A400M.

A Chinook does fit into an A400M but the rear rotor has to be disassembled.

Military Aircraft Airbus DS | A400M

Quite a lot can fit into the back of one of those. Personally it only re-emphasises to me what a beastly airlifter the C-17 is.

The Airbus A400M Atlas – Part 2 (What is So Good about It Anyway) - Think Defence

I can't speak highly enough of the A400M, it really should be a great bit of kit as far as moving stuff around goes. Shame about the price.

 

[chis73]

A Chinook does fit into an A400M but the rear rotor has to be disassembled.

And it should be noted that to transport a Chinook in a C-17 would be no different (ie same amount of disassembly required). According to this article (here), at least 18 hours with 9 people for disassembly. One assumes perhaps even a slightly longer time at the other end for reassembly (due to testing / perhaps more austere working conditions).

Chis73

 

[RobWilliams]

Interesting, cheers for the information!

 

[John Fedup]

And it should be noted that to transport a Chinook in a C-17 would be no different (ie same amount of disassembly required). According to this article (here), at least 18 hours with 9 people for disassembly. One assumes perhaps even a slightly longer time at the other end for reassembly (due to testing / perhaps more austere working conditions).

Chis73

The 9 people and 18 hours refers to both disassembly and cleaning needed for re-entry to the US, at least that's how I read it. Any idea as to the split in effort between fitting it into a C-17 or A400M versus the cleaning requirement for allowing a CH-47 to re-enter the US after deployment to Iraq or wherever? In any event, fitting a CH-47 into a C-17 must be easier than a into a A400M?

 

[RegR]

But then is 4 chinooks into 4 A400 more beneficial than 2 chinooks into 2 C17? That's the 2 billion dollar question!

BTW where would this funding to introduce, operate and support chinooks in RNZAF service come from? We will/are struggling to upgrade and replace what we currently have in inventory and it is not looking good for 1 for 1 for current fleet nevermind above and beyond capability.

We are still just as financially troubled as we were a year ago and nothing has changed, in fact due to govts surplus dreams not panning out as predicted we are possibly worse (defence is an easy cut for our govt as history has shown) if we go back into savings mode.

Just because they asked for costings on one of the most expensive transports out there does not mean we have magically become any richer it is all about options to replace current capability with like or better, C17 would give us options but also kill many others due to it's initial and long term costs.

 

[Reaver]

We will/are struggling to upgrade and replace what we currently have in inventory and it is not looking good for 1 for 1 for current fleet nevermind above and beyond capability.

C17 would give us options but also kill many others due to it's initial and long term costs.

Not sure I would agree with you on these statements Reg, the RNZAF has done pretty well over the last few years (including during the GFC) with new platform purchases leaving only the Transport and Survellance Capabilities to be refreshed.

The DCP has defined amounts allocated to both of these Capabilities and while nothing is certain the DMRR has been given Government approval so there would be a "reputational" cost if the Government was seen to "reneg" on the DMRR outcomes. Of course a change of Government could make all of the previous agreements redundant.

As as been previously stated on this forum the purchase of the C-17 will not blow the budget allocated in the DCP to the Future Air Mobility Capability. The C-17 will satisfy the Strategic component of FAMC allowing for the remaining funds to be used to purchase the Tactical component of FAMC

 

[MrConservative]

And it should be noted that to transport a Chinook in a C-17 would be no different (ie same amount of disassembly required). According to this article (here), at least 18 hours with 9 people for disassembly. One assumes perhaps even a slightly longer time at the other end for reassembly (due to testing / perhaps more austere working conditions).

Chis73

But it does mean that a CH-47 could be deployed into the Islands and be operational following an emergency/crisis and that is a critical advantage particularly post disaster. Far more flexible operationally than a light tactical transport.

There are populations on many South Pacific Islands without either austere airstrips nor even wharfing faciliities. The Tokelau Group a NZ territorial dependency may get an austere coral runway soon, but only on the larger of the 3 populated atolls.

NG: Self deployment of rotary capability from NZ into the Islands is very risky proposition, inefficent and would take longer for the aircraft to be operationally ready. It would only be a Hail Mary option.

 

[ngatimozart]

NG: Self deployment of rotary capability from NZ into the Islands is very risky proposition, inefficent and would take longer for the aircraft to be operationally ready. It would only be a Hail Mary option.

Granted to a certain extent, but I mentioned it as something to be investigated and discussed as an option, that's all.

On another note, the first of the new sprites has arrived. CN posted photo on his Twitter account. https://twitter.com/jackrs55/status/555543446778159104/photo/1

 

[Volkodav]

There have been some interesting discussions on the proposed C-17 procurement and I thought I would add my two cents.

Basically the capability this aircraft offers is such that a pair of them can replace the entire existing airlift capacity delivered by two 757 and five C-130H, obviously you need more than two aircraft to cover maintenance down time and concurrent activities but, it is none the less, a pretty impressive baseline to build the rest of your fleet around.

This is where I don't get the concept of buying sixC-130J to supplement two or three C-17s as the Globemasters on their own surpass the capacity of the entire existing fleet, why duplicate a capability that has already been covered off, especially when money is short? If you have your strategic and outsized lift covered why double up with a less capable platform intended to do pretty much the same job, wouldn't the money be better spent on a complementary platform that does things the C-17 is not suitable for. This is where types such as the CN295 and C27J , even Chinooks would fit in filling mission sets neither the current fleet, C-17, C-130J, or A400 would be suitable.

To me that is the beauty of the C-17 a small number of them would provide such a level of capability that you can look to other types to fill out the missions covered by the RNZAF.

 

[RobWilliams]

But it does mean that a CH-47 could be deployed into the Islands and be operational following an emergency/crisis and that is a critical advantage particularly post disaster. Far more flexible operationally than a light tactical transport.

That's the thing, it appears the C-17 and the A400M can both carry a Chinook & require equal levels of disassembly for transport.

 

[RegR]

Not sure I would agree with you on these statements Reg, the RNZAF has done pretty well over the last few years (including during the GFC) with new platform purchases leaving only the Transport and Survellance Capabilities to be refreshed.

The DCP has defined amounts allocated to both of these Capabilities and while nothing is certain the DMRR has been given Government approval so there would be a "reputational" cost if the Government was seen to "reneg" on the DMRR outcomes. Of course a change of Government could make all of the previous agreements redundant.

As as been previously stated on this forum the purchase of the C-17 will not blow the budget allocated in the DCP to the Future Air Mobility Capability. The C-17 will satisfy the Strategic component of FAMC allowing for the remaining funds to be used to purchase the Tactical component of FAMC

Actually most squadrons (RNZAF in general) are getting smaller aircraft wise every time we upgrade or replace due to technology, capability, funding and re-structuring but less numbers brings with it its own set of headaches and problems. We are at bare minimum numbers now and while sims take pressure off training they are still not as good as hands on real deal and are not much use on ops.

This is not an air force only issue either, navy and to a degree army also end up with less either to cover more tech or make way for similar capability in another guise to keep within funding. Arguably we are still improving said capability but losing overall numbers can end up stretching NZDF at certain times depending on task ie frigates.

They won't blow the budget but they will take up the lions share of the total spend meaning less for the tactical side and govts not going to top up just to pay for extras in the bigger gear if anything they will want change from the original funding. We already have commited funds but if you commit those funds disproportionately then they are still wasted regardless of perceived savings in a singular payload, range or speed advantage. 2 C17 will eat up a lot of say 1.6bn leaving less for a minor transporter to complement and cover the 'lesser' transport tasks of which in NZs case (not Aus, US, UKs case) is the majority and therefore abit of a waste when something like A400 can cover all of NZDFs outsize gear just the same but we would get double the fleet and slightly more workable/safe numbers.

I think people believe our current Hercs fly around with max payloads with doors bulging or that we move a lot of NZLAV/NH90 around regularly by air but this is not the case. The problem we had was lack of numbers to cover taskings, routine maintanence, deep maintanence, upgrades and training concurrently and no amount of space and lift is going to change this dramatically, it literally is numbers game. We have 5 C130 and 8 was the suggested number to safely cover all options efficiently bar outsize, whilst 2 globemasters will cover off NZDFs outsize/bulk easily we would then be in and even worse state for numbers. We would eventually get something smaller to complement but with a fair chunk of the allocated funds tied up in 2 aircraft again would only be in small numbers and the cycle would continue for that fleet (if you can call 2-3 a fleet).

As an example of numbers for the same/similar price we could get either 2 C-17 or 4 A400 or 6 C130J-30, now what option would work best for what NZ routinely does and what we can afford to support and sustain with most benefit to NZ?

 

[John Fedup]

Actually most squadrons (RNZAF in general) are getting smaller aircraft wise every time we upgrade or replace due to technology, capability, funding and re-structuring but less numbers brings with it its own set of headaches and problems. We are at bare minimum numbers now and while sims take pressure off training they are still not as good as hands on real deal and are not much use on ops.

This is not an air force only issue either, navy and to a degree army also end up with less either to cover more tech or make way for similar capability in another guise to keep within funding. Arguably we are still improving said capability but losing overall numbers can end up stretching NZDF at certain times depending on task ie frigates.

They won't blow the budget but they will take up the lions share of the total spend meaning less for the tactical side and govts not going to top up just to pay for extras in the bigger gear if anything they will want change from the original funding. We already have commited funds but if you commit those funds disproportionately then they are still wasted regardless of perceived savings in a singular payload, range or speed advantage. 2 C17 will eat up a lot of say 1.6bn leaving less for a minor transporter to complement and cover the 'lesser' transport tasks of which in NZs case (not Aus, US, UKs case) is the majority and therefore abit of a waste when something like A400 can cover all of NZDFs outsize gear just the same but we would get double the fleet and slightly more workable/safe numbers.

I think people believe our current Hercs fly around with max payloads with doors bulging or that we move a lot of NZLAV/NH90 around regularly by air but this is not the case. The problem we had was lack of numbers to cover taskings, routine maintanence, deep maintanence, upgrades and training concurrently and no amount of space and lift is going to change this dramatically, it literally is numbers game. We have 5 C130 and 8 was the suggested number to safely cover all options efficiently bar outsize, whilst 2 globemasters will cover off NZDFs outsize/bulk easily we would then be in and even worse state for numbers. We would eventually get something smaller to complement but with a fair chunk of the allocated funds tied up in 2 aircraft again would only be in small numbers and the cycle would continue for that fleet (if you can call 2-3 a fleet).

As an example of numbers for the same/similar price we could get either 2 C-17 or 4 A400 or 6 C130J-30, now what option would work best for what NZ routinely does and what we can afford to support and sustain with most benefit to NZ?

The money for 2 C-17s likely could not cover 3 A400Ms, certainly not 4. Six C-130Js likely is the same cost. C-17s and some turboprop transports like allies have done makes sense for NZ but budgets are restricted everywhere. You can only spend what you have so some difficult trade-offs will have to be made.

 

[KiwiRob]

The money for 2 C-17s likely could not cover 3 A400Ms, certainly not 4. Six C-130Js likely is the same cost. C-17s and some turboprop transports like allies have done makes sense for NZ but budgets are restricted everywhere. You can only spend what you have so some difficult trade-offs will have to be made.

That could possibly depend on how badly the Germans want to offload there extra's.

 

[Reaver]

2 C17 will eat up a lot of say 1.6bn leaving less for a minor transporter to complement and cover the 'lesser' transport tasks

We would eventually get something smaller to complement but with a fair chunk of the allocated funds tied up in 2 aircraft again would only be in small numbers and the cycle would continue for that fleet (if you can call 2-3 a fleet).

If 2 C-17s cost 800M then that leaves 800M for the minor transporter. The C295 "transport" version is US$35M and the C27J is US$60M per platform, CH-47 is US$40M. At these prices you can purchase a large fleet (10/15) to complement the C-17.

All our 5 eyes partners use the C-17 so our 2 RNZAF aircraft would be part of the "Global" C-17 fleet, by this I mean we would use our aircraft on missions for other C-17 users. This overcomes the issues of having a "small fleet" and needing backup when our airframes are undergoing Deeper Level Maintenance, we would use other nations to cover our tasking just as we would cover their tasking when needed. Look at the USAF missions to Antarctica for example, the RNZAF would be in the perfect position to take over those taskings using our C-17s thus increasing the number of RNZAF flights to the ice each season.

The A400 does not have these advantages, we would be the only operator in the Southern Hemisphere so there would not be the cover available when our airframes are in maintenance. Also the A400 is at the begining of its Certification process, it is only cleared for the most basic of tasking, it is not cleared for Ice Operations (and not likley to be anytime soon so the RNZAF would be the lead user for the Test & Evaluation and formal Cerftification programme that is required before Ice Ops are approved, this would be a major undertaking (look at the issues the RNZAF has had certifing the NH90). The A400 will be a great platform in 10 years time once all the developmental bugs and certification issues have been sorted but it is to soon for the RNZAF to be getting involved.

The NZDFs/MoD mindset is to now buy proven, in-service, fully certified, large customer base (preferably 5 eyes) platforms so for these reasons the additional cost of the C-17 is fully justified and it fits within the FAMC budget (wow thats really lucky, what were they thinking when they determined that figure I wonder)

 

[t68]

There have been some interesting discussions on the proposed C-17 procurement and I thought I would add my two cents.

Basically the capability this aircraft offers is such that a pair of them can replace the entire existing airlift capacity delivered by two 757 and five C-130H, obviously you need more than two aircraft to cover maintenance down time and concurrent activities but, it is none the less, a pretty impressive baseline to build the rest of your fleet around.

This is where I don't get the concept of buying sixC-130J to supplement two or three C-17s as the Globemasters on their own surpass the capacity of the entire existing fleet, why duplicate a capability that has already been covered off, especially when money is short? If you have your strategic and outsized lift covered why double up with a less capable platform intended to do pretty much the same job, wouldn't the money be better spent on a complementary platform that does things the C-17 is not suitable for. This is where types such as the CN295 and C27J , even Chinooks would fit in filling mission sets neither the current fleet, C-17, C-130J, or A400 would be suitable.

To me that is the beauty of the C-17 a small number of them would provide such a level of capability that you can look to other types to fill out the missions covered by the RNZAF.

Partly agree, whilst 2x C17 will cover off the load carry capacity it does not cover all likly circumstances NZ is most likly to see in the future, as you have said numbers are a capabilty all on their own. Unlike the RAAF wich will see us having all types of aircraft to suit the mission profiles from C17 to C130J to C27J and the CH47F NZ is not in such a position in types an numbers.

The NZ air transport review will also have to take into account the future needs of the JATF. The CH-47F would provide Combat tasks including air assault and air mobility tasks in direct support of combat forces on the battlefield, Battlefield transport and logistics operations

3x C17
6x C130J
6x CH47F
10x NH90

Too few assets leass to thrashing of the fleet we all saw what happens to the original Sprites. From a strategic and tactical veiw point I think that would be the best outcome for the NZDF air transport needs plus leasing a couple of 737 BBJ for VIP work

 

[RegR]

The money for 2 C-17s likely could not cover 3 A400Ms, certainly not 4. Six C-130Js likely is the same cost. C-17s and some turboprop transports like allies have done makes sense for NZ but budgets are restricted everywhere. You can only spend what you have so some difficult trade-offs will have to be made.

Nations with options are selling off A400, no one is offloading C17 and they still have considerable interest, where do you think the better deals would be made?

I don't get why people keep saying they will make sense for NZ budgets? They are extremely expensive to operate and we are not just going to find full loads of heavy vehicles, plant, outsize gear just to fly them into justification, how often are our hercs fully loaded now? If we thought B757 was expensive due to under-utilisation then this (albeit more useful) will to a degree be the same.

Another myth is justifying the small fleet by saying our allies have them and we can use theirs when ours are in maintainence as if saying we regularly share aircraft? We sometimes help each out with loads but not swappa-aircraft, we all have C130 but when we were upgrading and down we did not just go 'borrow' a spare from our friends, does'nt quite work like that.

Cost is not purely per unit fly away price but also add in spares, maintanence infrastructure, training, documentation etc. Aus and US will surely help but won't cover everything. For example we will need to look at refuelling these beasts, RNZAFs small fleet of tankers will have to daisy chain into, underground refuelling would be ideal but very expensive to install, all these costs add up and eat away at the overall budget.

Å400 is not quite there now? luckily we just spent money on extending out our C130s life, saying NZ govt IS now to buy prøven is abit of a stretch just because of a couple purchases, they knew of these benefits when they got the 90s (Its not a new concept) this is why they do these studies, tests and analysis, to find what best suits NZ not what everyone else is nesscessarily using.

Im just saying in NZs situation numbers and types are just as important as size and lift, if not more for what we actually do not what we possibly may do, and with a capped budget the more we spend in one area will also affect the numbers in others. Our allies can afford large fleets of these because they also have large fleets of others and can pick and choose depending on task, we will not be so lucky. Imagine say moving say 50-60 soldiers to Singapore for a FPDA ex or swapping out a platoon in the Sollies? Unless we send a LAV with them just for kicks then there is an serum lot of waste.

 

[MrConservative]

Reaver has hit the nail on the head.

Platforms in which our FEYES partners use are under serious consideration by this government,. per WGS, per BAMS/ISR, per Networked Army.

The forecasted budgeting has the FAMC factored in since 2010.

There is also the matter of the US pivot into the region. There are mutual advantages for us if we move to platforms that complment our longest and closest allies.

 

[Reaver]

how often are our hercs fully loaded now? .

Just because we have been flying loads in the C-130 for the past 50 years does not mean it is an efficient use of Strategic Airlift. The NZDF now has a number of oversized loads (LAV, MHOV, NH90, MTOC, GCS etc) that the C-130 cannot move. C-17s provide the options for moving a greater number and variety of loads in different configurations for a number of different agencies. Where it might not have been cost effective to fly loads in the C-130 it may become so when using the C-17 thus providing greater utility to the Government agencies, Military Allies and other countries.

we will need to look at refuelling these beasts, RNZAFs small fleet of tankers will have to daisy chain into, underground refuelling would be ideal but very expensive to install.

C-17s have been regularly operating out of Whenuapai & Ohakea for the past 10 years with no refuling problems. As an aside the RNZAF fleet of tankers are being replaced under the LTCP project

Another myth is justifying the small fleet by saying our allies have them and we can use theirs when ours are in maintainence as if saying we regularly share aircraft? We sometimes help each out with loads but not swappa-aircraft, we all have C130 but when we were upgrading and down we did not just go 'borrow' a spare from our friends, does'nt quite work like that.

You are right we do not "borrow" a aircraft, we "task" an aircraft from another nation to meet our requirements e.g. fly a waterplant up to the Islands for our MFAT. This is being done today by JFHQ and will be expanded on as part of the C-17 Introduction into Service

luckily we just spent money on extending out our C130s life.

The C-130 life extension allowed the A/C to make its 2017 (stretched out to 2020) Life of Type out of service date, the benefits of the life extension are rapidly running out as we get closer to this date. If we wait much longer the C-17 option disappears and we may find ourselves stuck with the A400 which may not be the optimum platform for the NZDF.

Imagine say moving say 50-60 soldiers to Singapore for a FPDA ex or swapping out a platoon in the Sollies.

This is what the Tactical aircraft (C295/C27J) is for, you would not send a platoon to the Solomons in either a C-17 or a A400. You would put the 50-60 soldiers into the RNZAF C-17, stop off in Townsville and pick up the 100 ADF soldiers attending the excercise and carry on to Singapore thus carrying out tasking for the ADF


Look I dont want to be seen as not hearing your concerns but anyone can come up with reasons not to do something and for every negititive around the C-17 purchase there is a positive. Yes it will mean a change to the way the NZDF/RNZAF does business but that is nothing to be worried about, it should be something to celebrate.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Why are people discussing CH47s?
I realise in many ways they would be a good capability for NZ especially as JATF and operating in austere pacific HADR scenarios. But if we went down this road some might see it as an admission we backed the wrong horse re the NH90s. And what about the push for fewer platform types and away from several small fleets? The NH90s have increased our vertical lift capabilities significantly. While I'm not an expert I doubt that they are inadequate for what we need.

 

[t68]

I think most would under estimate the lift requirments of the NZDF and it's contribution to the Greater Pacfic region

http://www.airforce.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/airforce-news/afn138.pdf