Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Lucasnz]

Welcome aboard.

Well the LEP has actually turned out to have been a blessing in disguise because it has given the NZG and NZDF the opportunity to fully evaluate the NZDF airlift capabilities and needs for the next 30 - 50 years without having the millstone of new expensive fixed wing transport aircraft around their necks.

Short answer, no the C130s have really reached their maximum life. NZ7001 - 03 are the oldest H models ever with 01 being the test aircraft for the H series back in 1964 / 65. You are right about Andover replacements though and we would presume that this will be a major part of the study.

Ok, the C27J offers better capability than the C295. It has ability to carry more L463 pallets and at full height which the C295 cannot. The cross section of the C295 is narrower and lower than that of the C27J hence any pallets going into the C295 have to be double handled and loaded to a lower height. This means that the pallets have to be turned 90 degrees from normal to be loaded length ways into the C295 and since the pallets cannot be loaded to full height extra pallets may be needed which could mean an extra sortie. Compared to the C295, the C27J has far longer range and lifting capability because of it's more powerful engines and greater fuel capacity. In a NZ and Pacific context that difference is quite important.

Ron Mark hasn't got his head past the 1990s thinking and into the 21st Century military and defence ethos and strategic thinking. NZDF is now focussed on a completely different mission since the 1990s and it actually has a long term out look. It now is starting to actually operate as an Expeditionary Force which it always as been; this being in the form of the Joint Amphibious Task Force. This means that it will have the maritime and airborne platforms required for it to perform that capability. I acknowledge that two important parts of it are missing (fast jet strike and rotary wing CAS) but the rest of the basics are in place and the skills are being acquired.

The C17 offers NZDF a very capable tool that, if acquired, will dramatically enhance its ability to deploy its JATF and other NZDF assets as required. Much of the equipment that NZDF now has no longer fits into the C130 Hercules hence the C130 no longer meets the strategic air transport capability requirement. This means that there are only two aircraft left to meet that requirement. The C17 which is now going out of production but a mature and proven platform in service with the USAF, RAF and RAAF plus a couple of other nations or the A400M which is very new, unproven beset by delivery problems and hasn't achieved IOC yet. The NZG has stated that it will not purchase platforms that are not mature and not reached FOC with any of our friends or partners. IMHO the C17 offers us the best choice for Strategic Air Lift and we will get our monies worth out of it, just as we have with the C130s.

The C17s are not the only aircraft replacing the C130 / B757 / B200 aircraft. A C27J type aircraft may be acquired but until the study is finished w just don't know. The only reason the C17 has come to light is because of the Minister and the fact that the white tails have a finite and ever diminishing amount of purchase time left on them.

Addition: Amphibious now doesn't just mean its traditional definition of manoeuvre from the sea to out flank an enemy, but can also mean manoeuvre from the air to out flank an enemy. Think about C17s and A400s landing forces well behind enemy lines in the outback and establishing a beach head from which to force the enemy to divide his forces or to respond.

Just as a note, the C17 with a full load (164,900lb) needs a 3,500ft x 90ft runway to take off; the A400 with a full load (81,570lb) needs exactly the same; The C130J-30 with a full load ((40,000lb) needs a 5,000ft x 80ft runway to take off. Now I saw that on a graphic on another site so I'll try and hunt down the original.

I think you've hit the nail on the head with regards to the requirements and benefits of the C17 vs the type of equipment the NZDF now operates.

The benefits the C27 offers in terms of cargo I thinks needs to balanced against the how critical the medium MPA role is. Potentially with some work (in a risk adverse NZDF for capital purchases) the modular FITS capability could be fitted for a basic MPA (Similar to the F-27 of the 1980's) to the C27. However the proposed reduction in numbers to 4 P8 will force I think a look at more dedicated medium range MPA aircraft and this I think is where the C-295 might win out given its multirole capability.

 

[ngatimozart]

An update on the C17 production and how many remain unsold. The final C17 is being produced now and is expected off the production line and will be finished during this northern summer. As of 28/1/2015 there are seven unsold C17 aircraft remaining with the final aircraft expected to be sold in 2017. Boeing’s last Long Beach-made C-17 to be sold in 2017

 

[shanes_world_05]

An update on the C17 production and how many remain unsold. The final C17 is being produced now and is expected off the production line and will be finished during this northern summer. As of 28/1/2015 there are seven unsold C17 aircraft remaining with the final aircraft expected to be sold in 2017. Boeing’s last Long Beach-made C-17 to be sold in 2017

Well we only need 5 but we better get all seven since there's a war coming (seriously though we should find the money from somewhere regardless where for 3. I mean social welfare, education, health whatever as when we need to evac. foreign based kiwi's nothing else will do).

To be honest I would be very surprised if the govt acted fast enough for these before other nations bought them. Having said that these C-17's could qualify as a govt limousine for one portly minister and those are acted on pretty quickly.

Also I thought the C-17 was a adequate replacement for the C-130 seven or more years ago (when the C-130 SLEP was being initiated) but thought you guys would rubbish me on it because of such a massive leap in capability and cost but now it being of serious thought it shows how much the world has changed.

 

[MrConservative]

Well we only need 5 but we better get all seven since there's a war coming (seriously though we should find the money from somewhere regardless where for 3. I mean social welfare, education, health whatever as when we need to evac. foreign based kiwi's nothing else will do).

To be honest I would be very surprised if the govt acted fast enough for these before other nations bought them. Having said that these C-17's could qualify as a govt limousine for one portly minister and those are acted on pretty quickly.

Also I thought the C-17 was a adequate replacement for the C-130 seven or more years ago (when the C-130 SLEP was being initiated) but thought you guys would rubbish me on it because of such a massive leap in capability and cost but now it being of serious thought it shows how much the world has changed.

I dont think it was giving you stick over capability Shane but the sheer cost of C-17s in those days with a weaker NZD plus there was a resession 7-8 years ago on top of that.

Bear in mind that there is some encouragement from the US DoD and State Department for the NZDF to have these aircraft due to the US pivot into Asia. That ethos is actively endorsed by the Australian Government. More C-17s in the Asia-Pacific region being the prime regional benefit.

The beauty of the C-17 in the NZDF context is that just 2 of them will swallow up the strategic role of the B757 and the pro-rata tasking in the strategic role of the C-130H.

For example the UTE ratios and tasked annual hours for the C-17 are far better than the C-130. Two C-17s are reasonably possible in my view and would provide a massive increase in our strategic lift capability alone as part of our overall spectrum. However three C-17s though completely plausible may be a little too wishful at $400m a pop and due to stuff like favourable UTEs and modelling the effect of a couple of extra flight crews would alleviate that 3rd airframe before they would then consider it. Plus the fact that 40 Sqd is very good at sustainably managing their assets. Also we must factor in any trans-tasman dimension to all of this. It is not beyond reasoning that the RNZAF could share one or possibly both of the two RAAF ''optioned'' C-17s on a pro-rata basis and that aircraft sees plenty of NZ sky time possibly during the higher tempo periods.

I also consider that it will either be an all US solution or an all European solution to solve the NZDF air mobility issue. Im putting the C-27J in the US camp per the Lockheed association. Thus a C-17/C-27J mix (C-130J as an alternate if recognised as a better solution in the tactical role) or an A400M / C-295M mix. I am leaning towards the relationship politics side of it being a factor which means that the C-17/C-27J mix is more logical. Still the European consortium could make a serious offer - but it would have to be a very good one to get over the "value" of our local team relationships viz US and OZ. The A400 may well be cheaper (it is still NZD$260m remember), but what has not been nailed down is the lifetime support costs. There is still some fluidity and risk with them on the long term contractual side. At least with the C-17 there is maturity in not just the in the platform itself but also in the support side.

Cheers MrC

 

[t68]

Well we only need 5 but we better get all seven since there's a war coming (seriously though we should find the money from somewhere regardless where for 3. I mean social welfare, education, health whatever as when we need to evac. foreign based kiwi's nothing else will do).

To be honest I would be very surprised if the govt acted fast enough for these before other nations bought them. Having said that these C-17's could qualify as a govt limousine for one portly minister and those are acted on pretty quickly.

Also I thought the C-17 was a adequate replacement for the C-130 seven or more years ago (when the C-130 SLEP was being initiated) but thought you guys would rubbish me on it because of such a massive leap in capability and cost but now it being of serious thought it shows how much the world has changed.

He he there's always a war coming some where in the world, but seriously 5 C17 no, three should be your minimum but you most likly get away with two, if I remember correctly the RAAF ran into sustainment issues when we only had four aircraft few years down the track as they were used heavily, but I can't see you using them to that degree, but then again your conops will invariably change once the equipment becomes the norm

C17 is the 757 replacement not the C130 replacement. The tasks include the deployment of personnel and equipment, aeromedical evacuation and rapid response support to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations, these tasking are conducted globally, from Antarctica, throughout the Pacific and within Europe and the USA.the only task that it really miss the mark on is VIP work.

For the VIP work and to save upfront costs should be a leased to Boeing 737BBJ

 

[Reaver]

Thus a C-17/C-27J mix (C-130J as an alternate if recognised as a better solution in the tactical role) or an A400M / C-295M mix. I am leaning towards the relationship politics side of it being a factor which means that the C-17/C-27J mix is more

Has the C-27J been "Militarily Certified" (as opposed to civilian certified by FAA) by any agency recognisied by the NZDF Airworthiness Authority? I think you will find that the RAAF are having a number of certification issues as they expected the USAF to certifiy the aircrafts military roles, but once the USAF cancelled their acquisition they halted all certification activities. I understand that the RAAF certification program has blown out in scope, budget and timeframe. If the NZDF purchased C-27Js we would have to self certify (huge effort required) or wait for RAAF to complete. Neither option is ideal as the NH90 certification program has shown i.e. the SAR role has only just released allowing for the retirement of the Huey

For this reason and the commonality of the C-295MPA as a solution for FASC I think (noting the reduced cargo flexability that NG high lighted in his post) that a C-17/C295 mix will be the solution to the NZDFs fixed wing fleet requirements

2 x C-17 (41 SQN based at Ohakea)
8 x C295 (40 SQN)
8 x C295 ISR (1 SQN based at Auckland)
8 x C295MPA (5 SQN)

The bait is now in the water, let the fishing begin

 

[MrConservative]

In the post 2020 timeframe those possible C-27Js that may appear on the RNZAF inventory cert issues wont be a current problem. Relationship politics will be significant which extends to P-3 replacements as well - in fact more so.

 

[RLP32a]

Correction required

[
Ok, the C27J offers better capability than the C295. It has ability to carry more L463 pallets and at full height which the C295 cannot. The cross section of the C295 is narrower and lower than that of the C27J hence any pallets going into the C295 have to be double handled and loaded to a lower height. This means that the pallets have to be turned 90 degrees from normal to be loaded length ways into the C295 and since the pallets cannot be loaded to full height extra pallets may be needed which could mean an extra sortie. Compared to the C295, the C27J has far longer range and lifting capability because of it's more powerful engines and greater fuel capacity. In a NZ and Pacific context that difference is quite important.
The above statements are flatly incorrect and misleading. Both the C-27J and C295 require the pallet to be "turned 90 degrees from normal" (this assumes "normal" is the C-130 configuration) prior to being loaded into the aircraft. Furthermore, the C295 can load five 463L 88x108 Nato Standard Pallets, while the C-27J can only load three of the same pallets. Finally, the greater fuel capacity of the C-27J is required because of the greater fuel consumption. The range of the two aircraft is about the same - approximately 3000 nm.

 

[40 deg south]

Hi

I must say that, from this remote location, I do feel quite proud of the progress that the NZDF has made towards the objective of being able to deploy and sustain a viable combat force. While it is sad to see the RNZAF as a shadow of it's former self and the Navy reduced to two combat vessels, but the progress towards the integration of the three services seems to be a far cry from what it seemed to be in my day.... bits of everything, obsolete gear and none of it much use for anything.

I particularly enjoy following the progress of capital procurements which, by and large, seem to be executed with a certain degree of smarts.... certainly more so than some ADF projects.

NIcely said, Bloke.

I agree that NZ has managed some recent acquisitions very well - the standouts for me being the MAN trucks and Beechcraft trainers.I hope they can keep up the good work - there are a fair few major acquisitions either underway or due soon.

One overlooked advantage NZ has in this area is the relative absence of a domestic defence industry. This has allowed the NZ government to focus on buying what NZDF needs, rather than using defence spending as a regional vote-buying scheme. If this sounds harsh, consider much of the commentary around the RAN's submarine replacement programme. In the eyes of many, the needs of the navy seem to come a distant second to the desire to keep a bunch of shipyard workers employed.

Or the Steyr replacement programme - NZ is trialling about seven rifles from seven different countries. With that pool to choose from, they should be able to select something affordable that meets NZ's needs. As far as I know, Australia is considering a choice of just one weapon, and it will be built in Lithgow, NSW. Love it or loath it, they will get it anyway barring some major deficiency.

 

[40 deg south]

Airbus Expects New A400M Export Sale in 2015

Defence News article an A400M that mentions NZ. I'm still surprised Airbus aren't bringing it to NZ post-Avalon airshow. Perhaps the French military need it back in a hurry?

 

[t68]

Airbus Expects New A400M Export Sale in 2015

Defence News article an A400M that mentions NZ. I'm still surprised Airbus aren't bringing it to NZ post-Avalon airshow. Perhaps the French military need it back in a hurry?

Well whatever aircraft is chosen it also will act as an ambassadors for New Zealand
goverment and it's intent in the international community, one only has to look at the impressive nature of the RAAF C17 and the goodwill it provides since coming onto service,

2007 HADR to Port Moresby for cyclone Guba
2008 HADR to Burma for Cyclone Nargis
2009 HADR to Samoa for earthquake
2009 HADR to Indonesia for the Sumatra earthquakes
2010 HADR to Pakistan for flooding
2011 Over 450 tons of supplies for both the Queensland and Victoria flooding
2011 HADR New Zealand for the Christchurch earthquake
2011 HADR to Japan for Tohoku earthquake and tsunami
2012 HADR to Fiji/Samoa for Cyclone Evan
2013 HADR to the Philippines for Typhoon Hayain
2014 to Netherlands to help form an airbridge for MH17
2014 HA to Amerli Iraq to help Shiite Muslims fleaing from daesh

But as you can see the global nature of HADR is vast and complicated and has enormous impact for our close neighbours as well

 

[John Fedup]

Airbus Expects New A400M Export Sale in 2015

Defence News article an A400M that mentions NZ. I'm still surprised Airbus aren't bringing it to NZ post-Avalon airshow. Perhaps the French military need it back in a hurry?

More likely they know the C-17 is going to be NZ's choice.

 

[MrConservative]

For this reason and the commonality of the C-295MPA as a solution for FASC I think (noting the reduced cargo flexability that NG high lighted in his post) that a C-17/C295 mix will be the solution to the NZDFs fixed wing fleet requirements

2 x C-17 (41 SQN based at Ohakea)
8 x C295 (40 SQN)
8 x C295 ISR (1 SQN based at Auckland)
8 x C295MPA (5 SQN)

The bait is now in the water, let the fishing begin

I very much doubt the NZG will consider 24 x C295 variants. The ISR versions alone are north of Euro 100m these days. It wont have that much commonality on the relationship politics side of things with the clue being ISR. A huge increase in crews required and training issues on top of that so 42 Sqd must have to grow considerably to cater for that.

 

[ngatimozart]

Has the C-27J been "Militarily Certified" (as opposed to civilian certified by FAA) by any agency recognisied by the NZDF Airworthiness Authority? I think you will find that the RAAF are having a number of certification issues as they expected the USAF to certifiy the aircrafts military roles, but once the USAF cancelled their acquisition they halted all certification activities. I understand that the RAAF certification program has blown out in scope, budget and timeframe. If the NZDF purchased C-27Js we would have to self certify (huge effort required) or wait for RAAF to complete. Neither option is ideal as the NH90 certification program has shown i.e. the SAR role has only just released allowing for the retirement of the Huey

For this reason and the commonality of the C-295MPA as a solution for FASC I think (noting the reduced cargo flexability that NG high lighted in his post) that a C-17/C295 mix will be the solution to the NZDFs fixed wing fleet requirements

2 x C-17 (41 SQN based at Ohakea)
8 x C295 (40 SQN)
8 x C295 ISR (1 SQN based at Auckland)
8 x C295MPA (5 SQN)

The bait is now in the water, let the fishing begin

So some chum in the water to see what it attracts - anything from whitebait to a great white

I think that you will find that the C27J has been militarily certified because it has operated in Afghanistan by the USAF, albeit somewhat begrudgingly, so that shouldn't be an issue. Secondly by the time (if) we got the aircraft the RAAF will have them IOC, if not FOC and that takes care of that issue anyway.

There is a precedent of 40 Sqn operating two distinct types of aircraft with the Hastings, C130s and DC6s in the 1960s, the C130s and B727s from 1981 - 2003 and currently the C130s and B757s. Hence there is no logical reason to form a new sqn or reactivate a sqn to operate two aircraft. It would be a waste of money and resources. Secondly the MPA and ISR capabilities can be combined into a single platform becoming a MMA, such as the P8, again a cost and resource saving solution. The USCG is at present adding MPA capability to the C27J platform, therefore by the time we would be in the position of ordering a 2nd tier MPA to supplement the 1st tier MMA (if it is decided to do so) then the USCG will have already integrated all the sensors. Adding and integrating ISR sensors should not create to many problems if a company who is expert in the field is utilised, such as IAI

Therefore numbers wise I think that the following would be a really good force structure:

• 2 x C17
• 3 x C130J
• 6 x C27J
• 6 x C27J MMA
• 6 x P8 MMA

I understand that it has been claimed that we will only obtain 4 x P8, however numbers have a quality of their own and even though the P8s capabilities are distinct levels above that of the P3s, those qualities in such a small number of aircraft will not cancel the negative consequences of a lack of numbers. The C130J, I suggest, is a "bridge" that can cover both the tactical and strategic role and there is a synergy in that the cockpits and engines of the C130Js and C27Js are the same. I suggest the C27J MMA because there will be situations where that is more practical to utilise than an expensive P8. Also with tanking or long range fuel tanks the C27J MMA would b easier to operate from Pegasus field in Antarctica than a P8. The engines on the P8 are quite low slung and subject to FOD by ingestion.

 

[KiwiRob]

More likely they know the C-17 is going to be NZ's choice.

They better hurry up if they want to order any UAE has just ordered two. Lord only knows why they need 8?

UAE military buys two Boeing C-17s as part of record IDEX spend | Reuters

Also with tanking or long range fuel tanks the C27J MMA would b easier to operate from Pegasus field in Antarctica than a P8. The engines on the P8 are quite low slung and subject to FOD by ingestion.

Low slung engines hasn't stopped Boeing selling 8400 of them (737) and counting. 737's have also flown to Antartica, has anyone flown a C27J there?

PrivatAir Boeing 737 Landed In Antarctica | PrivatAir | Global leader in business aviation

 

[Nick underscore]

...the MPA and ISR capabilities can be combined into a single platform becoming a MMA, such as the P8, again a cost and resource saving solution. ..Adding and integrating ISR sensors should not create to many problems if a company who is expert in the field is utilised

Therefore numbers wise I think that the following would be a really good force structure:

• 2 x C17
• 3 x C130J
• 6 x C27J
• 6 x C27J MMA
• 6 x P8 MMA

I understand that it has been claimed that we will only obtain 4 x P8, however numbers have a quality of their own and even though the P8s capabilities are distinct levels above that of the P3s, those qualities in such a small number of aircraft will not cancel the negative consequences of a lack of numbers. The C130J, I suggest, is a "bridge" that can cover both the tactical and strategic role and there is a synergy in that the cockpits and engines of the C130Js and C27Js are the same. I suggest the C27J MMA because there will be situations where that is more practical to utilise than an expensive P8. Also with tanking or long range fuel tanks the C27J MMA would b easier to operate from Pegasus field in Antarctica than a P8. The engines on the P8 are quite low slung and subject to FOD by ingestion.

C-27J MMA or MQ-4C? When considering costs.

Realistically, 2 x C-17, 7 x C-27J & 5 x P-8A + Triton (4) - strategic lift being Hi/Lo mix. If 3 x C-130J's are in the mix, then cut the 27J's down to 5.

Are the RNZAF actually looking at UAS? Could a Triton operate from Pegasus Field?

 

[MrConservative]

They better hurry up if they want to order any UAE has just ordered two. Lord only knows why they need 8?

UAE military buys two Boeing C-17s as part of record IDEX spend | Reuters



Low slung engines hasn't stopped Boeing selling 8400 of them (737) and counting. 737's have also flown to Antartica, has anyone flown a C27J there?

PrivatAir Boeing 737 Landed In Antarctica | PrivatAir | Global leader in business aviation

I understand that these were ordered last year and were undisclosed until IDEX. Yes 8 seems quite a lot but they have to spend their money on something I suppose. It is not like they have a large welfare state to support. NZ$820m for the pair and I suspect that they probably picked up another PW2000 and further support with this buy.

I think B73's and C27's down to the Ice are a moot point in the RNZAF context.

Seven whitetails left and around 6 weeks to the budget.

 

[MrConservative]

C-27J MMA or MQ-4C? When considering costs.

Realistically, 2 x C-17, 7 x C-27J & 5 x P-8A + Triton (4) - strategic lift being Hi/Lo mix. If 3 x C-130J's are in the mix, then cut the 27J's down to 5.

They are paying attention to it (UAS) but looking at it is a bit further down the track. Again like the C-17 and the forthcoming P-8 in OZ service they will be kept informed of their experiences and then decide to pony up. UAS/BAMS is a long termer in our context and would be to complement the P-8 (Or its little brother - but that cannot do the killer role.) A couple of C-17s in the strat role and sufficent tacticals and lights twin ala B350ER to cross role MEPT/AWO et al / local VIP and inner EEZ surveillance. The respective studies should reveal the numbers however.

 

[40 deg south]

I understand that these were ordered last year and were undisclosed until IDEX. Yes 8 seems quite a lot but they have to spend their money on something I suppose. It is not like they have a large welfare state to support. NZ$820m for the pair and I suspect that they probably picked up another PW2000 and further support with this buy.

I think B73's and C27's down to the Ice are a moot point in the RNZAF context.

Seven whitetails left and around 6 weeks to the budget.

Meanwhile, Janes are reporting from Avalon that the NZ air transport study will be completed by the end of 2015. Hope we don't spend too long thinking about it and miss the boat.

I am agnostic about C17 vs. A400m, both have strengths and weaknesses.Having two strong contenders should make it possible for NZ to get a better deal. Worst possible scenario is NZ dithers, misses out on the white tails, then is screwed on price/support by Airbus.

 

[John Fedup]

Meanwhile, Janes are reporting from Avalon that the NZ air transport study will be completed by the end of 2015. Hope we don't spend too long thinking about it and miss the boat.

I am agnostic about C17 vs. A400m, both have strengths and weaknesses.Having two strong contenders should make it possible for NZ to get a better deal. Worst possible scenario is NZ dithers, misses out on the white tails, then is screwed on price/support by Airbus.

The strength to weakness ratio is much better for the C-17 at present and even if Airbus manages to sort all the outstanding issues with the A400M, the C-17 will still represent better value for money IMO. I don't understand Canada's purchase of one additional C-17, it should have been at least two.