Or it could be that they have a fairly good idea of the future strategic airlift requirements and that they are needing to refine the tactical side of the equation with respect to the C-17 or A400M and the disposal timeframe of the current fleet.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
I disagree because they have operated P3s out of there before and there is no real logical reason why they couldn't operate MPA / MMA out of there in the future as long as the aircraft are unarmed.
The engines on the B737 series aircraft are relatively closer to the ground than on other aircraft such as the Airbus A31X and A32X aircraft. The airstrip that the B737 landed at in Antarctica was well inland at Troll Research Station at an altitude of 1,275 meters (4,183 ft) above sea level and on the opposite side of the continent. Pegasus field is a blue ice field with an elevation of 5m above sea level and on the coast. The Ice runway is on the glacial ice shelf and has an elevation of 0m above sea level. Compared to the inland air strip, the area is subject to warmer air temps and has issues of ice melt and slush. Also the sea water temperature is warming so that has an effect on the air temperature which has an effect upon the ice.
Because the B737 engines are closer to the ground than other gas turbine aircraft, they have higher risk of FOD damage due to ingestion of foreign objects into the engine. A 1 cent coin can completely wreck an engine. Hence it's nothing to discard lightly. It doesn't really matter if a C27J hasn't been flown down there before because it can be done. It will have done a cold weather test for its certification so numbers will be known.
It is a moot point because I doubt that they will do it with a very expensive P-8.
If there is future concern about maritime ISR in the far reaches of the Southern Ocean that merits it on policy considerations - Triton is the eventual solution operating from mainland NZ or but unlikely a smaller generic UAS system flown down to the ice inside a C-17 that has permission to operate from what is a US controlled field.
Ideally Four P-8s complemented with 3 Triton airframes + ground system integrated into the USN led BAMS network for maritime ISR alongside our Aussie cousoins in the high role. Inner EEZ patrol via a generic MOTS mission moduled light twin in the low role for MAOT duties.
By the time the real overall costs of a tricked up C-27J or C-295 MPA with support they are getting into the cost/capability death zone with respect to the Triton.
Nick underscore
Member
Fully agree on both points.
Which brings me back to your previous response. Why look at UAS further down the track? The saving could be made far sooner, or is this down to 'learning the lessons' of a partner?
Does the MQ-4C fully utilised in its BAMS/ MMA role, have a key dependency on the P-8A platform and systems? As that might answer my question.
I think less than a 4/3 mix is unwise
I know all this, but it doesn't stop airlines operating 737's. I've seen 737 engine hoover up slushy snow and ice at airports in Norway and Russia, which probably isn't much different than landing on ice runways in Antarctica. As for C27 with anywhere near a decent load it's going to have range issues which will prevent it from operating to the ice.
From Wikipedia
Range: 1,852 km (1,151 mi; 1,000 nmi) with 10,000 kilograms (22,000 lb) payload
Range at 6,000 kg payload: 4,260 km (2,650 mi; 2,300 nmi)
Ferry range: 5,926 km (3,682 mi; 3,200 nmi)
Oh no! The curse of misleadingly accurate conversions from one unit to another.
I wonder what the margin of error on 1000 nautical miles range with a 10000 kg payload is? Certainly a lot more than 1 mile, or even 2 kilometres. Someone applied four figure accuracy conversion factors to a number accurate to probably no more than two significant figures.
Not really your fault, since I'm sure you merely copied the numbers, but I hate spurious accuracy. I've seen whole numbers of metres converted to the nearest tenth of an inch, & round numbers of feet (to the nearest ten) converted to the nearest centimetre. It's misleading.
I wonder what the margin of error on 1000 nautical miles range with a 10000 kg payload is? Certainly a lot more than 1 mile, or even 2 kilometres. Someone applied four figure accuracy conversion factors to a number accurate to probably no more than two significant figures.
Not really your fault, since I'm sure you merely copied the numbers, but I hate spurious accuracy. I've seen whole numbers of metres converted to the nearest tenth of an inch, & round numbers of feet (to the nearest ten) converted to the nearest centimetre. It's misleading.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
The down side of Triton (or similar unmanned systems) is that they are very specialised. Great if you need long-endurance surveillance. Not so good if you need to drop a life raft to a sinking yacht, or deliver medical supplies to an outlying atoll.
This isn't a concern to the US Navy, who have a separate Coastguard for these types of tasks. To the NZ govt, the ability to multi-task might tip the balance towards manned platforms over Triton-type UAVs.
Just a thought.
Very much down to learning the lessons of a partner. That being Australia and the interdependency that comes from mutually synergenic platform(s) is the essential aspect of that. A 4/3 mix also needs to be put into the context of the wider regional significance of the increasingly close relationship of the Australian and NZ governments under CDR. The Anzac countries would have 10 Tritons and 12 P-8s with the option of 4 more. Not unlike if NZ picks the C-17 we will see 10 and possibly up to 12 or 13 in our part of the globe.
It is not their role. Their role is to put the B into BAMS. Should that be important to us? Very much so in an increasingly data centric world at the NatSec level and our physical and geo-political context in that world. Other assets in the inventory can do the dropping a life raft to yachties - no other asset puts the B in BAMS quite like the Triton. The multi-role thing has certain limits.
Nick underscore
Member
Ha!
I smirked reading this. I had the feeling this would be the case. Then as you said 'pony up' now and we can learn together
I 100% agree on pooling these ANZAC assets for BAMS / MMA, as this (another good point by yourself) needs to tap into the wider integrated network (US/AUS/NZ). BUT, I say this as long as the original platform purchases are clear from the outset. i.e. NZ must purchase the C-17 and Triton. I'm not sold on the idea of one-way 'loaning' RAAF C-17's (or Tritons) from our pool.
As you said, those numbers do look very capable from a combined perspective
Note; Those x4 RAAF options will be taken up, as I'm sure you know too.
I am certainly against one way loaning Nick - caused by NZ's past under investment (and even disinvestment) in vital areas that had regional repercussions. Your concerns are legitimate as it has happened in the recent past and the burden was placed at the feet of the ADF.Ha!
I smirked reading this. I had the feeling this would be the case. Then as you said 'pony up' now and we can learn together
I 100% agree on pooling these ANZAC assets for BAMS / MMA, as this (another good point by yourself) needs to tap into the wider integrated network (US/AUS/NZ). BUT, I say this as long as the original platform purchases are clear from the outset. i.e. NZ must purchase the C-17 and Triton. I'm not sold on the idea of one-way 'loaning' RAAF C-17's (or Tritons) from our pool.
As you said, those numbers do look very capable from a combined perspective
Note; Those x4 RAAF options will be taken up, as I'm sure you know too.
There are a number of areas where the ANZAC nations can complement and enhance each other and achieve greater strategic weight through the advantages of economies of scale - Airlift & logistics, ISR, surface combatants et al. I think we will eventually pony up though the timeframes are out of synch for us to frontend it now with the ADF with respect to the P-3K2 replacement.
There really should be a trans-tasman statement of intent beyond CDR memorandums of understanding, that both nations could contribute to as guideline for a future Anzac defence framework that seeks to leverage capabilities and acquistion programs to work together better.
NG, USAF operated C27As for the Afgan Airforce. Certification of the C27J cannot be "read accross" from the A as they are totally different capabilities. Yes if the RAAF have no issues with certification then yes we can use their findings to attain a NZDF certification, however this was the same strategy as we used for the NH90 and look how well that worked out. The RAAF were expecting the USAF to carry out the majority of the certification work and that has not happened so do you think this might lead to delays in their certification programme? People tend to gloss over un-sexy project activities like certification, training packages, thru life support and focus on the big shiney Aircraft rolling of the production line yet 9 times out of 10 it is those issues that determine the sucess of the Project i.e. if you cannot certify a Capability you cannot use a Capability
Your list of platforms is certainly impressive, however does it fit within the FASC/FAMC DCP budget? If not what is the total $ required and where is the extra money coming from? What would you drop to fund it? LOSC, NEA, LTCP? Or is it a case of asking the Govt for more money just after DMRR set the long term Capital Budget (that will look good)
My vision of 2 C-17s and 24 C295s (including 2 Flight Sims & 1 Mission Sim) fits within the DCP budget. Yes the PERSEX budget will have to increase a extra $10M PA required for additional Aircrew that Mr C identified but maybe you could outsourse the ILM maintenance (thus reducing the number of uniformed technicians required) to make it cost neutral.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The RCAF's preferred choice for the much delayed Fixed wing SAR plane is the C-27. If this were to happen then Canada would have to get involved in the certification process and perhaps some costs could be shared. However, this purchase is not happening this year and the choice is not certain.
No I haven't costed them from individual budgets. I've put it up as a discussion point. Thank you for the info re: certification. I was given to understand that the squadron of C27s used in Afghanistan were C27J flying in USAF colours.
Whilst I could see advantages to a C17 and A400M mix with the C27J, I think that the idea or even thought of such would cause collective apoplexy in the Treasury resulting in the possible blowout of the health budget
Kiwi pollies are more attached to the public purse than most unless there is a distinct tangible advantage in it for them such as votes etc. Defence has a low priority in the Kiwi voters perspective so to the Kiwi pollie it doesn't rate as a vote catcher unless it is to be seen as wasteful so then it appeals to the vocal minority of peaceniks. The same group that uncle Helen used to politicise the F16 lease and enabled it to deep six the ACF.However things have apparently changed for the better, but the NZ public is very much security and defence blind and for an island nation shockingly sea blind so it's a bit of go figure
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Canadian voters see defence as a low priority as well. They have no trouble letting the U.S. pick up the sack and this will continue as long as the U.S. is willing.Whilst I could see advantages to a C17 and A400M mix with the C27J, I think that the idea or even thought of such would cause collective apoplexy in the Treasury resulting in the possible blowout of the health budget
However things have apparently changed for the better, but the NZ public is very much security and defence blind and for an island nation shockingly sea blind so it's a bit of go figure
Ocean1Curse
Member
I'm not sure how reliable this article is but in it David Donald says UAE officials confirmed on the last day of the IDEX show that UAE will acquire 2 more C-17.
With the 2 Australia are picking up it seems like there are 3 left.
I'm wondering if RNZAF doesn't pick them up. Are there any other buyers out there that would.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...eveals-new-c-17-and-helicopter-buys-idex-show
With the 2 Australia are picking up it seems like there are 3 left.
I'm wondering if RNZAF doesn't pick them up. Are there any other buyers out there that would.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...eveals-new-c-17-and-helicopter-buys-idex-show
How much are these C295s going to cost? Because I fear that the 8 ISR versions via Lockheed - the Dragonstar AML is going to very much surprise you cost wise. We would not consider anything less as it would be a leap backwards on current ISR capabilities. The Finns paid nearly Eur 112m per single ISR C-295 and iirc was an LM Dragonstar based solution and I am not sure even Phoenix Eye was fitted. Not cheap but something a country like Finland not able to be in the inner sanctum of P-8A ownership not requiring the capability of the of P-8I for those outside the inner sanctum) may be interested in. The vanilla MPA version alone is GBP50m as tabled by the UK Defence Select Committee to the UK HoC March 2012. A true cost not a manuacturers press release published on deagal.com. Also the PERSEX is not my only concern, it is finding, training and sustaining the more than 30 - 40 operational crews required to operate the sixteen ISR and MPA versions. The increased training dimension will impact on 42 Sqd and 14 Sqd and would require fleet expansion. Finally I do not think it is a convincing teir 1 solution going forward - especially within the context of a post 2020 environment and the significant though small part that NZ plays in wider ISR partnership alongside our traditional partners the US. CAN, Aust and the UK and I also believe it to be an inefficent and costly solution for the lower end EEZ Fisheries, SAR and Customs work. If you are seeking commonality that lower teir patrol capability it is better found on a B-350ER type platform mix which would also cover MEPT, AWOT, and VIP roles as well at a third of the OpEx and procured cost of a C295 MPA. NZ's ISR requirements are at the opposite ends of the spectrum and not the middle.
Boeing now say 7 whitetails left. These were evidently ordered last year and kept under wraps until IDEX last week for the big announcement. OZ has options for 2.