Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Reaver]

but some of us actually do have some understanding and knowledge of what we are talking about. We do realise and understand the costs involved far more than you realise and we are also aware of the political implications which we have discussed here and elsewhere.

NG I get it, you love the defence force and feel passionately about your opinions. You have been in the Defence Force and still have linkages into some areas. But trying to shut down others that you disagree with by questioning peoples motives/conclusions/outcomes by stating you know/understand more so just accept it, is not acceptable.

If you want to suggest that we mix & match unique sensors/weapon systems rather than buy off the shelf, certified systems then fine, that is your right. If you want to suggest that we buy multiple fleets without providing costs or explaining where the money is coming from then fine, that is your right, when you spout slogans such as "they do not have the range" without providing any details then that is your right but do not be suprised/threatened when others challange your opinions or break down your "strawman" arguments with facts and figures.

There is no right or wrong answers to the challanges the NZDF is facing, there are only multitudes of different opinions by people of various backgrounds and experiences and long may they continue to be expressed in this forum

 

[ngatimozart]

NG I get it, you love the defence force and feel passionately about your opinions. You have been in the Defence Force and still have linkages into some areas. But trying to shut down others that you disagree with by questioning peoples motives/conclusions/outcomes by stating you know/understand more so just accept it, is not acceptable.

If you want to suggest that we mix & match unique sensors/weapon systems rather than buy off the shelf, certified systems then fine, that is your right. If you want to suggest that we buy multiple fleets without providing costs or explaining where the money is coming from then fine, that is your right, when you spout slogans such as "they do not have the range" without providing any details then that is your right but do not be suprised/threatened when others challange your opionions or break down your "strawman" arguments.

There is no right or wrong answer to the challanges the NZDF is facing, there are only multitudes of different opinions and long may they continue to be expressed in this forum

No it's not strawman arguments and actually it's not about me liking NZDF. It's about the defence of the realm, the best we can get for our people we put in harms way, and about getting best value for the treasure that we have to expend nothing less. Regarding about me providing any details I actually did elucidate details of the C295 MPAs range specs when I commented on htbrsts post yesterday. Also I do presume that people have some basic research skills and know where to go to acquire such info but just to be pedantic: C295 specs, and Boeing P8. finally if you look at comments made on here and other fora, about the capabilities offered by the P8, you should understand that it does offer the NZG far greater capability than the C295 can do. It's not because we are fan boys, which definitely we aren't, but because we look at the capabilities that a platform can offer, especially in the long term. Not all of those capabilities are known in the open source literature for obvious reasons.

Buying off the shelf is ideal in that you get mature systems with hopefully all the bugs worked out. But it's not about just platforms. It's about capabilities, platforms and systems, then how capabilities work within systems as well. So one can argue, ultimately, it's all about systems; how these systems interact and the processes involved in those interactions. We have to get best bang for buck, to put it bluntly and whilst one platform may look ideal, because it costs less to acquire, in the long term the actual quantity required, to fulfill a capability, may not be cost effective in the long run, especially, when you have to acquire multiple variants, of that platform, to fill the capability and the platform doesn't meet the full requirements of the capability. It isn't an easy job and in fact hindered when, historically, successive NZGs are loath to spend upon defence. Again, part of that, that comes to the term I use sea blindness which NZ is really good at.

In an interdependent global economy, world trade flourishes with largely unrestricted access to the oceans. Seafaring nations have enjoyed such benefits for generations now so much so that the world's population takes maritime trade entirely for granted.

Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, First Sea Lord, recently referred to "sea blindness" being endemic in the UK and across the western world. He notes that 95 percent of global trade passes through nine vulnerable chokepoints. That geopolitical fact goes hand in glove with the Save the Royal Navy site, "Aiming to educate the public about Britain's need for strong naval forces and to raise awareness of the dangers of allowing the navy to decline."
Barrett Tillman: 2009, Fear and Loathing in the Post-Naval Era, USNI Proceedings Magazine - June 2009 Vol. 135/6/1,276.

So it's not one specific phenomenon but differing phenomena that account for NZDFs historical resource shortage. I also would suggest that now the current govt, MoD and NZDF are getting smart about procurement and the realisations may just have sunk in that cheap is not best and that all the bells and whistles don't necessarily meet the requirements as well. Those may have been learned from past procurement follies both by NZ govts and offshore govts. We but can live in hope.

 

[MrConservative]

5 SQN currently has 5 "Ops" crews and 1 "Training" crew for 6 airframes i.e. 1 crew per airframe. Both you and RegR seem to think there are multiple CAT qualified P-3K2 aircrew available to take up the slack once someone leaves. So why do you think it would be any different for the P8?

I have already explained that the PERSEX budget will increase by $9M per year to take into account the increase in crews (aiming for 1.5 crews per C295 & 2 crews per C-17).

Please rather than just spout slogans like "the C295 does not have the range, systems etc required by the NZDF that only P8 has" put some details about what range, performance is required, what systems are lacking in the C295, why 4 P8s are better than 16 C295 ISR/MPAs.

They are very different beasts. The P-8A in USN service conducts on around 800 hours per annum with a crew UTE ratio of 2. This is more than the 500-550 airframe hours most P-3 and C-295 operators utiliize. Operational USN P-3 crews are conducting around 400 afh p.a and C-295 MPA operators similar.

On your 1.5 ratio for the C-295 MPA that means 24 operational crews with how many crews under training? As I mentioned you are getting close to 30 crews if you want a sustainabile program. Therefore are you saying there is or will be 8000-8500 of budgeted hours of ISR/MPS on the horizon for 5 Sqd?

Again where and how are all these extra crews going to be found and trained? Knowing the context with respect to the struggle of 5 Sqd with its low crew UTE? You have failed to answer that and have been encouraged a number of times already.

How many extra training aircraft will be required for 42Sqd and 14Sqd knowing that MEPT & repatriated AWO is to be conducted? What are the costs for that? Where they included in your Persex budget - which you have still not either explained or have given any calculations? Again you have failed to address that issue nand have been encourage by others to do so.

Where did you get the additional $9m Persex figure from or at least how did you arrive at it ... we are still waiting for that?

Your figures for the costing of the C-295M and P-8? Where are these from? Posters have asked to see them as they are no doubt skeptical. The UK parliamentary defence select committee report of 2012 has the C-295 MPA at GBP50m per unit for full procurement cost and the P-8A at GBP150m. A dragonstar version ISR would in fact be north of the MPA figure. Would UK MoD principals and senior sirs lie to a PSC? I would trust those professional assessments more than yours to make ballpark forecast calculations. Thus I have no faith in your numbers.

Myself and other peoples criticism of the C-295 MPA in the context of an NZ long range teir 1 maritime ISR and warfare platform are not slogans. It is a very capable tier 2 aircraft in its role. But unlike the P-8A in an increment 2 or 3 version post 2025 it will never be in that context a 1st tier integrated air warfare asset that works with our closest security partner(s). There are plenty of open source documents on the P-8A capabilities. I would watch your posting tone as well. There are certain tag handles on DT which should give you a clue to the people who you are replying to. The scarcastic tone to NG about loving the NZDF was not needed.

 

[ngatimozart]

NG I get it, you love the defence force and feel passionately about your opinions. You have been in the Defence Force and still have linkages into some areas. But trying to shut down others that you disagree with by questioning peoples motives/conclusions/outcomes by stating you know/understand more so just accept it, is not acceptable.

If you want to suggest that we mix & match unique sensors/weapon systems rather than buy off the shelf, certified systems then fine, that is your right. If you want to suggest that we buy multiple fleets without providing costs or explaining where the money is coming from then fine, that is your right, when you spout slogans such as "they do not have the range" without providing any details then that is your right but do not be suprised/threatened when others challange your opinions or break down your "strawman" arguments with facts and figures.

There is no right or wrong answers to the challanges the NZDF is facing, there are only multitudes of different opinions by people of various backgrounds and experiences and long may they continue to be expressed in this forum

This is the second part of my reply.

Just because the current radars of the C295 MPA and the P3K2s may be the same or similar doesn't mean that when we acquire a new capability to utilise post 2025, until say 2060, that we continue with the same equipment or generation of equipment / technology that is for all intents and purposes already obsolete.

I'll use the home computer / cellphone / laptop analogy. You go to your local technology store and buy the latest and greatest computer / cellphone / laptop that has been manufactured in a factory somewhere, but by the time you buy it it is already obsolete because it has been superseded, in that some of the parts that make it up have been upgraded or superseded, usually the expensive important ones. That applies right across technology especially where computing is involved. You aren't going to buy the same computer / cellphone / laptop that you are replacing are you? The idea is to upgrade.

The P8 is a C5ISR ( Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Combat Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance), which the C295 most definitely isn't and would take much treasure to get to maybe C4ISR if they have the room and the power output. The point is that in acquiring the next capability platform we have to make sure we are at least one level advanced above what we have now technology wise and capability wise and that we future proof ourselves in the process. This is not just with this particular capability and these platforms, but in all our platform acquisitions. We are not in the position where we can afford to get it wrong.

 

[Reaver]

Myself and other peoples criticism of the C-295 MPA in the context of an NZ long range teir 1 maritime ISR and warfare platform are not slogans. It is a very capable tier 2 aircraft in its role. But unlike the P-8A in an increment 2 or 3 version post 2025 it will never be in that context a 1st tier integrated air warfare asset that works with our closest security partner(s). There are plenty of open source documents on the P-8A capabilities. I would watch your posting tone as well. There are certain tag handles on DT which should give you a clue to the people who you are replying to. The scarcastic tone to NG about loving the NZDF was not needed.

I could argue that the 24 crews include training crews, I could argue that by using a flight and mission sim flying hours would not have to dramatically increase, I could argue that the C295 could carry out AWO and MTEP training, I could agrue that due to increased numbers of aircrew recruiting would become easier due to the increase in certainty of courses and the end of hold over students. I could argue PERSEX and CAPEX costs but why bother

You are suggesting that the FASCs sole requirement is for a Tier 1 Maritime ISR and warfare platform so the P-8 is the only option and nothing else will do. If you are correct with your assumption then you are right and P8s will be rolling off the production line in RNZAF colours (numbers to be determined)

However I believe that a Tier 1 Maritime ISR platform is only one of many different and competing FASC requirements (affordablity, logistical, utility, flexability, capability) and there is a compromise required to meet the best fit (80% solution) between these differing requirements. I obvisouly believe that there are other platforms to the P8 that can achieve the aim of meeting the Governments requirements for a ASRF capability and the fact that these platforms can meet the FAMC requirement is a bonus. Time will tell who is correct

I have noticed that you and NG think that everything you say is gospel, and you have a special status that everyone should be subservient to. Comments such as we "understand more than you" when your posts show a lack of understanding of the basics of Capability development, Requirements definition, Better Business Case methodology, the SSC Gateway process, Integrated Logistics Support and Introduction into Service activities (certification, T&E, Trials & Developement etc) which are all the recent inititives brought about by the NZDF and MoD signing up to the Capability Management Framework. These are the activities that are carried out to determin which Platforms are purchased not reading the latest Janes Defence Weekly, those days have passed.

You are one poster with one opinion that has zero influence (unless you are the Minister) on the acquisition of future NZDF Cabability, just like me. Respect works both ways and is earned by the quality of your posts not by your tag handle or the number of posts, respect is quickly lost thru trying to bully others with threats and inuendos.

 

[Preceptor]

I have noticed that you and NG think that everything you say is gospel, and you have a special status that everyone should be subservient to. Comments such as we "understand more than you" when your posts show a lack of understanding of the basics of Capability development, Requirements definition, Better Business Case methodology, the SSC Gateway process, Integrated Logistics Support and Introduction into Service activities (certification, T&E, Trials & Developement etc) which are all the recent inititives brought about by the NZDF and MoD signing up to the Capability Management Framework. These are the activities that are carried out to determin which Platforms are purchased not reading the latest Janes Defence Weekly, those days have passed.

You are one poster with one opinion that has zero influence (unless you are the Minister) on the acquisition of future NZDF Cabability, just like me. Respect works both ways and is earned by the quality of your posts not by your tag handle or the number of posts, respect is quickly lost thru trying to bully others with threats and inuendos.

Indeed, the true test of a forum member is in the quality of their posts. However, handle tags do have some significance in that members have either been on and active for a bit (suggesting they know how to behave) or are current/former members of defence industry/service, and are thereof likely to have greater knowledge and understanding of context.

With respect to the quality of posts, it is expected that if members are going to make a post asserting something, even if it is their own, personal opinion, an explanation of why is expected, and/or factual information supporting such assertions. In your last few posts, statements have been made about what you feel is an appropriate replacement for the P-3K2 Orion, as well as what you consider to be an appropriate quantity for the replacement. You also seem to be of the opinion that in a post-2025 world, a Tier 1 MPA/ISR asset will not be needed by the NZDF. In short, lists of what should be acquired but no explanation of how or why that would meet service & mission requirements, or why the requirements can/will change, provide little to nothing which can be debated, thus not advancing the topic under discussion. Having or stating an opinion is fine, but failing to explain or justify said opinion is the mark of a poor quality post.

As for posting tone and behavior, that is something that DT is quite firm on. People can and do have differences in opinion, but are respectful about it. Directing sarcastic and insulting remarks at other members or Moderators, particularly when they disagree with you and either ask for explanations or provide their own explanation for the area of disagreement, in inappropriate. Improve your style of posting and engagement with other forum members. WARNING ISSUED.
-Preceptor

 

[MrConservative]

I could argue that the 24 crews include training crews, I could argue that by using a flight and mission sim flying hours would not have to dramatically increase, I could argue that the C295 could carry out AWO and MTEP training, I could agrue that due to increased numbers of aircrew recruiting would become easier due to the increase in certainty of courses and the end of hold over students. I could argue PERSEX and CAPEX costs but why bother

You are suggesting that the FASCs sole requirement is for a Tier 1 Maritime ISR and warfare platform so the P-8 is the only option and nothing else will do. If you are correct with your assumption then you are right and P8s will be rolling off the production line in RNZAF colours (numbers to be determined)

However I believe that a Tier 1 Maritime ISR platform is only one of many different and competing FASC requirements (affordablity, logistical, utility, flexability, capability) and there is a compromise required to meet the best fit (80% solution) between these differing requirements. I obvisouly believe that there are other platforms to the P8 that can achieve the aim of meeting the Governments requirements for a ASRF capability and the fact that these platforms can meet the FAMC requirement is a bonus. Time will tell who is correct

I have noticed that you and NG think that everything you say is gospel, and you have a special status that everyone should be subservient to. Comments such as we "understand more than you" when your posts show a lack of understanding of the basics of Capability development, Requirements definition, Better Business Case methodology, the SSC Gateway process, Integrated Logistics Support and Introduction into Service activities (certification, T&E, Trials & Developement etc) which are all the recent inititives brought about by the NZDF and MoD signing up to the Capability Management Framework. These are the activities that are carried out to determin which Platforms are purchased not reading the latest Janes Defence Weekly, those days have passed.

You are one poster with one opinion that has zero influence (unless you are the Minister) on the acquisition of future NZDF Cabability, just like me. Respect works both ways and is earned by the quality of your posts not by your tag handle or the number of posts, respect is quickly lost thru trying to bully others with threats and inuendos.

I find your attitude remarkably petulant. I have not once stated that I know more than you. I asked you to back up your assertations which you have not when I questioned you on them. I directly asked for clarification. That you have not speaks volumes.

You neither have demonstrated in ,my view any of the things you have accused me of. I do not have the time to start going on about the capability development process in detail, support issues, certification, systems integration and all the other things you have accused me of knowing nothing about, when reacting to your posts. I claim no technical expertise in those areas but a reasonable working knowlege in my job as an IR policy and research analyst who works with US, UK and Japanese professor level academics. Those are important things but in the scope and flow of a live forum thread which this is, when people react to questions or statements - people focus and respond quickly on the text at hand. But they are NOT the only considerations and you have neglected to pick that up.

I raised questions from what I see as flaws in your arguments pertaining to the NZDF buying sixteen C-295Ms. I am sorry you do not like being questioned, I am sorry that you react poorly to being challeneged, I am sorry that ythese questions have derailed your pet solution, as I am sorry that you were unable to respond in a mature and considered manner when given ample opportunity to do so.

And yes we are still waiting for an actual answer to the questions raised - but instead of responding you have undertaken petulant personal attacks.

Lastly, I have not solely said that the P-8 is the single solution. I have clearly supported a 2 tier solution for a direction for the P-3K2 replacement.

 

[ngatimozart]

I have noticed that you and NG think that everything you say is gospel, and you have a special status that everyone should be subservient to. Comments such as we "understand more than you" when your posts show a lack of understanding of the basics of Capability development, Requirements definition, Better Business Case methodology, the SSC Gateway process, Integrated Logistics Support and Introduction into Service activities (certification, T&E, Trials & Developement etc) which are all the recent inititives brought about by the NZDF and MoD signing up to the Capability Management Framework. These are the activities that are carried out to determin which Platforms are purchased not reading the latest Janes Defence Weekly, those days have passed.

You are one poster with one opinion that has zero influence (unless you are the Minister) on the acquisition of future NZDF Cabability, just like me. Respect works both ways and is earned by the quality of your posts not by your tag handle or the number of posts, respect is quickly lost thru trying to bully others with threats and inuendos.

It is unfortunate that you feel that Mr C and myself are of this opinion when it is far from the truth.

I served in the RNZAF in a support role as an other rank, not an officer and left after serving eight years. Then whilst I was at university I was in the RNZNVR for four years, again on the lower deck. I have a degree in Geography and a PGDip.Sci in Geography as well. Since then I have taken a very close interest in defence matters reading far more than Janes. I am also a follower of Socrates dictum of it's not what you know that is important but what you don't know that is important.

You do post some good material and your viewpoints are as important to us as anyone else's. I believe that one of strengths of DT is that it gives all of us the opportunity to learn and I have learned a lot from here just through the discussions that occur on here. It is a learning tool and I have learned things from material that you have posted. However, it has to be collegial where robust discussion can and should be held with people being respected. Most often that is the case, but like any group of homo sapiens you can have a personality clash. It happens. We don't have to agree on every thing but we should at least be civil in our dealings which is the expectation of most if not all on here.

Therefore I humbly suggest let's agree to disagree because I firmly believe you have much to offer on here and it would be, IMHO, a loss to this and other discussions on DT for your input to be lost to us.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Tier 1

Perhaps a useful starting point to get this discussion back on track would be to tease out some scenarios where range and loiter times are important, and what exactly you consider to be 'Tier 1' versus 'Tier 2.' The distinct impression I've have is that a 'tier' is about as much the perception of the person talking about it than anything else.

 

[Gracie1234]

I think that is a good idea Zero Alpha. Perhaps a discussion on what roles or scenarios can be achieved with what capabilities would be a good place to start. That way we can all get a good idea of what tier would represent in a NZ specific context. Now i better go do some thinking about what i just said.

 

[Lucasnz]

An interesting comparison between the C295 and C27 here. Not sure how accurate it is but clearly a preference for the C295. If it is accurate then based on the NZDF preference for evaluating whole of life costs then C295 wins in any 2 tier debate that combines the tactical lift role.

Gracie1234 and Zero Alpha my personal view of Tier 1 is that the P8 is a must if New Zealand is serious about developing the JATF and maintaining a grip on who is operating in the our sphere of influence. While evaluating scenarios is IMHO useful and helpful in developing capability requirements it does limit long term flexibility is followed blindly (which I don't think you're necessary alluding to). P8 as the Tier 1 capability provides long term flexibility in terms of its ability to adapt to strategic changes. My only concern with the P8 is numbers - I would prefer 5 in order to ensure sufficient operational numbers are maintained - 4 I think cuts things to fine, even with the increased availability mentioned by MrC earlier.

 

[ASSAIL]

An interesting comparison between the C295 and C27 here. Not sure how accurate it is but clearly a preference for the C295. If it is accurate then based on the NZDF preference for evaluating whole of life costs then C295 wins in any 2 tier debate that combines the tactical lift role.

Gracie1234 and Zero Alpha my personal view of Tier 1 is that the P8 is a must if New Zealand is serious about developing the JATF and maintaining a grip on who is operating in the our sphere of influence. While evaluating scenarios is IMHO useful and helpful in developing capability requirements it does limit long term flexibility is followed blindly (which I don't think you're necessary alluding to). P8 as the Tier 1 capability provides long term flexibility in terms of its ability to adapt to strategic changes. My only concern with the P8 is numbers - I would prefer 5 in order to ensure sufficient operational numbers are maintained - 4 I think cuts things to fine, even with the increased availability mentioned by MrC earlier.

from what I have read the comparison is a fanboy exercise which seems to compare the original specs of a G222 with the latest C 295 however there are others here who are more qualified to comment on the comparison.

Two of the most compelling arguments for the RAAF C 27J purchase are firstly, the engines, systems and glass cockpit are compatible with the C130J and secondly, the cabin is wider and taller and can fit army pallets and vehicles which could not be loaded in standard form with the C 295.

 

[Todjaeger]

An interesting comparison between the C295 and C27 here. Not sure how accurate it is but clearly a preference for the C295. If it is accurate then based on the NZDF preference for evaluating whole of life costs then C295 wins in any 2 tier debate that combines the tactical lift role.

Took a quick look, the info itself is basically garbage.

I did not check to see what were the accurate figures for the C-295, but the info for the C-27J Spartan is wrong in a negative sense. Per the ANG factsheet can carry 46 paratroopers + 2 loadmasters, yet the blog states that the C-27J can only carry 32. It also lists the C-27J as only able to carry 18 stretchers vs. the C-295's 24. Per the fact sheet, a C-27J configured as a medevac can airlift 36 stretchers and 6 medical attendants. With those errors, a failure to list how much cargo can be lifted and over what distance, then all else becomes suspect.

Reading the actual posts by the blogger reinforces the notion that the blogger is a fan of C-212, CN-235, and C-295 which AFAIK are all produced at the same Airbus Military facility. The blogger might advertise themselves as a "International Relations and Defense Expert" but the factual errors suggest otherwise.

 

[RegR]

from what I have read the comparison is a fanboy exercise which seems to compare the original specs of a G222 with the latest C 295 however there are others here who are more qualified to comment on the comparison.

Two of the most compelling arguments for the RAAF C 27J purchase are firstly, the engines, systems and glass cockpit are compatible with the C130J and secondly, the cabin is wider and taller and can fit army pallets and vehicles which could not be loaded in standard form with the C 295.

And those are major reasons for Australia to go C27J, the commonality and synergies afforded to their C130Js and that (along with the increased performance, cabin and US 'extras') justifies the added cost for them as it has cost/advantage benefits across both fleets. We however would not enjoy these added benefits unless of course Js were confirmed as successors to the Hs (which I can't see at the moment) therefore the larger price tag would not be as favourable in our case. sure we would have commonality with our closest ally in this area but again not enough for this particular capability to warrant IMO as we should be able to get more bang for our buck, coupled with a maritime version, going with the euro option.

The heavy option will no doubt take up the lions share of the allocated funds so we will be trying to get our moneys worth for the smaller gear in light of it's routine in nature taskings for NZDF. Whilst not perceived as perfect in some areas I feel fair trade offs considering VFM for possible numbers gained and overall capability covered off. No doubt Airbus will offer a package deal which could sway govt from a C17 or C27J option regardless of improved benefits and dependant on compromised (or not) requirements.

I think trade offs can be made whilst still achieving ultimate goals, just need to make some hard decisions soon and go with them.

 

[Todjaeger]

And those are major reasons for Australia to go C27J, the commonality and synergies afforded to their C130Js and that (along with the increased performance, cabin and US 'extras') justifies the added cost for them as it has cost/advantage benefits across both fleets. We however would not enjoy these added benefits unless of course Js were confirmed as successors to the Hs (which I can't see at the moment) therefore the larger price tag would not be as favourable in our case. sure we would have commonality with our closest ally in this area but again not enough for this particular capability to warrant IMO as we should be able to get more bang for our buck, coupled with a maritime version, going with the euro option.

The heavy option will no doubt take up the lions share of the allocated funds so we will be trying to get our moneys worth for the smaller gear in light of it's routine in nature taskings for NZDF. Whilst not perceived as perfect in some areas I feel fair trade offs considering VFM for possible numbers gained and overall capability covered off. No doubt Airbus will offer a package deal which could sway govt from a C17 or C27J option regardless of improved benefits and dependant on compromised (or not) requirements.

I think trade offs can be made whilst still achieving ultimate goals, just need to make some hard decisions soon and go with them.

Something to keep in mind with respect to the C-295 and C-27J, the max cargo weight of a C-27J is ~2,250 kg greater. Also the C-27J has a greater range (~300 n miles or) than the C-295 while carrying the same or a slightly greater cargo load. Per the Airbus Military site's C-295 spec page here, a C-295 at max payload of 9,250 kg can go ~700 n miles. Per the ANG C-27J factsheet here, a C-27J at just over 10,000 kg can go ~1,000 n miles.

What might be a more significant advantage for the C-27J is that they have a greater floor strength than a C-295 (same floor strength as a C-130) and greater cargo bay height and width (again, same as C-130) which means while a C-27J might be able to carry fewer cargo pallets than a C-295 due to shorter overall length of the cargo bay, the pallets themselves can be larger and heavier. Depending on just what the lift mission is, this could mean there is less or no need to repackage a cargo pallet as the pallet gets taken off a strategic airlifter and gets loaded onto a tactical airlifter.

This might, or might not be relevant for the NZDF, but the significance of the potential for less handling of cargo in transit IMO should not be overlooked. Needing to breakdown an repack a load at a FOB so that a tactical airlifter can transport the load into the field can delay how long loads get into the hands of those who might need whatever the load is made up of.

-Cheers

 

[Nick underscore]

TC Pam on Rep of Vanuatu could be a major HADR in the coming days once assessments are made. Could this be the event that triggers a NZ C-17 announcement in the long run?

No reports on major damage yet (particularly in Vila), but this one doesn't look good and Aus and NZ will have to step in with major assistance if required.

 

[ngatimozart]

TC Pam on Rep of Vanuatu could be a major HADR in the coming days once assessments are made. Could this be the event that triggers a NZ C-17 announcement in the long run?

No reports on major damage yet (particularly in Vila), but this one doesn't look good and Aus and NZ will have to step in with major assistance if required.

There are unconfirmed reports of major damage in Vila and loss of life especially on outer islands. Loss of life put at ~44. I don't know whether or not that this event will trigger a C17 announcement but a cynical pollie could see the synergies in using the event as an illustration for procurement of C17s and TBH the C17 is a great HADR platform.

Update: Vila has been devastated by the cyclone.

Graphic for cyclone track

 

[ADMk2]

An interesting comparison between the C295 and C27 here. Not sure how accurate it is but clearly a preference for the C295. If it is accurate then based on the NZDF preference for evaluating whole of life costs then C295 wins in any 2 tier debate that combines the tactical lift role.

Gracie1234 and Zero Alpha my personal view of Tier 1 is that the P8 is a must if New Zealand is serious about developing the JATF and maintaining a grip on who is operating in the our sphere of influence. While evaluating scenarios is IMHO useful and helpful in developing capability requirements it does limit long term flexibility is followed blindly (which I don't think you're necessary alluding to). P8 as the Tier 1 capability provides long term flexibility in terms of its ability to adapt to strategic changes. My only concern with the P8 is numbers - I would prefer 5 in order to ensure sufficient operational numbers are maintained - 4 I think cuts things to fine, even with the increased availability mentioned by MrC earlier.

The C27J v C295M argument boils down, in the end to whether range and payload is important to you, or whether cost is.

I'm sure our Airbus fan (/rep) will be back to shout me down over this, but if you want a military tactical airlifter, range, payload and survivability seems to be the most important factors to me. If you want something approaching a military airlifter but at significantly reduced cost? The C295M will do just fine. But your capability will be significantly less, for the same number of airframes.

 

[Zero Alpha]

I'm not sure there is enough information in the public domain to be able to understand all the tradeoffs.

Various news reports cite the high operating costs as the reason the USAF scrapped the programme:

Former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz testified before Congress last year that the military wanted to divest its C-27J fleet to come in line with budget cuts. He said the C-130 can do everything currently asked for and costs $213 million to fly over its 25-year lifespan. The C-27J, on the other hand, would cost $308 million per aircraft.New Air Force Planes Go Directly to 'Boneyard' | Military.com​

We don't know if that is because of the relatively high costs of maintaining a smaller fleet in service (in the USAF context), or whether the type is just maintenance intensive.

Other sources talk about a 15% purchase cost difference between the -295 and the -27J.

It's far too simplistic to assume that the C-27 is better for rough field operations too. We'd need ground pressure figures for each type in different configurations to accurately judge. There is more to the equation than runway length.

It is worth noting that the -295 is used by the French in the Pacific, and Indonesia and Malaysia use it. Presumably these three countries and the locations they operate from are comparable to how we would use it.

Having said all that, the type of cargo we would want to shift may be the factor that seals the deal. I'm not sure the -295 has the internal dimensions to carry our vehicles (if that's a requirement).

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm not sure there is enough information in the public domain to be able to understand all the tradeoffs.

Various news reports cite the high operating costs as the reason the USAF scrapped the programme:

Former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz testified before Congress last year that the military wanted to divest its C-27J fleet to come in line with budget cuts. He said the C-130 can do everything currently asked for and costs $213 million to fly over its 25-year lifespan. The C-27J, on the other hand, would cost $308 million per aircraft.New Air Force Planes Go Directly to 'Boneyard' | Military.com​

We don't know if that is because of the relatively high costs of maintaining a smaller fleet in service (in the USAF context), or whether the type is just maintenance intensive.

Other sources talk about a 15% purchase cost difference between the -295 and the -27J.

It's far too simplistic to assume that the C-27 is better for rough field operations too. We'd need ground pressure figures for each type in different configurations to accurately judge. There is more to the equation than runway length.

It is worth noting that the -295 is used by the French in the Pacific, and Indonesia and Malaysia use it. Presumably these three countries and the locations they operate from are comparable to how we would use it.

Having said all that, the type of cargo we would want to shift may be the factor that seals the deal. I'm not sure the -295 has the internal dimensions to carry our vehicles (if that's a requirement).

Regarding any USAF figures and details about the C27J, especially when presented to Congress, one has to be very, very cautious. I believe later that figure was shown to be highly inaccurate.

The USAF never wanted the C27J. Originally the C27J was a US Army project in order for it to have battlefield air logistics support that it believed it wasn't getting from the USAF. The USAF is very against the Army having it's own fixed wing component and through Congress eventually managed to obtain control of the C27J program which it shut down. It claims that it can deliver what the Army needs using USAF C130 aircraft. Obviously the Army disputes this. The political fighting between the USAF and US Army can also be seen in the current stoush over the USAF attempts to retire the A10 without a replacement. They claim that the F35 will be able to fill the same role but the Army are not yet convinced of that. There are claims that the USAF think that CAS and humping stores etc., into the battlefield for the Army are below it, yet if the Army tries to do it themselves it's like a red flag to a bull to the USAF, so they go all out to kill any Army program. Very, very political played out using Senators and Congress critters. Truth be known the USAF would probably take over and kill Army rotary wing capability if it could.