Royal New Zealand Air Force

[t68]

Exactly why I am not overly sold on spending the bulk of our air transport funding on just 2 C17, if it is hard to keep enough frames serviceble with 5 aircraft how wil dropping down to 2 remedy this? Even new AC have to have scheduled downtime, no way around it.

Yes it can carry 4.5x more than a C130 but that only comes in handy if we need to send 4.5 C130s to the same place at the same time and bar something like HADR or an initial deployment does not really happen for our small DF especially if we don't even fill our hercs routinely and still not covering multiple missions or regular flights. Whilst they would be amazing for that percentage of tasks we conduct there is still no getting around the availability issues that only having 2 will present now and as they get older. 3 should be bare minimum otherwise A400 would be a better way to go despite it's immaturity and slight bugs, these can be sorted physical numbers can't. We can get more for the same (and possibly more with deals) plus they lift all we will need them to lift in our inventory over the distance required.

Whilst we still probably won't get 1 for 1 of what we need, 2 for 5 has problems all of its own even if combined with a small tac lifter.

Agree, I said it a awhile ago that three C17 should be the minimum buy in 5 would be ideal but that leaves no room $ wise for the rest of the tactical fleet replacement, anything less than that should go towards a buy of A400 of 9 aircraft

And I am not totally sold on a C295/C27J battlefield lifter, I personally think a buy of 3/4x C17, 6/8x KC130J and 6 CH-47F would give the NZDF a broad capabilty.

On that note your tactical lifters will have future tie in with JATF that's where CH-47 fits in, and if you you take advantage of the refueling probe KC130J can increase its range along with 3x Harvest Hawk kit gives additional ISR and overwatch capability for the JATF or other operations, KC130J also provides ground refueling services for HADR or combat ops. On the logistics front all the aircraft mention also has the capabilty to use a common cargo pallet handling system the 463l

 

[ngatimozart]

Editorial in today's DominionPost about the air transport fleet here

Once again, it seems, there are some in New Zealand who want an air force on the cheap. But you can't keep economising forever.

The most salient point in the editorial.

 

[RegR]

The C-17 is being discussed as a replacement for the 757, not the C-130. If the Hercs were to be replaced too the number of C-17s being discussed would be four or five. This would only work if C295s (or similar) were acquired as a supplement. As I understand it the proposed C-17s would replace the 757s and serve along side the C-130s until their replacement at a much later date, with new Hercs, A400s or perhaps a larger number of tactical lifters (C-27J, C295 etc).

Where has that been stated officially? Just because it has been quoted on here does not make it policy or in fact true and the fact is defence only asked for options, it is not even being aggresively followed up at this stage and the clocks ticking. They will replace whatever portion of the total air transport based on the percentage of the total budget it takes up and would probably be more along the lines of the 2 boeings and 2 C130s worth in terms of actual cost (you don't seriously think a C17 and B757 are in the same price range? Operating costs maybe). It's like saying we can get 2 more frigates when we replace the ANZACs in lieu of the 2 OPVs, it does not go on 1 for 1 it goes on price per unit as to how much we can afford.

The reason it MAY be 2 C17 is due to how much they will cost us to purchase not because we just so happen to have 2 B757s as well. They will still come out of the budget already allocated to replace the transport fleet as a whole and the outcome of that will be on price not numbers. Their retirement dates are already pencilled in and the funding will not magically increase to purchase another 5 C130s or A400s later to then replace our remaining Hs, whatever is left over will be what we have to purchase presumably the tactical lifters as they will not cost as much as C130/A400 and therefore hopefully gain numbers which will be needed to take up the slack as the 2 larger AC will be busy fullfilling our international commitments (if not in maintanence).

This is why we need to look at all options to get VFM not just buy the biggest and fastest because all our mates have some. If the budget for example is 2bn and we spend 1.4 on 2 aircraft then do you really think 800m is going to get us 5 Js or A400? Unless we can get some pretty sweet deals we will be fighting for overall numbers.

 

[t68]

Has it been announced yet how much the budget is for the replacement aircraft?

 

[RegR]

Has it been announced yet how much the budget is for the replacement aircraft?

For some reason I have 1.6bn for air transport and 2.4bn for maritime patrol in my head but can't remember where I got these figures from so don't quote me. Could always have more especially if we want all this gucci gear.

Defence is an expensive commodity, more so when we let the bills add up and catch us out all at once.

 

[t68]

For some reason I have 1.6bn for air transport and 2.4bn for maritime patrol in my head but can't remember where I got these figures from so don't quote me. Could always have more especially if we want all this gucci gear.

Defence is an expensive commodity, more so when we let the bills add up and catch us out all at once.

Cheers thanks,

If those numbers are correct that 1.2B USD or their abouts
That budget alone will buy 4x C17 when you add spares and new infrastructures, the transport fleet cannot support that alone, if that's the budget I dare say do not buy any C17 and go 6x A400 for about 1.3b NZD but will have to dip in for spares and infrastructure cost's

 

[RegR]

Cheers thanks,

If those numbers are correct that 1.2B USD or their abouts
That budget alone will buy 4x C17 when you add spares and new infrastructures, the transport fleet cannot support that alone, if that's the budget I dare say do not buy any C17 and go 6x A400 for about 1.3b NZD but will have to dip in for spares and infrastructure cost's

The problem is do we want to put all our eggs into one basket so to speak as this will be our entire transport fleet, strategic, tactical, heavy, medium, VIP, AME, 1 NZLAV or 1 pallet etc etc.

I do agree the heavy side should be A400 purely because we can get more for the same amount vs C17, cheaper operating costs and can still lift all we need it to lift in our inventory as opposed to C130 but I also think we need a smaller lifter such as C295 to compliment and cover off those smaller tasks. 4 of each would cover each others deficiancies and free up each more for core taskings.

If there is any funding still left over then I would like to see the boeing capability replaced with like or better as well. Albeit smaller with slightly shorter legs B737 would be an obvious choice if we end up going down the P8 path for obvious cost savings and type benefits otherwise a current Air NZ type under a maintanence plan with them to help keep operating costs down, I guess not a biggie though as RNZAF has a history of operating small orphan fleets in NZ.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

For some reason I have 1.6bn for air transport and 2.4bn for maritime patrol in my head but can't remember where I got these figures from so don't quote me. *snip*

That phrase putting square pegs in circular wholes come to mind.

Collectively that comes to 4 billion. On those numbers. Are we sure RNZAF couldn't replace it's, 737, C-130, P-3 with:

2- C-17
5- A-400
6- P-8

I'v only looked at the prices on wiki and the article about Abbott footing 500 million for 2 C-17s. I didn't contemplate assessing how much spares or infrastructure costs. But from a laymens point of view. With those budget numbers I say RNZAF could do it.

Surely the tier 3 airframes could be managed through leases later on down the line much easier than tier 2 or 1 aircrafts.

 

[t68]

The problem is do we want to put all our eggs into one basket so to speak as this will be our entire transport fleet, strategic, tactical, heavy, medium, VIP, AME, 1 NZLAV or 1 pallet etc etc.

I do agree the heavy side should be A400 purely because we can get more for the same amount vs C17, cheaper operating costs and can still lift all we need it to lift in our inventory as opposed to C130 but I also think we need a smaller lifter such as C295 to compliment and cover off those smaller tasks. 4 of each would cover each others deficiancies and free up each more for core taskings.

If there is any funding still left over then I would like to see the boeing capability replaced with like or better as well. Albeit smaller with slightly shorter legs B737 would be an obvious choice if we end up going down the P8 path for obvious cost savings and type benefits otherwise a current Air NZ type under a maintanence plan with them to help keep operating costs down, I guess not a biggie though as RNZAF has a history of operating small orphan fleets in NZ.

Well the Philippines just bought 3x C295 for 119m USD which is about roughly 157m NZD, I imagine that is with limited spare and pams etc

Philippines to buy three new Spanish transport planes | The Jakarta Post

DEFENSE STUDIES: Airbus Hands Over First C295 to Philippine Air Force

But looking at the Malayasia deal for 4x A400 was 8b which by the currency converter is 2.8b NZD that doesn't sound right

Malaysia receives first A400M airlifter - IHS Jane's 360

XE: (MYR/NZD) Malaysian Ringgit to New Zealand Dollar Rate

 

[t68]

That phrase putting square pegs in circular wholes come to mind.

Collectively that comes to 4 billion. On those numbers. Are we sure RNZAF couldn't replace it's, 737, C-130, P-3 with:

2- C-17
5- A-400
6- P-8

I'v only looked at the prices on wiki and the article about Abbott footing 500 million for 2 C-17s. I didn't contemplate assessing how much spares or infrastructure costs. But from a laymens point of view. With those budget numbers I say RNZAF could do it.

Surely the tier 3 airframes could be managed through leases later on down the line much easier than tier 2 or 1 aircrafts.

6th C17 cost the Aussie taxpayer 280m AUD plus any spare needed, but the 5th cost 260m AUD

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Materiel – joint media release – purchase of additional C17

 

[RegR]

That phrase putting square pegs in circular wholes come to mind.

Collectively that comes to 4 billion. On those numbers. Are we sure RNZAF couldn't replace it's, 737, C-130, P-3 with:

2- C-17
5- A-400
6- P-8

I'v only looked at the prices on wiki and the article about Abbott footing 500 million for 2 C-17s. I didn't contemplate assessing how much spares or infrastructure costs. But from a laymens point of view. With those budget numbers I say RNZAF could do it.

Surely the tier 3 airframes could be managed through leases later on down the line much easier than tier 2 or 1 aircrafts.

I think we need either C17 or A400 not both and just aqquire them in semi decent numbers, obviously we would still get more A400 vs C17, and a complimentary C295/27J type to replace the lost andover capability. Instead of small numbers of multiple types (of essentially the same type bar size) to cover the entire air transport spectrum just average max and min NZDF tasks and cover with 2 workable fleets (rather than 3), improves numbers and streamlines logistics, training and infrastructure.

That's the thing T68, can't seem to nail down a hard and fast price per unit taking into account the need for spares, training, infrastructure, support etc as they seem to be different for everyone everytime regardless of type. Also any deals/incentives that could possibly be factored in should not be ignored at the moment.

We have options it's just down to physical numbers that we can possibly aqquire for x amount of $$.

 

[John Fedup]

The C-17 can fly faster and carry almost twice the weight for about twice the price. More importantly, it is proven and available for immediate delivery. You can always wait for Airbus to get it right but by that time it will cost more and the C-17 won't be available.

 

[t68]

The current C130H are expected to last till 2020 five years from now, there will have to be a transition period when both the new aircraft and the old will be in service concurrently five years is not a long time in the greater scheme of things.*

The RAAF experience from ordering the first C17 to IOC was approx two years and we had a lot of help from the USAF in the US and here in Australia, USAF trainers were posted for sometime at RAAF Amberley until RAAF had enough qualified aircrew, and it wasn't till December 2010 till we had FOC or four years with extensive US help

On the other hand A400 is in its infancy and has not reached FOC in any country using them, the UK is not expecting FOC for their A400 till 2022 but the French are using them on operations in Mali but not to their full capabilty, I am not entirely sure when the French/Germans expect FOC. All these are factors to take into account on the next lifter for NZ how long can they keep C130H and A400 in service till it reaches FOC that's the $64000 question

 

[Zero Alpha]

The RAAF experience from ordering the first C17 to IOC was approx two years and we had a lot of help from the USAF in the US and here in Australia, USAF trainers were posted for sometime at RAAF Amberley until RAAF had enough qualified aircrew, and it wasn't till December 2010 till we had FOC or four years with extensive US help

I really struggle to understand how the process could take two years.

Surely for a type that has doctrine written, procedures for rigging every bit of kit we already own, and where training packages for every role associated with the aircraft are available, it should be a hell of a lot faster than that. I'd hazard a guess that personnel could be sent to the US for training with probably a three month lead time for just about every flight or support course for the type.

I'd accept two years if the plan was to training instructor pilots and develop packages before the bulk of the pers transfer across, but two years seems like an extremely long time period for experienced crews to convert.

Having said that, from the brief bit of involvement I had with part of the NH90 introduction that "not invented here syndrome' is alive and well and stuff-all of anything for this particular role had been adopted from overseas users.

 

[Zero Alpha]

That's the thing T68, can't seem to nail down a hard and fast price per unit taking into account the need for spares, training, infrastructure, support etc as they seem to be different for everyone everytime regardless of type. Also any deals/incentives that could possibly be factored in should not be ignored at the moment.

The only 'just the aircraft price' I've seen for the C-130J was for a single aircraft sale to Norway. No spares, no support package - it was to replace an aircraft lost in a crash. It worked out at about US$86M.

 

[ngatimozart]

I really struggle to understand how the process could take two years.

Surely for a type that has doctrine written, procedures for rigging every bit of kit we already own, and where training packages for every role associated with the aircraft are available, it should be a hell of a lot faster than that. I'd hazard a guess that personnel could be sent to the US for training with probably a three month lead time for just about every flight or support course for the type.

I'd accept two years if the plan was to training instructor pilots and develop packages before the bulk of the pers transfer across, but two years seems like an extremely long time period for experienced crews to convert.

Having said that, from the brief bit of involvement I had with part of the NH90 introduction that "not invented here syndrome' is alive and well and stuff-all of anything for this particular role had been adopted from overseas users.

The not invented here syndrome as you call it is not a parochial thing but a very much safety and operational requirements thing to put it simply. I would think 2 years would be pretty good to learn how to use and utilise a new platform safely. Each individual user has their own doctrine and operational procedures which they have built up over many years of experience. Whilst they will learn and take note of other users experiences, in the end it is their own doctrine, environment and use patterns, cycles etc., which will dictate how they introduce a new platform into service. In NZs case we should be extra cautious because we do not have the resources to afford losing machines due to inadequate preparation during introduction into service. These are not just things where you can climb in, turn the key and fly away using their full capabilities straight away.

 

[Zero Alpha]

The not invented here syndrome as you call it is not a parochial thing but a very much safety and operational requirements thing to put it simply. I would think 2 years would be pretty good to learn how to use and utilise a new platform safely. Each individual user has their own doctrine and operational procedures which they have built up over many years of experience.

I know that's the argument, but where is the objective evidence? What possible insight could a small operator (RAAF or RNZAF) gain in a few hundred or even thousand hours of service that a larger operator hasn't discovered during hundreds of thousands of hours globally? What's the statistical validity of any findings they do have?

You wouldn't follow that approach in any other field of complex engineering, so why is military aviation so different? Where is the parallel in commercial aviation? There isn't an airline on the planet that would buy a proven type and have billions of dollars of assets tied up for years before getting some revenue from them.

I fully accept that as experience grows, then the complexity of tasking can be expanded to widen the range of operating conditions available, but flying from A to B in a non-tactical configuration is something that a newly qualified crew should be able to do with their eyes closed (almost literally). In most scenarios "strategic airlift' is the same as what commercial airline pilots do by the tens of thousands of flights daily. It really shouldn't be that hard.

As far as the C-17 is considered, I'd argued that in NZ's case we shouldn't be doing anything different and should only be operating the same way the major user does. If that means less than perfect, so be it, but I can't see why we'd tied up big money for no useful purpose for years before a capability is released.

 

[t68]

I know that's the argument, but where is the objective evidence? What possible insight could a small operator (RAAF or RNZAF) gain in a few hundred or even thousand hours of service that a larger operator hasn't discovered during hundreds of thousands of hours globally? What's the statistical validity of any findings they do have?

You wouldn't follow that approach in any other field of complex engineering, so why is military aviation so different? Where is the parallel in commercial aviation? There isn't an airline on the planet that would buy a proven type and have billions of dollars of assets tied up for years before getting some revenue from them.

I fully accept that as experience grows, then the complexity of tasking can be expanded to widen the range of operating conditions available, but flying from A to B in a non-tactical configuration is something that a newly qualified crew should be able to do with their eyes closed (almost literally). In most scenarios "strategic airlift' is the same as what commercial airline pilots do by the tens of thousands of flights daily. It really shouldn't be that hard.

As far as the C-17 is considered, I'd argued that in NZ's case we shouldn't be doing anything different and should only be operating the same way the major user does. If that means less than perfect, so be it, but I can't see why we'd tied up big money for no useful purpose for years before a capability is released.

I don't profess to know how the Airforce reaches certain milestones when introducing new aircraft, but I certainly hope that the major airlines do more than just handover the keys and say figure it out as you go. Yep flying the aircraft from point A to B is fairly straight forward for an experienced pilot *and these are experienced pilots who have the fundamentals of and years of flying. From what I can gather from infomation not only from this but also others when Super Hornets were introduced it was pretty straight forward for the ex legacy Hornet drivers but a totally different ball game for the ex Pig drivers a different aircraft that's handles differently etc.*

 

[Todjaeger]

I know that's the argument, but where is the objective evidence? What possible insight could a small operator (RAAF or RNZAF) gain in a few hundred or even thousand hours of service that a larger operator hasn't discovered during hundreds of thousands of hours globally? What's the statistical validity of any findings they do have?

You wouldn't follow that approach in any other field of complex engineering, so why is military aviation so different? Where is the parallel in commercial aviation? There isn't an airline on the planet that would buy a proven type and have billions of dollars of assets tied up for years before getting some revenue from them.

I fully accept that as experience grows, then the complexity of tasking can be expanded to widen the range of operating conditions available, but flying from A to B in a non-tactical configuration is something that a newly qualified crew should be able to do with their eyes closed (almost literally). In most scenarios "strategic airlift' is the same as what commercial airline pilots do by the tens of thousands of flights daily. It really shouldn't be that hard.

As far as the C-17 is considered, I'd argued that in NZ's case we shouldn't be doing anything different and should only be operating the same way the major user does. If that means less than perfect, so be it, but I can't see why we'd tied up big money for no useful purpose for years before a capability is released.

You might want to research what the process is for commercial aviation pilots go through to become commercial pilots, and then what/how they get cleared for flying different commercial aircraft. It might seem like a commercial airline pilot with 20+ years of experience and 10k+ hours flight time should be able to just exit the cockpit of a B747 and enter an A380 cockpit and just fly it 'as normal' but the aircraft handling characteristics are different, the displays are different, how different tasks are accomplished is different, etc.

Using a somewhat simpler analogy, would it be reasonable to expect a regular person who drives a regular 2,000 kg automobile, commuting to work during the week, to suddenly start be able to safely and properly drive a 13,000 kg heavy duty truck as their commute vehicle. Honestly just the difference in acceleration and stopping distance would be enormous, never mind if the braking system was different (like air brakes), the truck had more gears than a normal 4, 5, or 6-speed transmission, or if the truck had or was expected to have a trailer of some sort.

The differences in changing between different aircraft models, even of the same class (fighter, multi-engine transport, etc) or different versions of the same design, is normally significantly more involved than the ground vehicle example I used above. The is why aircraft pilots have different tickets or endorsements, and aircraft ratings. They show what a pilot is known to be qualified to do.

For an idea how complicated that can be, take a look at cockpit photos from inside commercial airliners. Pilots need to be able to look at all the lights, dials, indicators and other things and be able to determine basically instantly what is 'normal' and more importantly during an emergency, what is 'not normal'. Then they need to know what to do to recover from a 'not normal'. All of this takes time, and more importantly, practice. While the experiences of other aircraft users can be helpful in learning what some of the quirts and capabilities are (like does the aircraft become nose heavy in a power loss situation, or does the aircraft veer in a particular direction in the event of an engine loss for a multi-engine aircraft). Even with these facts known on paper, pilots need the opportunity to experience and build muscle-memory on how to react to such situations.

 

[John Newman]

We have options it's just down to physical numbers that we can possibly aqquire for x amount of $$.

After reading this debate over the last few weeks, the questions I keep asking myself are: how many $'s can NZ afford to spend on a C-17A capability, how many airframes will be required and importantly, how many airframes will be available?

As I understand it, of the 10 'white tails' that Boeing is building, the UAE has two, Canada has one and the RAAF has two (which will expand the fleet to eight), that leaves five airframes, if the RAAF does announce in the forthcoming DWP that the fleet will be expanded to ten (there appears to be FMS approval for four airframes in total), then that leaves a grand total of three unallocated airframes (yes of course the RAAF has not committed to airframes 9 and 10, but I would suspect that Boeing, which the RAAF is a good customer, would probably have a 'reserved' sticker on a couple of airframes till a final decision is made).

To me the minimum number of airframes in a 'possible' NZ C-17A fleet would have to be three, I think that two (as has been thrown around here) would be too small.

To give you an example of what I mean, if we go back a few years (just prior to the RAAF receiving airframe number five), the first of the 'original' four airframes was due to return to the US for it's heavy maintenance period, which as I understand from the reporting at the time was 6mths, if the 5th airframe (and subsequently 6th) had not been ordered and delivered, the RAAF would have been in situation where for a period of two years the fleet would have been effectively reduced to three airframes (as one airframe returns from its 6mth heavy maintenance period, the next would follow and so on till all are done).

To put that in NZ terms, if the NZG does approve and acquire two airframes, then somewhere down the track both of those airframes will have to return to the US for their respective heavy maintenance periods of 6mths each, in effect the fleet would be reduced to 'one' airframe for a period of 12 months, I would assume that during the service life of the aircraft this is something that will happen 3 or 4 times.

Would the USAF or the RAAF be able to provide a 'loaner' for that period of time, who knows? Maybe, maybe not, but if every X number of years (or X number of flight hours) the fleet is effectively reduced to one airframe for a whole year, is that a capability that is worth having in the first place?

Far be it for me to say or suggest what the NZG should or shouldn't do, but to me two airframes is scratching the bottom of the barrel, three should be the bare minimum (four would be better!).

Anyway, just my opinion!

Cheers,