Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ngatimozart]

There shouldn't be any need to relocate if Linton units were moved to Ohakea. Most will live in Palmerston North anyway.

Similarly with Whenuapai. Shifting air ops to Mangare wouldn't be a major.

Jobs for spouses/partners is an important issue though, mainly because they tend to be paid better than service people.

As far as turnover figures go though, turnover hasn't been particularly high by historic levels. Even if you look at the late 70s/early 80s, there isn't a huge difference.

Don't think Mangere would be the right choice. If you leave 6 Sqn (Helos) in Auckland and move everything else south to Ohakea or further, then it would make better sense to base 6 Sqn at Dairy Flat. It's easier to access from Philomel (Devenport Naval Base) and the lease costs there would be a darn site cheaper than out at Mangere International Airport where NZDF would be paying premium rates. It's also quite a bit closer to Dairy Flat than Mangere. Mechanics Bay would also attract premium lease rates as well.

I take it a key concern for RNZAF cadre is also the relocation impact on spouses - especially the lack of local career opportunities - and educational facilities for families. The CDF is putting an emphasis on improved care of troops and families. Given the recent experience of near-crippling levels of turnover, and the constant competition for skilled people from the private sector, this must be a major risk of seeking to amalgamate RNZAF units at Ohakea. Whenuapai has a much greater retention factor for senior (hell, junior) RNZAF people, not least due to their investments in local housing. IIRC, similar concerns counted against a mid-2000s proposal (from developers) to relocate the RNZN from Devonport to Whangarei.

I fully agree. If Whenuapai ceases to be an RNZAF base, for any reason, then a new base may have to be built and only other place that meets partner career opportunities would be Christchurch. If they didn't want to build a complete airfield they could build on or adjacent to the existing airport. If they wanted to go the whole hog, then by or near Burnham Military Camp. Flat land out there, just a pile of dairy farms

 

[ngatimozart]

Interesting, some more potential possibilities? A330?
Malaysia Airlines fleet restructuring - Leeham News and Comment
Pretty unfortunate for Malaysia airlines however through no fault of their own.

I've bought this post over from the RAAF thread.

Nice find there Jezza.
IMV, Buy the 4, convert them at Airbus military conversion centre (Getafe), then look to flog a pair to the Kiwis. Everyone's happy.
I wonder how cheap they are?

Interesting proposition, but would NZDF be interested at all?

 

[RegR]

I've bought this post over from the RAAF thread.

Interesting proposition, but would NZDF be interested at all?

As a possible 757 replacement as there seems to be nothing equal to them at the moment (only smaller) therefore maybe going larger is our only option in this particular field dependant on how the RNZAF air transport review goes. The hard part of the conversion already done on these and could be aqquired for a favourable price depending on how keen MAS are to move on.

Or we could go all out and pick up a couple of A380s for JKs overseas trips??

 

[Nick underscore]

I've bought this post over from the RAAF thread.

Interesting proposition, but would NZDF be interested at all?

If the price was right, I think so. May remove the decision surrounding a C-17 strategic acquisition. Also brings VIP requirements back into a discussion without looking at 'another' type of platform in the pool. And as RegR mentioned, look at replacing the 757 (and please don't someone 'bang-on' how 'technically' the 757 can't be replaced capability-wise)

..The hard part of the conversion already done on these and could be aqquired for a favourable price depending on how keen MAS are to move on...

Bigger problem, as highlighted by Jezza - they're PW4170-type engines. Which on the surface, may not be a deal breaker for RNZAF, but there will be a loss on the support-side from the RAAF.

It would be nice to see a pair with Kiwi roundels

 

[Zero Alpha]

If they're looking at a civil aircraft, then they need to be looking closely at the support structures for that. I'd suggest that if it's just the capacity they want, there would be huge advantages in entering in to an operating lease with Air New Zealand. Having a 787 in grey markings available for pax and VIP that could be handed back to the Air NZ pool for use when the it wasn't required would probably be much more cost effective than owning and operating. I'd expect VIP and pax would be scheduled activities only, or at a pinch at 72hrs NTM. Use the military transports for the 'alert' role.

 

[Gracie1234]

I agree ZA. If a large commercial type jet is required then it would be best to have an arrangement with Air NZ for x number of contracted hours. It would probably be cheaper per flight hour and does not reduce the CAPEX for the other lift requirements. Reduces the number of types that need to be supported and all the associated benefits.

 

[Oberon]

Could a NH-90 fit into a A330 Freighter ?

 

[t68]

Could a NH-90 fit into a A330 Freighter ?

Here are the specs unless they take out the diffrent floors for oversize freight you might be better of with 747 Deamlifter and make a case for mixed defence/commercial enterprise

Dimensions & key data | Airbus, a leading aircraft manufacturer

 

[RegR]

Could a NH-90 fit into a A330 Freighter ?

No, this is just a suggestion for replacing 757 capability and not in lieu of the C130 portion of the air transport fleet.

A330 is alot bigger than B757 but not that big, totally different type of cargo/pax handling.

 

[bdique]

If they're looking at a civil aircraft, then they need to be looking closely at the support structures for that. I'd suggest that if it's just the capacity they want, there would be huge advantages in entering in to an operating lease with Air New Zealand. Having a 787 in grey markings available for pax and VIP that could be handed back to the Air NZ pool for use when the it wasn't required would probably be much more cost effective than owning and operating. I'd expect VIP and pax would be scheduled activities only, or at a pinch at 72hrs NTM. Use the military transports for the 'alert' role.

Singapore does something similar. If it is just for ferrying troops en-masse to exercise areas, Singapore Airlines will be tapped upon to provide the transport services. The non-civvie transports can be kept for more urgent taskings i.e. HADR.

Personally I think the tie-up between civil aviation and the military for 'basic' transport needs is a really good idea. And as mentioned, no need to set up new support structures that might end up being a mere duplication of effort.

 

[Todjaeger]

If they're looking at a civil aircraft, then they need to be looking closely at the support structures for that. I'd suggest that if it's just the capacity they want, there would be huge advantages in entering in to an operating lease with Air New Zealand. Having a 787 in grey markings available for pax and VIP that could be handed back to the Air NZ pool for use when the it wasn't required would probably be much more cost effective than owning and operating. I'd expect VIP and pax would be scheduled activities only, or at a pinch at 72hrs NTM. Use the military transports for the 'alert' role.

It is somewhat funny, as something similar to this was brought up about two years ago after some of the operating costs for the B757's were listed, along with their required service outputs p.a.

IMO the NZ Gov't should have some sort of leasing or charter agreement with Air NZ (which is owned by NZ, Inc. last I checked...) for planned charter work, VIP missions, and then an arrangement to get additional airlift for passengers and some cargo within NN hours notice for HADR-type emergencies.

This sort of leasing/charter agreement would be to replace some of the current B757 'capabilities' and then potentially augment RNZAF strategic airlift capabilities provided by C-17's, A400M's, or whatever strategic airlifter ends up entering RNZAF service.

Depending on needs, there might also be room for Air NZ or it's partner/subsidiary airlines to also provide some short/medium-ranged personnel and air cargo movement as well, in and around NZ and some of the regional S. Pacific islands.

 

[Oberon]

It is somewhat funny, as something similar to this was brought up about two years ago after some of the operating costs for the B757's were listed, along with their required service outputs p.a.

IMO the NZ Gov't should have some sort of leasing or charter agreement with Air NZ (which is owned by NZ, Inc. last I checked...) for planned charter work, VIP missions, and then an arrangement to get additional airlift for passengers and some cargo within NN hours notice for HADR-type emergencies.

This sort of leasing/charter agreement would be to replace some of the current B757 'capabilities' and then potentially augment RNZAF strategic airlift capabilities provided by C-17's, A400M's, or whatever strategic airlifter ends up entering RNZAF service.

Depending on needs, there might also be room for Air NZ or it's partner/subsidiary airlines to also provide some short/medium-ranged personnel and air cargo movement as well, in and around NZ and some of the regional S. Pacific islands.

Yes, I think leasing aircraft from Air NZ is the best solution to the VIP transport requirement. I've noticed that the British PM uses British Airways B777 on his long distance trips to the U.S. and Australia. I don't know what he uses for short distance European trips.

Most prime ministerial trips are planned months in advance so availability shouldn't be much of a problem.

 

[Oberon]

Big Decsions - Thr RNZAF future aircraft options

There is an article in the May2015 edition of Aust Aviation on future RNZAF transport requirements. It basically covers what we have been discussing here for the past few weeks.

I'm beginning to warm to the idea of A400m aircraft in RNZAF colours (the c-17 is just too big and expensive). Problem though is that the Malaysian Air Force is the only other operator in this region.

 

[Todjaeger]

Yes, I think leasing aircraft from Air NZ is the best solution to the VIP transport requirement. I've noticed that the British PM uses British Airways B777 on his long distance trips to the U.S. and Australia. I don't know what he uses for short distance European trips.

Most prime ministerial trips are planned months in advance so availability shouldn't be much of a problem.

IIRC HM the Queen also uses a chartered British Airways airliner for State/Royal visits.

The US situation with Air Force One is a bit different, in that Air Force One also has some abilities as a flying command post/"Whitehouse". Given the US nuclear arsenal and the past (and unfortunately again, rising) potential need for their deployment, the POTUS needs to have instant communications if/when needed. I would be interested in what the British have in place for such a situation. Does the decision to launch nuclear weaponry rest with the PM, or the Sovereign? But I digress...

As for the costs of operating the A400M vs. C-17... Respectfully, until the A400M has been in service for several years, I doubt that any real understanding of the operating costs will exist. Even then, unless/until more A400M users exist in regions closer to NZ, A400M operating and maintenance costs could be higher than currently estimated. With the US pivot back towards the Pacific, and with Australia having an existing (and expanding) C-17 fleet, there may very well be some efficiencies that otherwise would not exist.

From my POV, the C-17 is an overall more capable air transport in areas NZ needs and likely wants. The questions I have, is whether or not what the C-17 brings to the table beyond that of the A400M is sufficient and sufficiently valuable, to justify the extra upfront costs. That and how long the NZDF can safely wait to replace strategic airlift, before mission failure rates become unacceptable. If the NZDF has a safe cushion of several (5+) years before it would become an issue, then the A400M is IMO a more likely selection. However, if the window is less than 5 years, especially if it is significantly less, then the C-17 is IMO a much better option.

 

[Oberon]

O

IIRC HM the Queen also uses a chartered British Airways airliner for State/Royal visits.

The US situation with Air Force One is a bit different, in that Air Force One also has some abilities as a flying command post/"Whitehouse". Given the US nuclear arsenal and the past (and unfortunately again, rising) potential need for their deployment, the POTUS needs to have instant communications if/when needed. I would be interested in what the British have in place for such a situation. Does the decision to launch nuclear weaponry rest with the PM, or the Sovereign? But I digress...

As for the costs of operating the A400M vs. C-17... Respectfully, until the A400M has been in service for several years, I doubt that any real understanding of the operating costs will exist. Even then, unless/until more A400M users exist in regions closer to NZ, A400M operating and maintenance costs could be higher than currently estimated. With the US pivot back towards the Pacific, and with Australia having an existing (and expanding) C-17 fleet, there may very well be some efficiencies that otherwise would not exist.

From my POV, the C-17 is an overall more capable air transport in areas NZ needs and likely wants. The questions I have, is whether or not what the C-17 brings to the table beyond that of the A400M is sufficient and sufficiently valuable, to justify the extra upfront costs. That and how long the NZDF can safely wait to replace strategic airlift, before mission failure rates become unacceptable. If the NZDF has a safe cushion of several (5+) years before it would become an issue, then the A400M is IMO a more likely selection. However, if the window is less than 5 years, especially if it is significantly less, then the C-17 is IMO a much better option.

I think the big advantage of the A400M over the C-17 from a NZDF point of view is that it can operate into a lot more airfields in the SW Pacific area - NZ's principal area of interest. The example given in the AA article relates to the recent Vanuatu mission. A C-17 could only land at one airfield - Port Vila International airport; whereas "there are probably seven more airfields (in Vanuatu) capable of handling an A400M". A C-17 purchase would soak up most of the available funding with the lower end tactical airlift requirement still to be fulfilled.

An interesting decision ahead!

 

[Zero Alpha]

O

I think the big advantage of the A400M over the C-17 from a NZDF point of view is that it can operate into a lot more airfields in the SW Pacific area - NZ's principal area of interest. The example given in the AA article relates to the recent Vanuatu mission. A C-17 could only land at one airfield - Port Vila International airport; whereas "there are probably seven more airfields (in Vanuatu) capable of handling an A400M". A C-17 purchase would soak up most of the available funding with the lower end tactical airlift requirement still to be fulfilled.

An interesting decision ahead!

I'm not actually sure that's particularly relevant. Both "runways" on Epi Island are barely C-130 capable - one 600m long and the other 850m. Both are soft surface dirt runways, and a Herc with more than a bare minimum load would tear them up. There also isn't any fuel.

A Globemaster (or A400, or Herc) could use LAPES to get the cargo on the ground there, but you'd actually ask the question as to why you would want to. The population is only around 5,000 people and you simply don't need to put that much cargo in to that place.

You're not going to be landing transports at places that aren't capable of accommodating a main operating base. The places that have the local infrastructure to accommodate those sorts of bases (think Suai) generally have reasonable size runways.

 

[Todjaeger]

I'm not actually sure that's particularly relevant. Both "runways" on Epi Island are barely C-130 capable - one 600m long and the other 850m. Both are soft surface dirt runways, and a Herc with more than a bare minimum load would tear them up. There also isn't any fuel.

A Globemaster (or A400, or Herc) could use LAPES to get the cargo on the ground there, but you'd actually ask the question as to why you would want to. The population is only around 5,000 people and you simply don't need to put that much cargo in to that place.

You're not going to be landing transports at places that aren't capable of accommodating a main operating base. The places that have the local infrastructure to accommodate those sorts of bases (think Suai) generally have reasonable size runways.

A slight quibble here. I can see situations where transports are landed in such places, especially in HADR situations, but these would be more like tactical transports, or bush/utility single-engine fixed wings, which would actually be operated from a main or forward operating base.

As for runway limitations, is there really that big a difference in runway length and very importantly, strength, requirements between the C-17 and A400M, when carrying a useful load?

 

[RegR]

A slight quibble here. I can see situations where transports are landed in such places, especially in HADR situations, but these would be more like tactical transports, or bush/utility single-engine fixed wings, which would actually be operated from a main or forward operating base.

As for runway limitations, is there really that big a difference in runway length and very importantly, strength, requirements between the C-17 and A400M, when carrying a useful load?

I think the point is the bigger you go the more limitations on usable runways there is, this is just physics. No matter what way you slice it C130 is a big aircraft, A400 is bigger and C17 is huge and all have their advantages/dis-advantages either way in terms of size, lift and runway requirements (length, strength and suitability) for how we would need to use them for the next 50 years.

An important consideration and will we even have the option or resources to hub and spoke an air op of any nature? Not as much of a problem when you have options but sadly being a small airforce we will be limited in these areas therefore need to make the right D to glean as much capability as possible, available and practical.

Either way a hard but important compromise will be needed in one direction or the other, a sad fact of a small airforce charged with a myriad of tasks.

 

[Zero Alpha]

A slight quibble here. I can see situations where transports are landed in such places, especially in HADR situations, but these would be more like tactical transports, or bush/utility single-engine fixed wings, which would actually be operated from a main or forward operating base.

As for runway limitations, is there really that big a difference in runway length and very importantly, strength, requirements between the C-17 and A400M, when carrying a useful load?

When the decision to buy second hand Andovers was made, one of the the alternatives that was considered was the Twin Otter. Superb aircraft for that sort of role (excluding vehicles).

C-17 can land at max payload in around 900 meters, but it will quickly tear up a surface that isn't up to it. A400 probably has the lowest loading forces of the three because of it's gear arrangements. Very little point destroying an important local runway while performing your HADR mission!

 

[Zero Alpha]

An important consideration and will we even have the option or resources to hub and spoke an air op of any nature? Not as much of a problem when you have options but sadly being a small airforce we will be limited in these areas therefore need to make the right D to glean as much capability as possible, available and practical.

How much cargo, how far, how often, for whom and for how long?

It very much depends on the scenario and the AO, but if we look at two common scenarios:

a) A independent company group size operation in the South West Pacific

and

b) A battalion group size operation in Australia's northern approaches in concert with a significant multi-national contribution

Then the answer is probably yes. For company size operations a NH90 is probably large enough to make the trips to the Hub.

A deployable tactical airlift capability of same sort is also a credible contribution to a multi-national operation in its own right. We've done similar things under UN auspices in Iran/Iraq (truce monitoring), Desert Shied/Desert Storm and Somalia. Deploying a pair of aircraft is probably the minimum level of contribution.