They had gone as far as they could viably go, even govt realised that hence the original replacement option. Draken CEO stated they have very little military worth.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
The A-4's would have been able to last in RNZAF until 2007 iirc. By then they would have been completely finished with most having over 6500 hours on the airframes when they went into storage at WB. The reconditioning that they have had since their transfer are really only to make them safe to fly but not for any military use.
Airbus has admitted that some of the problems with the A400M are 'homemade'. It concedes that it may have been in error going with an inexperienced engine consortium. One wonders if it would be worthwhile Airbus building a turbofan variant of the aircraft as well. Replace the four Europrop TP400-D6 turboprops with two commercial high ratio bypass turbofans such as the RR Trent 700, GE CF6 or PW4000. Certainly would solve the engine issues.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Replacing engines can't be that simple or the B-52's 8 engines would have been replaced by 4 modern efficient engines long ago. Perhaps if Airbus had selected the PWC proposal they may have been more successful and grabbed 15-20 more unit sales from Canada as well. Frankly, I am glad they didn't, 5 C-17s and 16 C-130Js has worked out pretty well although we should have bought a few more C-17s. I would wager Germany wished they had done what the UK did and bought some C-17s as well.
I'm not saying that it is simple,far from it. But the idea is worth looking at. The B52 engines are different because they are military whereas the A400M doesn't have to be. They have upgraded the B52 engines over the years.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I guess a new engine option, despite the difficulties, is possible as the counties that have ordered this aircraft need the planes ASAP and there is no current direct alternative. If the C-17 was still in production I don't think a new engine program would be possible as Germany and the U.K. would likely switch their A400M orders to a mix of C-17s and C-130s at this point.
I actually thought some time ago if the engine issue with the A400M got all to much would they then entertain a direct swap of a similar Nm thrust output from a small turbofan such as the IHI Corporation F7 as used on the Kawazaki P-1 or the General Electric CF34 commonly used on on the Bombardier CRJ's. At least 4 small turbo fans would potentially be easier to do than a complete wing re-design that going for a larger twin.
Nevertheless they will keep on keeping on with the TP400-D6 and the price tag will keep on going up. However a turbo fan version of the A400M would be interesting.
Anyway I am hoping our master negotiator Tim Grosser can somehow sway the Washington powers that be to find their way to selling / leasing 2-3 of the soon to be stored 16 C-17A's to the RNZAF and have them upgraded to the later ER blocks. With the Whitetails snapped up that is about the best we can do now with the cards being dealt.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
NZ may have assistance from Germany for some of those USAF C17s that are to be stored. If Germany is serious about getting some immediate transport replacements it should be easier for NZ to latch on to some of these surplus jets either by lease or purchase at the same time.
German Military Ambitions Hampered by Airbus Delay - Bloomberg
German Military Ambitions Hampered by Airbus Delay - Bloomberg
Other types of aircraft such as helos, fighters and even airliners have options for engine selection dependant on requirements, costs etc so you think would make sense when designing new builds in this day and age. I guess the fact these particular engines were built specifically for A400 and the 'biggest' voids the option for another prop in this case The option of prop or fan would definately be an interesting concept to say the least, could be a niche in the market and major selling point for future new builds.
That IHI engine or the GE CF34are to small unless you use four so greater complexity and costs. Also no guarantee that three of those could provide enough thrust for a safe go around on a fully laden A400M (MTOW* 141 tonnes) committed on takeoff if a fourth engine flames out. The P1 MTOW is 79.7 tonne.[/quote]
Yes, hopefully Tim Grosser can do the job.
*Maximum Take Off Weight
That is what I meant as a direct swap. Four smaller turbo fans such as the IHI F7 or CF34-8E's in lieu of the four TP400-D6's. It was more of a thought at the time about how to proceed IF the TP400 ends up in the too hard basket and the whole project is put at risk. Both turbofan engines produce similar thrust as the TP400. I just hope for the sake of the consortium that they solve the issues and get the bird flying.
Tim Grosser would be the man for the job in negotiating any complex deal. I actually see the used and upgraded C-17 into a later ER block as a better option than the A400M. I also think it would also make sense for the US to let it through under the circumstances as it would mean 1. They would be put to very good use in the Pacific region in HADR and Antarctic roles which assists the US anyway. 2. Synergies with the ADF and US Pacific Forces with respect to air mobility and 3. The upgrade work would keep a US company busy for awhile as well as longterm support contracts and the work not going to the EuroZone. 4. It would solidify the spirit of the Wellington-Washington Declaration.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
NZDF - NZDF Lifts DoC's Mt Fell Hut to Safer Ground
Nice to see the NH90s gradually taking on a wider range of duties.
Not a military task by any means, but good real-world experience for all those involved.
Nice to see the NH90s gradually taking on a wider range of duties.
Not a military task by any means, but good real-world experience for all those involved.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Berlin Ties Airbus A400M Failures to Contracts Award By Country
Another somewhat depressing post on the A400M. One of a lengthy series!
Germany's new defence minister finally says in public what everyone has always known - allocating chunks of aircraft subsystems and assembly according to political criteria rather than merit isn't a great way to run a multi-national programme.
Shame no one was willing to say this loudly about 10-15 years ago!
Another somewhat depressing post on the A400M. One of a lengthy series!
Germany's new defence minister finally says in public what everyone has always known - allocating chunks of aircraft subsystems and assembly according to political criteria rather than merit isn't a great way to run a multi-national programme.
Shame no one was willing to say this loudly about 10-15 years ago!
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
The article states that no other helicopter in country could accomplish the lift but on the helicopter registry there is an Mi8 in Taupo and a KMAX in Taranaki that would be able to make that lift at the altitude.
With Ngatimozarts possible options for $20 billion I noted that P8 wasn't on the list. Is this because Triton is expected to cover maritime approaches? What will provide the prosecution if needed? Frigate based naval choppers or foreign weapons capable LRMP / Strike aircraft.
Mea culpa, I forgot to include the P8 - a senior moment. That adds $2.7 billion to the overall cost for 5 x P8. The P3K2 Orions are regarded as national strategic assets and the intention is to replace them with with similar or better capability.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
I now understand the rationale for the combi 737 freighters. Makes much more sense now. So with $2.7 billion what will have to be sacrificed from your list.
To save some cash could some of the LAV's be upgraded instead of new builds? The Cockeril 105 turret would cover the first part of your desire. I agree with the millennium gum suggestion for across the services use. Phalanx replacement on the frigates and END plus up gunning option for replacement OPVs and potential CANT replacement. All in all a very impressive weapons system.
To save some cash could some of the LAV's be upgraded instead of new builds? The Cockeril 105 turret would cover the first part of your desire. I agree with the millennium gum suggestion for across the services use. Phalanx replacement on the frigates and END plus up gunning option for replacement OPVs and potential CANT replacement. All in all a very impressive weapons system.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Ngatimozart
Trying to stay within the $$$$ value you started with I see the following mix that still allows some fixed wing top cover albeit not fast air. If I may;
Three AW 109 Power (basic) $18 million
Five AW109 A/LUH. $65 million
Five B350ER $152 million
Nine Beechcraft AT-6B $135 million (estimate)
Two C-17 $500 million
Five P-8 $2,700 million
Two B737 combi $200 million
Five KC-130J $500 million
Four MH-47F. $250 million
$5.9 billion for Air Force
Rationale
-Deployment of A/LUH x 5 per each of Burnham and Ohakea to support Army in an armed capacity.
-Basic AW 109 Powers for training
-B350ER for MEPT and EEZ MR
-AT-6B for armed missions in support of Army providing MH-47F protection as well as FAC / COIN / Aerial interdiction.
-MH-47F to Canadian spec for extra long range capability plus refuelling probe supported by the KC-130J.
-KC-130J to be USMC Harvest Hawk standard via FMS
I am not sold on NHI 90 so I would refrain from more of these.
Trying to stay within the $$$$ value you started with I see the following mix that still allows some fixed wing top cover albeit not fast air. If I may;
Three AW 109 Power (basic) $18 million
Five AW109 A/LUH. $65 million
Five B350ER $152 million
Nine Beechcraft AT-6B $135 million (estimate)
Two C-17 $500 million
Five P-8 $2,700 million
Two B737 combi $200 million
Five KC-130J $500 million
Four MH-47F. $250 million
$5.9 billion for Air Force
Rationale
-Deployment of A/LUH x 5 per each of Burnham and Ohakea to support Army in an armed capacity.
-Basic AW 109 Powers for training
-B350ER for MEPT and EEZ MR
-AT-6B for armed missions in support of Army providing MH-47F protection as well as FAC / COIN / Aerial interdiction.
-MH-47F to Canadian spec for extra long range capability plus refuelling probe supported by the KC-130J.
-KC-130J to be USMC Harvest Hawk standard via FMS
I am not sold on NHI 90 so I would refrain from more of these.
The costs quoted seem to be very variable from either total WoL as in the P-8 quote through to what would be very basic flyaway airframe with no support / spares / training contract AW-109E's - no doubt quoted in USD.
In reality their is only $16B to spend on CapEx. $11B of which is earmarked through to 2026. Around $4B will be on further OpEx to operate this stuff from 2026-2026. A further $5B CapEx will follow from 2026-2031 though the OpEx for those acquistitions has not been earmarked.
If we are going to lists possible procurement costs they have to be accurate and backed up preferably with a recent linkable source. There needs to be uniformity and an explanation. The above figures are not accurate.
Example - the true cost of our current AW-109LUH were an all up procurement cost of NZD$141m. The 5 operational aircraft, the spare airframe for parts/ attrition, plus additional support, ground simulator & training etc.
http://www.kiwiflyer.co.nz/KiwiFlyer-Issue-17-A109-LUH-Arrives-for-RNZAF.pdf
The quote for the P-8's is problematic because the $2.7B will come from new money, existing OpEx costs from M22 outputs pushed through, and new OpEx budget increases over the operational life of the aircraft that are in addition to current M22 ouputs for the P-3K2.
If people are going to quote procurement costs please quote only airframe plus complementary contracts for training, sims, spares and manufacturer’s support from prime contractor, plus additional contractors such as engines if appropriate. There is no need to extrapolate full WoL costs - just the budget cost for the full contracted procurement price with the contracted suppliers.
The procurement model used to buy the SH-2G(I)'s and the T-C6's are the models to use when estimating NZDF CapEx.
Last edited:
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Mr. Conservative
My hypothetical pricing was based upon the post by Ngatimozart adjusted for numbers. I also took figures from various google searches for average prices which are in USD. Even at $141 million NZD at today's exchange of $.70 that's $95 million USD for the AW109. At $65 million for five A/LUH that's $13 million each which is 50% above listed of $9 million per. The training simulator and training is in place so additional spares and the airframes should be doable. I felt $550 million per P8 was a tad high based upon upfront cost of @$250 million per airframe.
So based upon the $$$ available this breakdown is not possible and further refinement is necessary. It truly will be a challenge when the time comes to even maintain the capabilities currently available with present assets.
Is P8 just too expensive to justify? Is a fleet of G6000 with the new SAAB systems going to be able to accomplish the task while still allowing the other replacements to proceed. I understand the 5eyes implications of P8 but putting all of ones eggs in this one basket seems too much.
My hypothetical pricing was based upon the post by Ngatimozart adjusted for numbers. I also took figures from various google searches for average prices which are in USD. Even at $141 million NZD at today's exchange of $.70 that's $95 million USD for the AW109. At $65 million for five A/LUH that's $13 million each which is 50% above listed of $9 million per. The training simulator and training is in place so additional spares and the airframes should be doable. I felt $550 million per P8 was a tad high based upon upfront cost of @$250 million per airframe.
So based upon the $$$ available this breakdown is not possible and further refinement is necessary. It truly will be a challenge when the time comes to even maintain the capabilities currently available with present assets.
Is P8 just too expensive to justify? Is a fleet of G6000 with the new SAAB systems going to be able to accomplish the task while still allowing the other replacements to proceed. I understand the 5eyes implications of P8 but putting all of ones eggs in this one basket seems too much.
A fleet of G6000's or Saab or XYZ will also look expensive if one extrapolates into the procurement WoL costs. The pros and cons of type X vs Y vs Z have all been done to death.
NG's hypothetical costings had methodological flaws in which he recognised and will no doubt update.
For all posting here please quote only airframe/unit plus required complementary contracts & agreements for training, sims, spares and manufacturer’s support from prime contractor, plus additional contractors such as engines if appropriate. Other quoted prices such as WoL estimations or flyway quotes from US budget documents will have to have a clear caveat made. There has to be the best attempt to compare oranges with oranges. It is the only reliable measure if we are looking at an indicator for comparison or estimation of procurement costs for the NZDF.