Royal New Zealand Air Force

[kiwipatriot69]

I still dont see why we cant simply use our 10 Seasprites, they have penguin missiles in, around our waters on the Opv or any other heli capable future ship in the works, to 'prosecute' . They are Naval helis, the Nh90 and A109 are not marinised,or armed. More than enough for a local, pacific threat we operate in normally.

Not disputing the need for P8 for surveilance at all, but when was the last time our P3 were used, to 'prosecute' anything? would our govt put such a high value asset into a high threat scenario? For Nz and its coastal patrols, i still think a few squadrons of multi role fighters would be needed in addition.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

CIWS was recently upgraded to block b, as a part of frigates current 'upgunning' so IMHO scrapping a modernised Phalanx is a big waste of money. Though i agree a bigger naval gun for the future Opv

 

[ngatimozart]

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.

Citing the flyaway cost for the list is ok, but the "required complementary contracts & agreements for training, sims, spares and manufacturer’s support from prime contractor, plus additional contractors such as engines" is difficult to ascertain because each acquisition is different. Even the NZDF Sprite and Texan acquisition support, training, sims, spares etc., are different in the fact that, for example, we had to acquire missiles for the Sprites. Using different countries acquisitions to include the associated costs is also problematic because each country will have different requirements. For example the Indonesian regenerated and upgraded F16 package cited is without weapons, which if we went down that road we would need.

With regard to my list, that's why I had included the 100% extra for support, training, sims, spares etc., which I think evens out the variations somewhat. I did not attempt to include the whole of life cost because again each country calculates it differently. The figures quoted next to the capability are the fly/drive/sail-away costs where I can verify them. I accept the methodological flaws and attempted to eliminate as many as I can. Also remember that the list is hypothetical and only a possible guide. It does not allow for the wheeling and dealing in govt to govt negotiations that would occur in any acquisition of these sizes.

On another note, a USN P8 Poseidon arrived in Auckland last night. This is the first visit of the P8 to NZ. The aircraft is based in Misawa, Japan. Also yesterday a MC130H Talon II touched down at Whenuapai for another visit. A US Army Citation departed Whenuapai the day before the Talon II arrived and last Wednesday a USAF C17A did a resupply flight to McMurdo ex Christchurch. It was not on the ground long at McMurdo, just to unload stores, equip and pax and uplift pax. This is now SOP over the winter after successful proving flights last winter.

 

[ngatimozart]

I still dont see why we cant simply use our 10 Seasprites, they have penguin missiles in, around our waters on the Opv or any other heli capable future ship in the works, to 'prosecute' . They are Naval helis, the Nh90 and A109 are not marinised,or armed. More than enough for a local, pacific threat we operate in normally.

The current OPVs do not have a hangar magazine so any helos that maybe used on them won't be able to use anything except small arms ammunition. The Seasprites will have to be replaced around 2030 anyway so that is why the other naval helicopters have been included.

Not disputing the need for P8 for surveilance at all, but when was the last time our P3 were used, to 'prosecute' anything? would our govt put such a high value asset into a high threat scenario? For Nz and its coastal patrols, i still think a few squadrons of multi role fighters would be needed in addition.

We don't just have our local area to contend with but also a regional and extra regional area where our SLOC are. A few squadrons of multi role fighters in RNZAF / RNZN markings are never going to fly, except in extremis and by then the manure will well and truly have hit the turbofan. As for using them for coastal patrol,apart from navexs that would be a total waste of the capability and taxpayer money.

 

[MrConservative]

Citing the flyaway cost for the list is ok, but the "required complementary contracts & agreements for training, sims, spares and manufacturer’s support from prime contractor, plus additional contractors such as engines" is difficult to ascertain because each acquisition is different. Even the NZDF Sprite and Texan acquisition support, training, sims, spares etc., are different in the fact that, for example, we had to acquire missiles for the Sprites. Using different countries acquisitions to include the associated costs is also problematic because each country will have different requirements. For example the Indonesian regenerated and upgraded F16 package cited is without weapons, which if we went down that road we would need.

People can cite the fly way cost per unit but they will need to state a clear caveat what it is and that support, training, sims, spares etc will need to be accurately costed in addition to this.

Indeed every procurement is different that is why I wish that there is a link provided that people can make a judgement on pertaining to the veracity of the information and the context it is to be used.

There is no clear cut methodology in which will provide an accurate estimate or forecast. However, the contractual cost of all available and likely elements of the procurement is much preferred and that is how the NZDF now scope their acquisition approach. If that figure cannot be ascertained then the caveat must be included. Such as "this procurement project did not include weapons systems." As in the case of the Indonesian F-16's.

With regard to my list, that's why I had included the 100% extra for support, training, sims, spares etc., which I think evens out the variations somewhat. I did not attempt to include the whole of life cost because again each country calculates it differently. The figures quoted next to the capability are the fly/drive/sail-away costs where I can verify them. I accept the methodological flaws and attempted to eliminate as many as I can. Also remember that the list is hypothetical and only a possible guide. It does not allow for the wheeling and dealing in govt to govt negotiations that would occur in any acquisition of these sizes.

A blanket additional 100% calculation does not provide the accuracy with respect to support, training, sims, spares etc. They greatly differ depending on the platform and project scope. Each platform has to be ascertained differently and that their are cited examples for further estimations.

New Zealand will mostly be seeking capital equipment that is either COTS or MOTS. Baseline commercial values of platform hardware and supporting services & contracts will not differentiate too substantially between peer OECD or NATO countries. So people will need to make value judgements on the contract quoted and whether or not the contract included offsets or greenfield infrastructure costs and the like. There are a number of current platforms that are likely to be chosen where by we can get accurate forecasts / estimates of platform, support, training, sims, spares, weapons if required.

To reiterate: If comparisons of procurement project costs are to be made then the basic platform + support, training, sims, spares etc as a package is imperfectly the best as it is at least consistent and measurable. It is also the model that the is closest to the NZDF contractually orientated approach.

 

[ngatimozart]

People can cite the fly way cost per unit but they will need to state a clear caveat what it is and that support, training, sims, spares etc will need to be accurately costed in addition to this.

Indeed every procurement is different that is why I wish that there is a link provided that people can make a judgement on pertaining to the veracity of the information and the context it is to be used.

There is no clear cut methodology in which will provide an accurate estimate or forecast. However, the contractual cost of all available and likely elements of the procurement is much preferred and that is how the NZDF now scope their acquisition approach. If that figure cannot be ascertained then the caveat must be included. Such as "this procurement project did not include weapons systems." As in the case of the Indonesian F-16's.



A blanket additional 100% calculation does not provide the accuracy with respect to support, training, sims, spares etc. They greatly differ depending on the platform and project scope. Each platform has to be ascertained differently and that their are cited examples for further estimations.

New Zealand will mostly be seeking capital equipment that is either COTS or MOTS. Baseline commercial values of platform hardware and supporting services & contracts will not differentiate too substantially between peer OECD or NATO countries. So people will need to make value judgements on the contract quoted and whether or not the contract included offsets or greenfield infrastructure costs and the like. There are a number of current platforms that are likely to be chosen where by we can get accurate forecasts / estimates of platform, support, training, sims, spares, weapons if required.

To reiterate: If comparisons of procurement project costs are to be made then the basic platform + support, training, sims, spares etc as a package is imperfectly the best as it is at least consistent and measurable. It is also the model that the is closest to the NZDF contractually orientated approach.

I am aware of that but such data is usually quite difficult to obtain and I quote from the NATO Independent Cost Estimating and the Role of Life Cycle Cost Analysis in Managing the Defence Enterprise, p 18

These conclusions are offered:
 It is, in fact, possible to generate an ICE on a major acquisition program using an international team of dedicated cost analysts.
 It is difficult, but not impossible, to share cost data across nations. Non-disclosure forms need to be completed, and information closely held. Further, it is useful if not essential to obtain buy-in early on from major stakeholders.

They were analysing the Dutch Rotterdam Class LPD acquisitions.

 

[MrConservative]

I am aware of that but such data is usually quite difficult to obtain and I quote from the NATO Independent Cost Estimating and the Role of Life Cycle Cost Analysis in Managing the Defence Enterprise, p 18

They were analysing the Dutch Rotterdam Class LPD acquisitions.

The NZDF/Treasury/DefMin are aware and consider the LCC / TCO or total cost of ownership / lifetime cost approaches during procurement analysis. The TCO is essentially coming from the new money allocated which is for CapEx, the new money for OpEx of the proposed platform in addition to the carry over OpEx allocations seen in previous M22 appropriations - plus depreciation and disposal. They all contribute to the TCO. Yes, that complete picture of information is very difficult to find and extrapolate. But with TOC / LCC one has to be very careful when one is attempting to calculate hypothetical cost forecasts based on a what is in reality a $16B CapEx figure in the NZDF case. It is the factors that make up the operational realisation.

To illustrate this the TOC of operating for example P-8 x 5 maybe for example $2.7B or even $3.7B or even more over the lifetime of the platform, but the contractual obligations to procure the platform for what is operational realisation is quite typically the initial equipment costs plus support, training, sims, spares etc. That is likely to be a figure somewhat lower than the TOC. This is the all up commercial package of equipment and services procured from 3rd party suppliers under contractual agreement that is mostly funded from allocations towards CapEx. This was illustrated in the T-6C and SH-2GI buys. The TOC draws from that initial cost of operational realisation plus the ongoing costs of achieving the operational output and sustainment of the platform over its defined lifetime.

Cheers MrC

 

[ngatimozart]

The MOD has issued a RFI for a Synthetic Training Device for the NH90s. The simulator is to have a life for the remaining duration of the NH90 service life in NZ which is nominally 2043 retirement. The intention is to have the first training course utilising the simulator in January 2018.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

You mentioned training costs as part of the allocated funds, does that include the recruitment of the needed personell to man the new vessels, aircraft? we would be potentially looking at hundreds of extra, skilled and unskilled, just to crew a extra frigate,let alone the other assets , across the three services.

 

[MrConservative]

You mentioned training costs as part of the allocated funds, does that include the recruitment of the needed personally to man the new vessels, aircraft? We would be potentially looking at hundreds of extra, skilled and unskilled, just to crew a extra frigate, let alone the other assets, across the three services.

Training generally comes out of operational expenditure. Generally because a contracted training package can also be part of a capital expenditure expense for the introduction of a new capability. However, if it is more trained crews required for an additional frigate or extra aircraft that is clearly an operational expenditure. Over the next decade $5B of the extra $16B allocated is for operational expenditure to meet new and existing capabilities.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Good news then. I would be concerned to see extra equipment in place and not have the funding to crew them. Case in point the LAVIII and the IPV. I believe there are shortfalls of skilled personnel across the services still.

 

[ngatimozart]

An update on the various foreign military aircraft movements. A RAAF C27J Spartan was parked up in Christchurch for a few days possibly due to some technical issues. It has now departed. A second USAF MC130H Combat Talon II has arrived at Whenuapai for two weeks of exercises in NZ. Finally the USN P8 Poseidon is still parked at Auckland International Airport and it has been mentioned elsewhere that NZG officials are / will be having a look through of it and that it is here for a week. I cannot speak to the validity of that information.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Airbus has begun a North American tour of the C295 likely in advance of a long delayed FWSAR final competition here in Canada.

How many C-130H are back in service after the upgrade and how many hours has this upgrade added to the fleet?

I believe it has been asked before but if a fleet of smaller transports were to be purchased, more as an Andover replacement, would this take enough load off of the C-130H fleet to allow contenders that are still developmental to mature to the point that a decision can be made as a result of real world performance. I look at A400 and KC-390 and Kawasaki C1 as developmental and options to replace the legacy C-130H.

Having reviewed the available literature the C-295 appears to be the most cost effective option regardless of commonality of platform with OZ and their C-27. At a quoted price of $25 to $28million USD per aircraft or $40 million NZ, a fleet of six C295 with inflight refuelling probes would be $240 million NZ. A supply of parts, training and a simulator should be covered by an additional $60 million NZ for a total of $300 million NZ. This is roughly the estimate of one C-17.

With a capacity of approximately half that of a C-130H these six new frames should be able to handle a multitude of taskings. With the type in service in Indonesia, Phillipines and Vietnam plus the C235s in French service in New Caledonia there is interoperability in the area.

Has Airbus completed the acquisition of Safeair? This would of course offer local servicing of the fleet.

I know this has been discussed before but ahead of the transport review I would like to hear other opinions of if such a purchase is a viable reality. The replacement of the C-130H fleet and the likely purchase of a larger airframe will cost a lot of money. Making the wrong choice and buying a lemon is not an option. Right now the A400 is oozing lemonade by the gallon and I am not sold and nor are those countries that are bound to it currently, namely Germany.

In the future a couple of FITS platforms could be added to allow an improved MR capability. This system and the aircraft are mature and the opex costs are known. Like the C-130 the C-295 can't carry everything or do everything but it is a cost effective NEW platform that can benefit the whole of the NZDF.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

The first Herc air frame was re entered into service last year, Ministry of defence papers online and RNZAF site will concur all have been done , last one i believe last year, concern for me is the ten year life it is proported to give, that means we will be retiring the first in 2020! Gerry Browlee / Defence minister was quoted as saying they expect to be flying them Hercs up to 2022 in an Nz Herald acticle about A400 m we were looking at last year.

So frankly, we are running out of time going by that. C295 has less range and speed,cargo ect than Hercs, far less than C17 or A400m. We had issues with landing one of our planes in Antarctica over range and bad weather putting the crew and Mp on board at risk. The Heavy equipment and ranges we cover, we need larger than this alone. a mix of heavy and medium lifters would be needed, even if its C130J and C17

 

[gf0012-aust]

Finally the USN P8 Poseidon is still parked at Auckland International Airport and it has been mentioned elsewhere that NZG officials are / will be having a look through of it and that it is here for a week. I cannot speak to the validity of that information.

RNZAF would have also seen the perf data of the P8 flying out of WA and seen direct comparisons against various countries P3 variants co-located at the time (March 2014)

I'd also assume that the NZ embeds would have also asked and observed RAAF C17 trials in antarctica Nov 2015

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...w=1280&bih=655#tbm=isch&q=RAAF+C17+antarctica

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Kiwipatriot69

My suggestion was for an aircraft class that supports the NZDF in some of its more mundane taskings. Flying 4000 km to Antartica requires a different more capable aircraft. Transport of passengers and freight around NZ on a daily basis plus response to the island states of the South Pacific would be able to be handled by this aircraft. Longer ranges and higher cargo weights dictates a need for an aircraft in the A400 and C17 range and these require massive investments for few frames. Numbers have an advantage all to itself. Having the ability to fly multiple sorties at one time with reduced loads allows a more cost effective use of assets. My personal preference would have been a 3 ship fleet of C17 for NZ but this is unlikely without used frames from USAF.

In retrospect how were the Andovers employed alongside the Herc's? Does this role not still exist within the NZDF?

 

[kiwipatriot69]

RNZAF 42 squadron operated ten andovers when they were retired in 1997,replaced with B200 King Airs, about five in service . I think it was a cost cutting measure of the nineties , along with the frigates and ACF. Yet another capability gap to address.

Another will be Vip role i suppose for the ministers, frankly i would rather they charter civilian planes for that. My choice if A400 problems arent fixed in time would be 3, C17 and five C130 J, minimum

 

[ngatimozart]

RNZAF would have also seen the perf data of the P8 flying out of WA and seen direct comparisons against various countries P3 variants co-located at the time (March 2014)

I'd also assume that the NZ embeds would have also asked and observed RAAF C17 trials in antarctica Nov 2015

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...w=1280&bih=655#tbm=isch&q=RAAF+C17+antarctica

The latest MRC post states that the P8 did a 75 minute demo flight in the military operating area when it was open to "interested persons" which one would presume to be the Future Airborne Surveillance Capability Project Study Group, some hangers on and maybe the Minister.

NZG Ministers and others have flown USAF C17 to Pegasus Field at McMurdo, plus RNZAF airmov personnel will be quite familiar with loading / unloading it at Christchurch due to the usual OP DEEP FREEZE Antarctic support activities including WINFLY (Winter Flight).

 

[gf0012-aust]

NZG Ministers and others have flown USAF C17 to Pegasus Field at McMurdo, plus RNZAF airmov personnel will be quite familiar with loading / unloading it at Christchurch due to the usual OP DEEP FREEZE Antarctic support activities including WINFLY (Winter Flight).

I was thinking more of the flight, handling and loggie side of the equation at the cold(er) end of the trip

 

[RegR]

RNZAF 42 squadron operated ten andovers when they were retired in 1997,replaced with B200 King Airs, about five in service . I think it was a cost cutting measure of the nineties , along with the frigates and ACF. Yet another capability gap to address.

Another will be Vip role i suppose for the ministers, frankly i would rather they charter civilian planes for that. My choice if A400 problems arent fixed in time would be 3, C17 and five C130 J, minimum

I seem to remember ther were split into 2 flights (possibly squadrons) of 6 and 4 (GP and pax/VIP) C/W appropriate paint schemes of then hercs(ish) and now king airs. I believe the flight if 4 was retired first and then the remaining consolidated squadron so you would assume that in this day of multi-role quick change set ups less can in fact be more in this instance and 6 C295 frames could indeed be not only a cost effective andover replacement but also take up the touted medium lift and short range maritime patrol within a single fleet.

Agree these would be to take up the slack (of both 40 and 5 sqn) and cover off the minor- mid tasks not take over fully there "larger" tasks in all senses of the word.

As an aside I remember seeing an andover flying low and slow over my hometown in their final years, they had quite a distinctive high pitch sound but still quite cool to see.