Royal New Zealand Air Force

[MrConservative]

In the absence of any sign of a C295/C27J type on the RNZAF horizon, I assume that whatever replaces the C-130H will be expected to fulfill the role of 'dirt-tracker' as well. I like my tactical airlifters cheap & cheerful. They have a strong tendency to end up peppered with holes (sometimes even mortared) in action.

As for the light tactical transport absence - I understand that with a far reduced Territorial Army (two thirds less) and reduced Regular Army (one third less) numbers compared to the late 70' - early 90's many are seeing it as unnecessary and not cost efficient as that support requirement they gave is not there. With newer, more efficient, more capable C-130's becoming available and the changes in NZDF Conops and force structure - I accept that they may have a point. That the infrequent light/empty load is a better penalty instead of the massive cost of introducing and operating a new capability. Buying and adding a single extra C-130J to a fleet to cover the air mobility spectrum the cost / benefit is much better than introducing even a single airframe of a new type like a CN295/C-27J. It is that first airframe that is the real cost because of ongoing support, training, documentation, increase squadron costs via more crew. The sentimental side of me wants to keep on looking up and watching a C-130 rumble overhead probably more than any other aircraft.

 

[t68]

I remember NG saying the will revise the heavy airlift in 2018, is that when the have decide or another review is being done?

 

[ngatimozart]

I remember NG saying the will revise the heavy airlift in 2018, is that when the have decide or another review is being done?

That is when the next DMRR is due (1st and previous one in 2014) and that will most likely determine funding paths for the following years. I think that they may now have a DMRR ever four of five years, if they follow this pattern.

 

[Rob c]

Rob, Ngati

I think it's not a question of damage to aircraft vs. damage to landing strip. Gravel/debris can obviously cause damage to the underside of an aircraft, while landing a 77-tonne (empty weight) aircraft tends to plough up a paddock. This gives two good reasons for USAF to avoid rough-field landings unless absolutely necessary, particularly if you are intending to use the same patch of dirt for ongoing operations, and can't afford any down-time for the aircraft.

Ngati, Rob
My personal view is it is probably a bit of both, but given that it is likely to be more challenging to fix the aircraft I would lean more that way. The main problem when assessing what a aircraft can land on is not its total weight, but its ability to spread that load and and the runways load bearing rating. To take an extreme example would be to look at a 6 tonne plus fuel Skyhawk was banned (except in an emergency) from most secondary paved airfields in NZ as there load bearing rating was not high enough, a C17 could probably use them all . It is all about load per wheel ( a good indicator here is the tyre pressure) and how well those wheels spread the load over how bigger area. I did read an RAF item some were that their concern was the aircraft damage. However airfield damage must be a factor.

 

[gf0012-aust]

its about ground pressure when you're talking about large aircraft and runways/airstrips

hence why galaxys and big ants can often land on strips which may not take smaller aircraft

look at the undercarriages to see why.....

 

[Rob c]

In regards to the C-5 I highly dealt NZ would get something like that, Not that I don't think they couldn't operate it but the government would be jumping up and down at how much it would cost.

However with the recent upgrades having reduced runway requirement's, fuel burn, operating and maintenance cost's they are now more economical then ever to have having read in some articles (not sure of there validity) that cost's have almost halved per a flight hour.

That being said another 2013 article Costly Flight Hours | TIME.com put the cost's of the standard C-5B at just under $79k, if the half cost is accurate then possibly marginally cheaper per a ton then the C-17 but still not necessarily an aircraft suitable to NZ. If anything it is more suitable to the RAAF with the ADF being more active globally then the NZDF while also having plans set in future for much larger equipment that could justify much larger aircraft, New Zealand just doesn't have those justifications.

So while the C-5M Super Galaxy could operate from NZ airfields it would still be more restricted then most other aircraft, would have less need for it's massive cargo capacity and actually reduce the ability of the RNZAF to respond to multiple missions at any one time as you would end up with fewer air frames. All in all shiney toy, but not very practical for NZ. As for the RAAF? Well there is an argument to have it down the track, We can actually afford it.. but more important needs for the foreseeable future so it's about as likely as getting an honest politician.

Regards, vonnoobie.

In regard to costs of operating aircraft look at Costly Flight Hours | TIME.com
this is USAF published cost ,it may surprise some of you.

 

[ngatimozart]

In regard to costs of operating aircraft look at Costly Flight Hours | TIME.com
this is USAF published cost ,it may surprise some of you.

I already have a copy of the data which a goodly 2 - 3 years ago. It's on an excel spreadsheet. I refer to it quite often. The other US acquisition costings data has to be look for, but can be found by going through the Pentagon website and budget requests.

 

[40 deg south]

As for the light tactical transport absence - I understand that with a far reduced Territorial Army (two thirds less) and reduced Regular Army (one third less) numbers compared to the late 70' - early 90's many are seeing it as unnecessary and not cost efficient as that support requirement they gave is not there. With newer, more efficient, more capable C-130's becoming available and the changes in NZDF Conops and force structure - I accept that they may have a point. That the infrequent light/empty load is a better penalty instead of the massive cost of introducing and operating a new capability. Buying and adding a single extra C-130J to a fleet to cover the air mobility spectrum the cost / benefit is much better than introducing even a single airframe of a new type like a CN295/C-27J. It is that first airframe that is the real cost because of ongoing support, training, documentation, increase squadron costs via more crew. The sentimental side of me wants to keep on looking up and watching a C-130 rumble overhead probably more than any other aircraft.

Mr C highlights the issue we all tend to overlook while building our fantasy fleets. Every new type introduced into service carries a significant up-front cost, irrespective of how many aircraft are purchased. Fixed-wing transport currently has three types:
KIngAir B200 - Multi-engine training (primary role), plus domestic VIP/light utility
757 Combi - Strategic lift (pallets & passengers only), international VIP
C-130H - Everything else

To manage costs, I suspect the government will want to avoid increasing the number of types in service if possible. So if a 'like for like' option is chosen to replace the current Hercules fleet, I think we can kiss goodbye to seeing a light lifter (C27/295) and a heavy lifter (A400). There simply won't be the funds for types which have such a large overlap in capability with the C-130J (or, less probably, the KC-390).

If we get the C130J (or similar), I would expect we would see an upgrade in the B200s to a KingAir 350, which has enhanced carrying capability and well-developed surveillance capabilities, but can still fill the training role. And an upgrade in the 757s to 767 or A330s for greater capacity/range (particularly for Antarctic ops). But we will still be reliant on others for transport of helicopters/heavy equipment for both HADR and overseas deployments.

The only alternative I can see is if the A400 has sufficiently matured by 2018 that it looks like a safe option for NZ. If that happens, we could conceivably end up with a small (3-4) A400 fleet, plus an accompanying light lifter, as the there would otherwise be an unacceptably large gap between the twin-engine trainer and the A400. The solution might be to downsize the multi-engine trainer to a basic twin-engine trainer (DA-42 or similar) that is smaller and cheaper then the B200, and have pilots graduate from that onto the light lifter (C27/295).

With the A400 able to handle strategic lift of people and cargo, plus Antarctica, the slot filled by the 757s would pretty much shrink to VIP transport. Some of this could be covered by the A400 (as it currently is by the C130H), meaning it would be hard to justify a whole new type. Chartering from Air NZ or a lease deal for a extended-range B737/A320 type would be the way to go.

So there you have it - the only two possible ways forward for RNZAF fixed-wing transport. Faster and cheaper than the official multi-year study, but quite possibly (I'm speculating here) coming to similar conclusions. Tell me what I have got wrong, or come up with an alternative!

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Range with the Kc 390 would be an issue, yes, wiki again but comparitivly 15% less than the current C130!

 

[John Fedup]

If the A400M hasn't turned the corner by mid to late 2017 it might never make it. Not sure if NZ has a requirement for helicopter refueling, something the Hercules can do now and the A400M isn't even close to having that capability. By 2018, the Hercules will likely still be the easiest and safest choice.

 

[Rob c]

If the A400M hasn't turned the corner by mid to late 2017 it might never make it. Not sure if NZ has a requirement for helicopter refueling, something the Hercules can do now and the A400M isn't even close to having that capability. By 2018, the Hercules will likely still be the easiest and safest choice.

I dont think that the date for the C130 is quite as fixed as it may seem. Two years ago a group of us ex airforce visited the Ministry of Defence C130 rebuild at Woodbourne and were shown around by Graham Gilmore.( Gp Cpt rtd. my old boss at D Eng ) who was in charge of the rebuild. The fatigue remediation being carried out was spectacular and we were told that the life expectancy after rebuild was well in excess of the programs requirements. As the the program was way late the aircraft and combined with increased life they could be flown well past 2025. The other bit of info passed on by Gaham was that at that date C130H availability was significantly better than C130 J availability. Who's H's were being compared with who's J's I dont know.

 

[Vulcan]

...and the A400M isn't even close to having that capability.

Solution is being wind-tunnel tested with a flight test campaign to follow.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...solution-for-a400m-helicopter-refuell-426543/

 

[RegR]

Mr C highlights the issue we all tend to overlook while building our fantasy fleets. Every new type introduced into service carries a significant up-front cost, irrespective of how many aircraft are purchased. Fixed-wing transport currently has three types:
KIngAir B200 - Multi-engine training (primary role), plus domestic VIP/light utility
757 Combi - Strategic lift (pallets & passengers only), international VIP
C-130H - Everything else

To manage costs, I suspect the government will want to avoid increasing the number of types in service if possible. So if a 'like for like' option is chosen to replace the current Hercules fleet, I think we can kiss goodbye to seeing a light lifter (C27/295) and a heavy lifter (A400). There simply won't be the funds for types which have such a large overlap in capability with the C-130J (or, less probably, the KC-390).

If we get the C130J (or similar), I would expect we would see an upgrade in the B200s to a KingAir 350, which has enhanced carrying capability and well-developed surveillance capabilities, but can still fill the training role. And an upgrade in the 757s to 767 or A330s for greater capacity/range (particularly for Antarctic ops). But we will still be reliant on others for transport of helicopters/heavy equipment for both HADR and overseas deployments.

The only alternative I can see is if the A400 has sufficiently matured by 2018 that it looks like a safe option for NZ. If that happens, we could conceivably end up with a small (3-4) A400 fleet, plus an accompanying light lifter, as the there would otherwise be an unacceptably large gap between the twin-engine trainer and the A400. The solution might be to downsize the multi-engine trainer to a basic twin-engine trainer (DA-42 or similar) that is smaller and cheaper then the B200, and have pilots graduate from that onto the light lifter (C27/295).

With the A400 able to handle strategic lift of people and cargo, plus Antarctica, the slot filled by the 757s would pretty much shrink to VIP transport. Some of this could be covered by the A400 (as it currently is by the C130H), meaning it would be hard to justify a whole new type. Chartering from Air NZ or a lease deal for a extended-range B737/A320 type would be the way to go.

So there you have it - the only two possible ways forward for RNZAF fixed-wing transport. Faster and cheaper than the official multi-year study, but quite possibly (I'm speculating here) coming to similar conclusions. Tell me what I have got wrong, or come up with an alternative!

Whilst they would obviously be trying to keep fleet types to a minimum for financial reasons if the operational benefits then begin to outweigh those savings or cause 'savings' to be realised elsewhere within the fleet(s) then no doubt they will put in some serious thought either way. Sometimes it's just a case of biting the bullet for the long term gains and the alternate lifter was mooted within our current fleet ie C130H/B757 so would a like for like fleet really change this noted deficiancy any if at all? The problems were not all oversized or underutilisation but also availability, overuse and cost PFH etc.

We have had another fleet in the mix when we had the andovers that were retired without replacement so has been done before and is workable and infact with the A4s and machhis retired we are down a few 'types' so the space for any growth is doable. The point of less TF and RF has been bought up as possibly a lack of requirement now but in fact I see this in the opposite vein as the TF (albeit smaller) are now more intergrated into there RF parent units more than ever before as in trades come more under the direct control of their individual corps at Linton, Burnham etc for training, courses, excercises and ops therefore there would be more reason/ requirement for air travel, not that they travelled by air that much anyway unless a large ex requiring large movement. The navy rockies also do this more now as well to marry up with the IPVs in AK. RF (tri) routinely fly up and down the country via AirNZ on a daily basis and this is in conjunction with the limited/sporadic at best SATS system and I would argue we do more exs, exchanges and ops nationally, regionally and internationally now then we may have nesscessarily done in the past so the pressure will still be there.

If we stick with like for like in our current numbers and essentially capability, then we are not actually solving that much from the identified deficiancies list bar hopefully reliability and even that's debateable. As for the king airs I don't actually see this as a 'transport' aircraft per se (albeit very minor) in the sense more a toyota corolla vs a unimog truck as I'm not sure 5-6 limited/excess people or some missing tent poles for an ex (actually happened, and still was a logistical nightmare in terms of door width) were the main types of 'deficiancies' identified in the current fleet and would not in fact offer that much relief at all to say a C130. It was reccomended we ideally need 8 C130s to complete tasks, fullfill missions, ensure availability etc nevermind the obvious elephant (literally) in the room of organically moving NZLAV and NH90 so unless we stump up for at least a modest increase in current numbers or alternatively a medium lifter to supplement then we will just go full circle and end up repeating the problems of the past and therefore no change.

I would like to think they are trying to wait out A400 and ride the wave of problems, issues a deficiancies into a future platform that is capable, reliable and efficient but possibly a wait too long if at all. I agree I don't see us getting a C130 type and A400 as they are too similar in class and both too near the top end of the scale (for us). C130J will be our heavy lift IMO if we go down this track and if A400 then we would definately require a supplemental medium lifter not only due to the limited numbers we would get but the identified issues we currently have will only be compounded.

For us it's all about costs. We have done the 'savings' route for too long, at cost, time to loosen the strings abit and realise the worth to be had.

 

[swerve]

Range with the Kc 390 would be an issue, yes, wiki again but comparitivly 15% less than the current C130!

Wikipedia says the ranges are -
KC-390 with maximum payload (27000 kg*) = 1400
C-130J with max normal payload (34000 lb or 15400 kg) = 1800

Embraer says
KC-390 with maximum payload (23000 kg) = 1380
with 13000 kg = 2780

USAF says -
C-130H with maximum normal payload (16590 kg) = 1050
C-130J with maximum normal payload (15420 kg) = 1800
C-130H with 35000 lb (15875 kg) = 1300
C-130J with 35000 lb (15875 kg) = 1600

Lockheed Martin gives the same numbers for C-130J except that it doesn't specify a weight for 'maximum normal'

All distances in nautical miles.

It's hard to see how one can decide from those numbers that "the current C-130" (C-130H for the RNZAF, isn't it?) has a longer range than the KC-390. According to the official data, KC-390 can carry 23 tons further than the C-130H can carry 16 tons.

*Wiki cites a recent (March 2016) article on Defesanet by Pedro Paulo Rezende (Brazilian journalist), quoting Paulo Gastão, director of the KC-390 programme for Embraer.

 

[John Fedup]

I think the KC390 should be looked at seriously , especially if the existing C-130H service life is ok out to 2025. By 2020 both the A400M and the KC390 performance should be known. I would like to the KC390 would get a far evaluation for Canada's FWSAR program but the political considerations make this doubtful.

 

[MrConservative]

I think the KC390 should be looked at seriously , especially if the existing C-130H service life is ok out to 2025. By 2020 both the A400M and the KC390 performance should be known. I would like to the KC390 would get a far evaluation for Canada's FWSAR program but the political considerations make this doubtful.

The fact that the C-130J has the legs to lift over 15000kgs to Rarotonga (1620 nm from WP and historically the most distant of the five regular sorties into South Pacific our C-130’s have conducted over the last 51 years) pretty much settles its capabilities as a medium tactical transport of choice in the our regional South Pacific context. Tactical loads - strategic distances. A smaller tactical transport like the C-27J can only airlift 6000kgs to Raro with less volume. As for the KC-390. How much weight will both Canada and New Zealand give our TTCP, CCEB & ASIC protocol responsibilities when seriously making such a decision? I dare say quite a lot and thankfully for good reason.

 

[Rob c]

Wikipedia says the ranges are -
KC-390 with maximum payload (27000 kg*) = 1400
C-130J with max normal payload (34000 lb or 15400 kg) = 1800

Embraer says
KC-390 with maximum payload (23000 kg) = 1380
with 13000 kg = 2780

USAF says -
C-130H with maximum normal payload (16590 kg) = 1050
C-130J with maximum normal payload (15420 kg) = 1800
C-130H with 35000 lb (15875 kg) = 1300
C-130J with 35000 lb (15875 kg) = 1600

Lockheed Martin gives the same numbers for C-130J except that it doesn't specify a weight for 'maximum normal'

All distances in nautical miles.

It's hard to see how one can decide from those numbers that "the current C-130" (C-130H for the RNZAF, isn't it?) has a longer range than the KC-390. According to the official data, KC-390 can carry 23 tons further than the C-130H can carry 16 tons.

*Wiki cites a recent (March 2016) article on Defesanet by Pedro Paulo Rezende (Brazilian journalist), quoting Paulo Gastão, director of the KC-390 programme for Embraer.

This is the major point, the maximum range (usually empty) is irrelevant as it has no useful purpose, except for delivering an aircraft to a location. Range/payload is the all important equation. That tells us what we can actually achieve with the aircraft. The figures quoted above would indicate that the KC390 has a distinct advantage in this respect. In respect of the higher risk factor with the KC390 I think that will come down with time and one must remember that little progress is made without some risk being involved. In the past we made good progress when we took a punt, for instance we were the lead customer of the C130H and the first oversea's customer for the P3 and this was in an age when computer simulation was not available to check that the changes we ordered would work.

 

[40 deg south]

Glad to have stimulated some discussion. I'll respond to a few points below.

Timing
The DWP support documents noted the intent to prepare another Defence Mid-point Re-balancing Review in 2018, prior to making any decisions on new aircraft purchases. This doesn't mean a decision will necessarily be made in 2018, but certainly nothing will be ordered before then.

Very interesting comments from Rob c re C-130H lifespan - if correct we could end up replacing the Orion before the Hercules!

Also possible we will have a different government in 2018, and if that happens it will probably place less emphasis on NZ's links to the US.

KC-390 vs. C-130J
I think the the C-130 is the far more likely choice, based on ease of transition, use by allies and political ties to US. I would hope the KC-390 is at least evaluated, based on broadly similar (claimed) capability, lower purchase price and almost certainly lower running costs. Boeing has taken on a role in international support of the aircraft outside Latin America, so the US wouldn't be entirely cut out of the picture. But it is admittedly still along shot.

I have seen too many conflicting claims on range/payload to trust any of them.

A-400M
Notwithstanding the complaints from Germany, I think Europe has sunk too much money and prestige into this project to let it die. It doesn't have to be fully sorted by 2018, just have a clear path to resolve issues, and good feedback from the main users at that point. Cost, via the Euro/NZ exchange rate, could also be a significant factor.

As far as I am aware, NZ has never sought a helicopter refueling capability.

B767/ A330
A major flaw in my previous analysis is that the 757 has a capability that neither the 767 or A330 can match - to readily convert from passengers to cargo. While the 757s were customised for NZ, there was already a certified 'Combi' version to draw upon. As far as I am aware, while there are freighter conversions for both the A330 and (especially) B767, there is no 'Combi' equivalent. I'm not sure NZ will wish to pay to certify a unique variant.

You could keep the passenger seats and rely on the standard under-floor cargo area, but that would reduce the cargo capacity vastly. Or buy one cargo and one passenger airframe. but that reduces flexibility and eliminates back-up capability.

Overall Capability
My outline of an upgrade to each fleet component ((757 to 767, C-130 H to J and B20 to B350) implicitly accepts that the current major limitations on RNZAF aren't going to be removed (except perhaps with regard to Antarctica using a 767). I think this is a likely choice in light of funding realities, and a hinted-at preference to prioritise maritime surveillance over airlift.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Apologies, i had meant the current, as in latest, C130J model. Which would be my default choice as part of a mixed fleet of light ,medium ,and heavy lift ,if Airbus cant sort out its issues, You also have to look at the economic, political issues Brazil is going through ,that could affect any potential sale too with Embraer.

 

[MrConservative]

To manage costs, I suspect the government will want to avoid increasing the number of types in service if possible. So if a 'like for like' option is chosen to replace the current Hercules fleet, I think we can kiss goodbye to seeing a light lifter (C27/295) and a heavy lifter (A400). There simply won't be the funds for types which have such a large overlap in capability with the C-130J (or, less probably, the KC-390).

Indeed. If the A400M is cured of its current major gremlins within the next 2 years it will figure in the mix and is the only realistic option with the C-17 out of the way that can manage out sized loads and heavier strategic air mobility role.

There is more than enough of a capability gap between the C-130J and the A400M in an air mobility sense within the RNZAF fleet to have both as they will be tasked and utilised differently. One primarily as the workhorse tactical air lifter for varying roles in the South Pacific and NZ the other for Antarctica and Global deployments.

If we get the C130J (or similar), I would expect we would see an upgrade in the B200s to a KingAir 350, which has enhanced carrying capability and well-developed surveillance capabilities, but can still fill the training role. And an upgrade in the 757s to 767 or A330s for greater capacity/range (particularly for Antarctic ops). But we will still be reliant on others for transport of helicopters/heavy equipment for both HADR and overseas deployments.

I have always endorsed the B350-ER as a great fit in the MEPT and MarSurv role. However, I am keeping an eye on the new Pilatus PC-24 which for the same acquisition price zone $9m and cost of ownership may offer use more utility with its longer range, better short field including rough strip capability, faster transit and great interior cabin volume. No dual trainer or surveillance version offered as yet but with the PC-12 and PC-21 track record that would be a downstream development. It has the scope for greater potential post 2020 than the B350 in the context of utility beyond NZ. HADR / Medevac / Light transport roles with the ability to stretch its legs comfortably to Rarotonga 1620nm with 2 pilots and 4 passengers plus a decent amount of payload going on its 1,800 nm single pilot 6 passenger range plus baggage range with NBAA IFR reserves of 100 nm + 30 min VFR, LRC, Single Pilot Ops) a turbo fan actually has an attraction from a pilot training perspective following on from the PT-6 Texan and in that light is a better bridge as a MEPT to the Heavies. The Flying Doctor service have ordered them and they have a Aust / NZ agent. Using Business Jet variants for MEPT is nothing unusual and neither for Medevac into the Pacific as the NZRU used the Hawkes Bay Medevac jet (a Nextant Aerospace 400TXi or remanufactured Hawker 400) to retrieve Chiefs Coach Andrew Strawbridge last year from Fiji) Building up quite an order list though. I bet the their good agent will come knocking on the NZDF door when the time comes... and we would not have to burn-up precious C-130 hours to medevac patients from the Pacific - far cheaper. Would also be a reasonable East Coast / South Pacific VIP aircraft for quick fast trips to nearby capitals. Once the PC-24 gets type certed for dual control pilot training and a basic search radar surveillance capability i could very much earn its place in the RNZAF / NZG line-up.

http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/01-...es/1.0/files/pdf/PC-24-Crystal-Class-Book.pdf

With the A400 able to handle strategic lift of people and cargo, plus Antarctica, the slot filled by the 757s would pretty much shrink to VIP transport. Some of this could be covered by the A400 (as it currently is by the C130H), meaning it would be hard to justify a whole new type. Chartering from Air NZ or a lease deal for a extended-range B737/A320 type would be the way to go.

Agree with this entirely.

Lease or Buy with a support management contract are ways to reduce ownership costs and complications of small fleets or single aircraft. Low hours B734 examples with the Swiss LR quickchange upgrade can be had for less than US$10m all up can cater for the VIP/Troop Transport role. The GE sourced digital cockpit upgrade for the 73 classic has seen hundreds done over the last 7 years and comparatively cheap - if that is a real issue.

We do not have to spend $200m to buy something for the PM and other senior Cabinet members to hobnob in. Better the budget is spent towards core military assets like the C-130J/A400M. I know the NZG needs a VIP / Passenger Transport capability but spend $20m which should be perfectly fine and not stupid money. They the politicians are not worth it anyway and the media who cadge rides in the cheap seats are even less worthy.

Controller.com | 1997 BOEING 737-400 For Sale

The LR upgrade will give B734 a range similar to the B752.
GainJet Extends Aircraft Range with “Quick Change” Fuel System

Local firm Airwork NZ based in Ardmore leases and supports the B734 and has a growing fleet. They specialise in this type of stuff. Basically the NZDF contracts Airwork (Or other) to source an aircraft and arrange any upgrade work required (AEI of Florida whom Airwork source their B734-SF's from do a Combi conversion btw) and then they supply the finished aircraft, the RNZAF either lease or buy or buy-back/lease the aircraft depending on best commercial need, signs a management support contract and the RNZAF flies it and fuels it.

B73's have so much scope for variation within Cert Type requirements and so many options that asking for a stripper pole, jacuzzi's and mirror disco balls would not phase them. Frankly ideal options for a true VIP version.