Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Novascotiaboy]

I was looking at aircraft costs recently I see list price for new build 737 max at @$100 million US. The last whitetail if available could be had for likely $250 million US and its value is already well established by current users. This sole C17 plus a B767 to sweeten the deal on the pair from Boeing would provide a quantum leap in RNZAF capabilities. As has been stated there is likely only a handful of flights in support of Antartica ops thus allowing availability to outsize and long haul usage. The basic B767 would offer all the ability of the current B757s and then some.

I agree the C130J is the realistic replacement for the legacy Hercs as transition would be simplified. My only concern with like for like is will the C130J-30 be considered as the cost will be higher to go along with the increased capacity. Compared to Canada we replaced our legacy E models with the stretched frame and reduced the fleet. Hopefully the reality of a fleet of eight can be justified via capacity of the stretched frame while still retaining a minimum five frame fleet.

A C17, a B767 and five C130J-30s will give the RNZAF a significant albeit specialized fleet that will serve the needs of the government without adding frames.

Plus the B350s with an EO fit out this would be a very good mix INHO.

 

[rjtjrt]

NZ Defence has been very canny about getting maximum from their limited buck. They have very little room to make a mistake with budget they are given.
I think the purchase of C-130J has potential to give most bang for buck, with least risk. By time NZ are due to order the cost curve will be at it's most affordable for C-130 production, and aircraft will be mature, reliable and very little risk of unexpected problems.
A-400, KC-390 are still getting sorted, and sorted by a much more questionable industry able and funded to sort out issues.
C-130J is enough and reliable, even though A-400 is seductive on paper. C-130 is operated by your big partners in conceivable deployments, so much cheaper and more reliable to support on deployment.
You most likely also have more prospect of 1 for 1 replacement with C-130J.

 

[Volkodav]

I think it's been mentioned before, NZ was looking at Phantoms and Starlifers in the 60's, determined they couldn't afford both so went for Skyhawks instead of Phantoms as strategic airlift was seen as the more critical requirement. In the end the RNZAF missed out on the Starlifters as well, not sure why but Australia was looking at them at the same time but missed the boat as they went out of production before the decision was made.

 

[MrConservative]

I think it's been mentioned before, NZ was looking at Phantoms and Starlifers in the 60's, determined they couldn't afford both so went for Skyhawks instead of Phantoms as strategic airlift was seen as the more critical requirement. In the end the RNZAF missed out on the Starlifters as well, not sure why but Australia was looking at them at the same time but missed the boat as they went out of production before the decision was made.

They were different time frames - about 3-5 years apart. According to the RNZAF Liaison Officer sent to California in the mid 1960's (who I spoke with frequently when he was alive and always walked away learning something new) to oversee the acquisitions, the RNZAF were looking to replace the ageing Handley Page Hastings and considered both the C-130 and soon to be introduced C-141. The CAS at the time AVM Ian Morrison personally was interested in getting both, wanting the C-141 to replace the Hasting first and the C-130 to later replace the Bristol Freighters. However the C-141 production was basically unavailable in 1965 due to the Vietnam War with the USAF needing all the Stratlift it could get and it being a new type. What really killed it was that the C-141 like the C-130 was not wide enough to load a M41 Tank. Plus they were introducing the Huey, the Sioux and the Orion around the same time so it was the C-130H which could do what was required of it. The C-141 was a quantum more expensive as well. The RNZAF were getting a lot of kit and the Army and Navy were getting a little antsy. The Canberra replacement in the later part of the decade became the Skyhawk and again the RNZAF had a preference for the F-4 as it basically was a fighter bomber. The Mirage was also evaluated long with a number of other aircraft, including the Buccaneer I believe. In the end the politically astute ACDRE Frank Gill picked up on the negativity surrounding the price tag of the F-4 amongst the political classes and made a call that the A-4 would do all we needed of it and would do it well. He was on the money on that. However, if my memory serves me right, when the plan went to Cabinet for sign off the wheels came of it when the PM decided that they they would only get 14 and not the larger amount they were requesting. It was not until 1984 when the RNZAF got the A-4's in numbers it originally wanted when the 10 RAN A-4G's became available.

 

[Volkodav]

Thanks for that, it is interesting how the same requirements keep coming up, even decades apart. I suppose because many requirements are based on geography and a detailed understanding of what is actually needed to do the job.

 

[40 deg south]

I was looking at aircraft costs recently I see list price for new build 737 max at @$100 million US. The last whitetail if available could be had for likely $250 million US and its value is already well established by current users. This sole C17 plus a B767 to sweeten the deal on the pair from Boeing would provide a quantum leap in RNZAF capabilities. As has been stated there is likely only a handful of flights in support of Antartica ops thus allowing availability to outsize and long haul usage. The basic B767 would offer all the ability of the current B757s and then some.

Consideration of a C-17 Air Transport Capability [Ministry of Defence NZ]

Nova
Just to knock this idea on the head once and for all, the NZ govt has rejected purchasing the sole remaining C-17. RNZAF obviously put a lot of work into chasing this option, and working out how to trim costs elsewhere to help pay for it. But ultimately, the gov't has said no, and there is no prospect the current government will revisit this decision.

There is some interesting info in the linked cabinet papers that I will post on when I have the time. Incidentally, RNZAF very dismissive (unduly so, in my opinion) of purchasing a B767/787/A330.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Thank you 40 deg south. This is unfortunate on both counts.

So is it plausible they have resigned themselves to a single fleet of C130J but in more numbers and allow the efforts of the B757s to be taken up by leased time with a commercial carrier? Or would a B737 combo purchase be more in line to allow synergies with the likely P8 acquisition? As noted B737 is quite capable in its newer versions but is it a cost effective replacement?

What other probable mix could be under consideration? I truly don't see A400 or C27 / C295 given the info supplied by Mr C with regards to the reduction in taskings since the Andovers.

The acquisition of Safeair has to play into the future IMHO. Time will tell I guess so I will have to be patient and wait and see what the government finally decides.

 

[chis73]

Some information gleaned from last week's parliamentary Estimates debate: Current MoD planning is for only four aircraft to replace the current 6-strong Orion fleet (presumably P-8 is the front-runner). I think most of us on here predicted this would be the case, but it's nice to have it confirmed. Certainly makes having a 2nd-tier aircraft option much more attractive.

Gerry Brownlee:

The Orions are a great aircraft. They have done marvellous work, over a long period of time, and the air force have extended that life beyond what might normally be expected. The avionics on them are state of the art and as good as anywhere in the world. But new aircraft—and we want four of them—is what is required and we will be acquiring those in the early part of the 2020s.

(source)

 

[Rob c]

They were different time frames - about 3-5 years apart. According to the RNZAF Liaison Officer sent to California in the mid 1960's (who I spoke with frequently when he was alive and always walked away learning something new) to oversee the acquisitions, the RNZAF were looking to replace the ageing Handley Page Hastings and considered both the C-130 and soon to be introduced C-141. The CAS at the time AVM Ian Morrison personally was interested in getting both, wanting the C-141 to replace the Hasting first and the C-130 to later replace the Bristol Freighters. However the C-141 production was basically unavailable in 1965 due to the Vietnam War with the USAF needing all the Stratlift it could get and it being a new type. What really killed it was that the C-141 like the C-130 was not wide enough to load a M41 Tank. Plus they were introducing the Huey, the Sioux and the Orion around the same time so it was the C-130H which could do what was required of it. The C-141 was a quantum more expensive as well. The RNZAF were getting a lot of kit and the Army and Navy were getting a little antsy. The Canberra replacement in the later part of the decade became the Skyhawk and again the RNZAF had a preference for the F-4 as it basically was a fighter bomber. The Mirage was also evaluated long with a number of other aircraft, including the Buccaneer I believe. In the end the politically astute ACDRE Frank Gill picked up on the negativity surrounding the price tag of the F-4 amongst the political classes and made a call that the A-4 would do all we needed of it and would do it well. He was on the money on that. However, if my memory serves me right, when the plan went to Cabinet for sign off the wheels came of it when the PM decided that they they would only get 14 and not the larger amount they were requesting. It was not until 1984 when the RNZAF got the A-4's in numbers it originally wanted when the 10 RAN A-4G's became available.

This is much as I remember it. There where some interesting extra's at the time, One was for a ASW C130 type with a total buy of 13 transports and ASW's so the combi idea was alive and well back then. Another call at the time was the F111 as a Canberra replacement, and the other reason the F4 lost out was the quoted maintenance man hours, which for a D model was 52 per flight hour, Due mainly to the primitive avionics of the period, which was both maintenance intensive and not very reliable. though I would think we could have reduced that as we reduced the manhours in the A4 by over a third. The F5 was looked at closely and even was painted on the 75 sqn crew room history board as 75's next aircraft. I personally think that the A4 was the correct choice even if the original numbers where less than fully viable, though at the time as a younger member of the airforce the F4 looked more the part.

 

[Gibbo]

Some information gleaned from last week's parliamentary Estimates debate: Current MoD planning is for only four aircraft to replace the current 6-strong Orion fleet (presumably P-8 is the front-runner). I think most of us on here predicted this would be the case, but it's nice to have it confirmed. Certainly makes having a 2nd-tier aircraft option much more attractive.

Gerry Brownlee:
(source)

Then there's this bit, interesting as well...

We will have a plane that can fly down there safely and return. We have aircraft at the moment that are quite compromised in what they are able to do, as far as delivery is concerned. I will go so far as to say that we are being increasingly challenged, in a competitive sense, to hold on to the gateway role that New Zealand has and Christchurch City has to the Antarctic. We have near neighbours, Australia, good friends that they are, that have eight aircraft that have a fly down and fly back capacity, without stopping, with huge payload capacity as well. That has to be attractive to the United States, which of course is wanting to build a new base down there. We need to put ourselves into the mix around that.


Wonder when this was quoted relative to the 'no-go' for the C17 or has he got some other plan up his sleeve!?!

Also interesting to note the potential for Australia to grab US Antartic support is premised around their desire for a new base... I bet the Aussies will happily throw cash around to get it so it seems to pose a real threat to Chch Ops I'd say.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Shame. another cutback in fleet numbers , this time maritime patrol. Surely we can afford 6 P8 Poseidons with the 20 billion budget, given the priority, importance of the role in the DWP? Also given the vast areas we have to cover.

 

[MrConservative]

Shame. another cutback in fleet numbers , this time maritime patrol. Surely we can afford 6 P8 Poseidons with the 20 billion budget, given the priority, importance of the role in the DWP? Also given the vast areas we have to cover.

I don't think they are planning a cutback at all KP. In fact the opposite. They are talking about a mix of capabilities that can offer a highly valued capability for global coalition operations without compromising surveillance operations closer to home. There will be another platform - likely without a crew onboard, likely to complement and interact with ADF / USN assets.

 

[ASSAIL]

Shame. another cutback in fleet numbers , this time maritime patrol. Surely we can afford 6 P8 Poseidons with the 20 billion budget, given the priority, importance of the role in the DWP? Also given the vast areas we have to cover.

Think tasking. One P8 probably equals 1.5 P3 as far as time on task and area covered.

 

[Volkodav]

Think tasking. One P8 probably equals 1.5 P3 as far as time on task and area covered.

True, but what's the critical mass to keep one on station? I would have thought dropping to five would have been cutting it fine but four seems very risky, irrespective of whether they are being supplemented with UAVs or something else or not.

 

[MrConservative]

Then there's this bit, interesting as well...

We will have a plane that can fly down there safely and return. We have aircraft at the moment that are quite compromised in what they are able to do, as far as delivery is concerned. I will go so far as to say that we are being increasingly challenged, in a competitive sense, to hold on to the gateway role that New Zealand has and Christchurch City has to the Antarctic. We have near neighbours, Australia, good friends that they are, that have eight aircraft that have a fly down and fly back capacity, without stopping, with huge payload capacity as well. That has to be attractive to the United States, which of course is wanting to build a new base down there. We need to put ourselves into the mix around that.


Wonder when this was quoted relative to the 'no-go' for the C17 or has he got some other plan up his sleeve!?!

Also interesting to note the potential for Australia to grab US Antarctic support is premised around their desire for a new base... I bet the Aussies will happily throw cash around to get it so it seems to pose a real threat to Chch Ops I'd say.

I get the sense that Gerry is still not giving up on the C-17 option - he gets the potential downside as a CHC based MP. The budget estimates debate in question was only last week (July 6). The changing Antarctic dimension has really spooked them - and I think that collectively Cabinets prevariated omnishambles of negligence around the non decision of buying 2 whitetails between November 2014 - April 2015 has shaken them up.

 

[40 deg south]

I don't think they are planning a cutback at all KP. In fact the opposite. They are talking about a mix of capabilities that can offer a highly valued capability for global coalition operations without compromising surveillance operations closer to home. There will be another platform - likely without a crew onboard, likely to complement and interact with ADF / USN assets.

Agreed. The released Cabinet papers showed a desire to contribute surveillance assets to coalition operations, while still maintaining coverage of NZ's EEZ and SAR area. That doesn't sound achievable with four platforms., suggesting there will be a second-tier surveillance platform. I'd been thinking more along the lines of a twin turboprop, but an unmanned option is certainly possible.

The fact Big Gerry can mention the number of aircraft desired suggests a fair bit of work has already gone into defining the capability. It's also interesting he said they would be acquired in the early 2020s, as most of us have pictured the P-3Cs soldiering on to 2025 or later.

 

[40 deg south]

I get the sense that Gerry is still not giving up on the C-17 option - he gets the potential downside as a CHC based MP. The budget estimates debate in question was only last week (July 6). The changing Antarctic dimension has really spooked them - and I think that collectively Cabinets prevariated omnishambles of negligence around the non decision of buying 2 whitetails between November 2014 - April 2015 has shaken them up.

Mr C
My take is a little different. I agree that Gerry has belatedly realised NZ screwed up badly by not ordering the most suitable aircraft while it was still available in bulk.

The official line is 'like-for-like' replacement, but this will still leave a big capability gap. My guess is the MInDef and RNZAF have their fingers crossed that Airbus engineers can get the A400 back on track in time for it to be a viable option in the 2018 update. Note that the C-17 papers indicated that the best time to buy was after 2020, presumably because that is when the C-130s will start requiring more servicing(?). So the A400 doesn't have to be 'fixed' by 2018, it just needs to be in full-rate production with clear pathways to remedying the faults identified by that time.

One minor point I just realised - to date the only true export customer is Malaysia (four aircraft). NZ is already supplying simulator training to RMAF for A109 helicopters on a user-pays basis. If NZ does go down the A400 track, some sort of similar arrangement would likely be on the cards.

 

[chis73]

Well, Gerry will need to rattle his dags. An order in the early 2020s might be too late for the P-8. This just in from Reuters (regarding a potential Norwegian purchase):

Rear Admiral Dean Peters, program executive officer for anti-submarine warfare, assault and special missions programs, said the Navy had asked potential P-8 buyers to express their interest by next summer.

The P-8 is entering its last three years of production, so international partners would need to place orders relatively soon to get in on the program before production halts.

(source)

Personally, I don't think Gerry is the problem (though I'm not a fan). He seems to be trying to move things along. The real issue seems to be his cabinet colleagues (and the Treasury - who still don't believe they have had 'full value' from the P-3 & C-130 upgrades, and have no interest in sorting out Defence properly - it's just a cost to them)

 

[MrConservative]

Mr C
My take is a little different. I agree that Gerry has belatedly realised NZ screwed up badly by not ordering the most suitable aircraft while it was still available in bulk.

The official line is 'like-for-like' replacement, but this will still leave a big capability gap. My guess is the MInDef and RNZAF have their fingers crossed that Airbus engineers can get the A400 back on track in time for it to be a viable option in the 2018 update. Note that the C-17 papers indicated that the best time to buy was after 2020, presumably because that is when the C-130s will start requiring more servicing(?). So the A400 doesn't have to be 'fixed' by 2018, it just needs to be in full-rate production with clear pathways to remedying the faults identified by that time.

One minor point I just realised - to date the only true export customer is Malaysia (four aircraft). NZ is already supplying simulator training to RMAF for A109 helicopters on a user-pays basis. If NZ does go down the A400 track, some sort of similar arrangement would likely be on the cards.

Gerry privately knows that his Cabinet colleagues gambled for more time to line up their perfect 'surplus' balance sheets and that gambled failed. I don't think this was belated from his perspective. The emerging Antarctic heavy lift requirements have compounded this.

That is the thing about Gerry in Defence. The like for like thinking is not where he nor indeed the NZDF wants to take things and seems to be the typical steady as she goes reaction, almost harking back to a Wayne Mapp style don't upset anyone approach - and yes a fingers crossed situation that Gerry would rather us not be in.

The sole cost of operating a C-17 must have looked unattractive and realistically unfavourable post 2023 without a guarantee of a second 2nd aircraft airframe either leased or acquired when the B757's go.

There is a fair bit of cutting off ones nose to spite ones face initially from the NZ end but also from the US if the truth be told. The USA Inc does run the risk of no commercial advantages of the RNZAF buying any US manufactured aircraft. No final C-17 and possibly no C-130's, no ongoing support contracts for domestic US industry. It may well be that Airbus scoops the whole FAMC capability if the A400M is the only option. Pretty much the potential of a 2nd used C-17 to supplement the final whitetail unlocks $2 Billion dollars of potential revenue to Boeing, Lockheed and P&W et al that may go begging not to mention future expenditure to support aircraft over the next 30 years.

 

[Joe Black]

Would NZ AF also consider the Japanese C2? Perhaps a mix fleet of C130J and C2 could provide the necessary speed, load and range capability to fulfil NZ's needs?