Royal New Zealand Air Force

[KiwiRob]

If we acquired six A400M that's NZ$1.5 billion plus NZ$750 million for spares, simulator, manual, training etc., which amounts to NZ$2.25 million. That does not include any infrastructure projects that would have to be done as well. Now because it is European we would also acquire an attritional airframe so if you want to have six birds flying you have to acquire a seventh, so that takes the flyaway cost from NZ$1.5 billion to $1.7 billion and total cost to around NZ$2.4 - 2.5 billion.

I don't agree with that at all, if we went with A400 why would we need an additional airframe for spare parts? Do you think Air NZ buys additional A320's for spare parts, it's the same manufacturer and essentially the same supply chain.

If the govt bought P8's you think they would buy an additional frame for spares, I doubt it, I would be the same deal with A400 IMO.

 

[ngatimozart]

I don't agree with that at all, if we went with A400 why would we need an additional airframe for spare parts? Do you think Air NZ buys additional A320's for spare parts, it's the same manufacturer and essentially the same supply chain.

If the govt bought P8's you think they would buy an additional frame for spares, I doubt it, I would be the same deal with A400 IMO.

Airbus has a very good and timely support service for its civilian commercial airliners but the European defence industry, stand fast UK, do not. When we acquired the NH90s we bought nine with eight being operational and one being attritional for spares. I believe that the same went with the A109s. So yes we would buy one extra to ensure that we do not have AOG (Aircraft On Ground u/s - unserviceable) because of lack of spares or support from the manufacturer. The Australians have experienced quite a bit if that. They have with the KC30, MRH (NH90), Tiger ARH and did with the Dassault Mirages. When we had that NH90 go u/s because of the lightening strike we were able to get it back into the air a lot quicker because we could take the main rotor and other bits off the spare aircraft 09 instead of having to wait months, maybe > a year, for another rotor to come from Europe.

That quality of service is the big difference between the Europeans and the US, stand fast Kaman. If we had bought the C17s we will have been involved in the Boeing support program for the aircraft. When we buy the P8, we will be involved in the Boeing support program for that aircraft which means very good and quick world wide service so we won't have to buy an extra aircraft. Lockheed Martin are the same. It's a culture thing to a certain degree.

 

[MrConservative]

The acquisition contract for the A400M uses a different contractual methodology than the usual US FMS contracts most are familiar with. So in comparing apples with pears cannot be done with exacting terms.

The most recent UK Audit Office Report regarding the A400M’s dated October 2015 looked at the 3 separate contracts, which make up the acquisition package for the RAF.

The A400M Training Service Support Contract with A400M Training Services Limited, and the construction of the A400M Schoolhouse at RAF Brize Norton and its specialised basing facilities has cost GBP526m. The service support sustainment for the RAF A400M fleet with Airbus Military is GBP450m and finally the initiating contract again with Airbus Military for the production and supply of 22 aircraft, which included initial capability training and IOC is GBP2710m. This produces a cost per aircraft of around GBP170m (NZD$320m) for the UK.

However, though we can utilize estimates based off the fleet support contract and basic airframe + IOC contract – the Training Service Support Contract and the construction of our own A400M ‘Schoolhouse’ and specialised basing facilities is far harder to ascertain. We would require that whether we acquire three, four, five or even six A400M aircraft.

There is no point in buying an attrition spare. The A400M is set up with its own unique global sustainment and training contract, which would no doubt be very prescribed within its terms and conditions.

http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO\MP\RTO-MP-AVT-144///MP-AVT-144-10.pdf

The above report may help.

 

[ngatimozart]

The acquisition contract for the A400M uses a different contractual methodology than the usual US FMS contracts most are familiar with. So in comparing apples with pears cannot be done with exacting terms.

The most recent UK Audit Office Report regarding the A400M’s dated October 2015 looked at the 3 separate contracts, which make up the acquisition package for the RAF.

The A400M Training Service Support Contract with A400M Training Services Limited, and the construction of the A400M Schoolhouse at RAF Brize Norton and its specialised basing facilities has cost GBP526m. The service support sustainment for the RAF A400M fleet with Airbus Military is GBP450m and finally the initiating contract again with Airbus Military for the production and supply of 22 aircraft, which included initial capability training and IOC is GBP2710m. This produces a cost per aircraft of around GBP170m (NZD$320m) for the UK.

However, though we can utilize estimates based off the fleet support contract and basic airframe + IOC contract – the Training Service Support Contract and the construction of our own A400M ‘Schoolhouse’ and specialised basing facilities is far harder to ascertain. We would require that whether we acquire three, four, five or even six A400M aircraft.

There is no point in buying an attrition spare. The A400M is set up with its own unique global sustainment and training contract, which would no doubt be very prescribed within its terms and conditions.

http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO\MP\RTO-MP-AVT-144///MP-AVT-144-10.pdf

The above report may help.

I hope so. Whether they actually deliver what they say is the point really.

The Heuninck paper was delivered at a workshop on "Enhanced Aircraft Platform Availability Through Advanced Maintenance Concepts and Technologies” in Vilnius, Lithuania, 3-5 October 2006. Hence with the problems experienced by Airbus with the A400M since, I think it's rather dated and may not reflect the actuality now.

 

[RegR]

There is a point where buying an attritional frame to gain cost benefit for spares becomes unviable and you end up spending a considerable amount on the frame vs the attached parts you are actually seeking making it more beneficial just to press the platform into service and just pay for a spares package. The overall cost of A400 make buying one just to break down for parts more expensive than just buying the main required parts either up front or over time especially for such a small envisaged fleet. It's all relative to break even margin vs gain.

It would be akin to buying an extra frigate for spares, the cost of platform vs rotable parts gained makes for a very expensive parts store and therefore not actually cost neutral and seemingly a waste of a platform. We did it for the B727s because they were comparirively cheap and we gained a heavy frame for tech training on large AC.

Perhaps in 60 years when we are flying the last A400s in the world then buying a attrition frame from the euro boneyard or failing that cannabilising our oldest frame would be cost beneficial but not at $140m.

 

[Rob c]

We have to get the A400m now because the Cabinet took to long to make a decision about the C17s. Two C17s, maybe even three, would have been the better solution along with say five or six C130J as tactical airlifters. Now we have to acquire the A400M instead. The C130 and KC390 aren't big enough dimensionally to carry the gear we need to move by air. It's because the cargo holds aren't wide or high enough nor can the aircraft lift the required weights. This has been repeated on here ad nauseum and I do not like repeating myself.

I totally agree with your thinking and did not mean to say it was not the correct way to go. What I was saying was that I think that we will need a change in the political climate to achieve this otherwise I think that we will go down the C130/KC390 size route, as the like for like in the DWP indicated. However hopefully time (the shorter the better) may change this.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

If we acquired six A400M that's NZ$1.5 billion plus NZ$750 million for spares, simulator, manual, training etc., which amounts to NZ$2.25 million. That does not include any infrastructure projects that would have to be done as well. Now because it is European we would also acquire an attritional airframe so if you want to have six birds flying you have to acquire a seventh, so that takes the flyaway cost from NZ$1.5 billion to $1.7 billion and total cost to around NZ$2.4 - 2.5 billion. Those values are calculated on the French flyaway price of €152,400,000 obtained from the French Senate budget records for 2013. Now you also have to factor in the B757 replacement which could be in the region of NZ$300 million per aircraft including spares, manual, training etc. So that is around NZ$3 billion for eight aircraft. Of the $20 billion maybe, just maybe, we will have enough to replace about 80% of our current kit and not to the level it is at now.

Actually Ngati, the sixth frame I mentioned of A400 purchase was meant to be a spare parts one! Seeing its 'like for like' replacements Gerry Brownlee had mentioned, regards to DWP. Perhaps a mixed fleet of 2 A400M for strategic and 5 C295 for tactical lift, keeping the numbers and affordability?

Money could be alternately be saved by getting those planes in appropriate numbers off those countries that have cut their orders,resale. Do we have to have Poseidon P8 for that matter, C295 have a MPA version, Hyundai for that matter I'm sure would do a sweet deal if we combined LOSC, OPV, and frigate builds back to back with future Endeavour build. Old frigates could be stripped of recent upgrades, perhaps even our P3's, or Hercs.

 

[ngatimozart]

Actually Ngati, the sixth frame i mentioned of A400 purchase was meant to be a spare parts one! seeing its 'like for like' replacements Gerry Brownlee had mentioned, regards to DWP. Perhaps a mixed fleet of 2 A400M for strategic and 5 C295 for tactical lift, keeping the numbers and affordability?

The C295 / C27J don't have the legs (range) required for our needs, especially getting to and from the Pacific Islands. The C130 is used in the tactical role by air forces such as the USAF, RAF, RCAF and RAAF. The more I think about it the more do not see a role in NZDF for a small tactical airlifter because of our geographical isolation. Hence we may see something like 5 x A400M and 2 x B767 BCF / B737-800 BCF types.

Money could be alternately be saved by getting those planes in appropriate numbers off those countries that have cut their orders,resale. Do we have to have Poseidon P8 for that matter, C295 have a MPA version, Hyundai for that matter I'm sure would do a sweet deal if we combined LOSC, OPV, and frigate builds back to back with future Endeavour build. Old frigates could be stripped of recent upgrades, perhaps even our P3's, or Hercs.

We won't get any A400M's cheaper because some European countries have cut back their orders. The Poseidon is really important because it has capabilities that the NZG deem as important requirements whereas the C295MPA doesn't have those. Secondly the C295MPA doesn't have the range or response time. We need to have compatibility synergies with the ADF and USN / USAF which we wouldn't be able to have with the C295MPA because of US IP issues with the French.

I totally agree with regard to building RNZN ships in Korea. This discussion has been ongoing between myself and another member here behind the scenes. His view is that we could acquire far more bang for buck from Korea than we could from European, UK or Australian yards and with the same quality. After doing some research I agree with him.

 

[vonnoobie]

Actually Ngati, the sixth frame i mentioned of A400 purchase was meant to be a spare parts one! seeing its 'like for like' replacements Gerry Brownlee had mentioned, regards to DWP. Perhaps a mixed fleet of 2 A400 M for strategic and 5 C295 for tactical lift, keeping the numbers and affordability?

Money could bealternatly be saved by getting those planes in appropriate numbers off those countries that have cut their orders,resale. Do we have to have Posiedon P8 for that matter, C295 have a MPA version, Hyundai for that matter im sure would do a sweet deal if we combined Losc, OPV, and frigate builds back to back with future Endevour build. Old frigates could be stripped of recent upgrades, perhaps even our P3's, or Hercs.

As has been stated previously even if the 6th A400M mentioned is the spare's aircraft it's just not a practical solution. Most such orders always include the needed spares and for the most part they are engines, Buying an entire aircraft for a few spare engines when spares are likely to have been purchased already is not a logical or fiscally smart move.

As for the 2 + 5 fleet of A400M's and C295's, While on paper it look's good you run into the issue of gaining an aircraft that is more one sided (In regards to A400M) and less multi role as the 757 is (VIP, troop transport, medical evac, cargo etc).

The 757's are likely to be replaced by something based off of the civilian market as is the norm for such aircraft, That said one aircraft that 'may' suit the role with extra capability on top is the A330 MRTT.

The 5 C-130H's will likely be replaced by a single type rather then mixed, Ideally the A400M (Wouldn't mind to see Australia retire her SuperHerc's early and go in on a joint big buy with NZ), I don't see the C-27 or C295 being considered but you never know.

As for stripping Frigates, P3's and Herc's of upgrades to add onto any future acquisition you are just looking for a way to increase the cost's. not so much the Frigates but with the P3's and Herc's unless you are acquiring new airframes of the same type then you end up trying to fit a square block through a round hole, Just wont fit. Might be able to make it fit but will take longer, cost more and end up being an orphan aircraft years behind schedule.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

As has been stated previously even if the 6th A400M mentioned is the spare's aircraft it's just not a practical solution. Most such orders always include the needed spares and for the most part they are engines, Buying an entire aircraft for a few spare engines when spares are likely to have been purchased already is not a logical or fiscally smart move.

As for the 2 + 5 fleet of A400M's and C295's, While on paper it look's good you run into the issue of gaining an aircraft that is more one sided (In regards to A400M) and less multi role as the 757 is (VIP, troop transport, medical evac, cargo etc).

The 757's are likely to be replaced by something based off of the civilian market as is the norm for such aircraft, That said one aircraft that 'may' suit the role with extra capability on top is the A330 MRTT.

The 5 C-130H's will likely be replaced by a single type rather then mixed, Ideally the A400M (Wouldn't mind to see Australia retire her SuperHerc's early and go in on a joint big buy with NZ), I don't see the C-27 or C295 being considered but you never know.

As for stripping Frigates, P3's and Herc's of upgrades to add onto any future acquisition you are just looking for a way to increase the cost's. not so much the Frigates but with the P3's and Herc's unless you are acquiring new airframes of the same type then you end up trying to fit a square block through a round hole, Just wont fit. Might be able to make it fit but will take longer, cost more and end up being an orphan aircraft years behind schedule.

Was just thinking its a pity another A400M user wasn't present in the Pacific, it would be a be another good selling point for us to our pollies if a country the size of Australia bought into it. Does anyone have an idea what the comparative running costs of A400M would be compared to say C17 or hercules per hr? Also, if rotor blades have to be disconnected for the Nh90 to fit on the A400,how quickly could one be put back in service then?

 

[KiwiRob]

Was just thinking its a pity another A400M user wasn't present in the Pacific

There is an existing Pacific Rim A400 operator Malaysia. They ordered 4, 3 have been delivered.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

There is an existing Pacific Rim A400 operator Malaysia. They ordered 4, 3 have been delivered.

I mentioned additional, like Australia, Im well aware of Malaysia thanks. Im all for a joint purchase with a major ally like Australia, not that they would have need of them if they plan on flogging those C-130J to death like we did with our hercs..

 

[ngatimozart]

The 757's are likely to be replaced by something based off of the civilian market as is the norm for such aircraft, That said one aircraft that 'may' suit the role with extra capability on top is the A330 MRTT.

It will not be the KC30 MRTT purely because of the cost and that it is to large for NZ requirements. Most likely it will be a derivative of the B737-800 BCF with a 4000 - 4500nm range. It also has synergies with the P8 Poseidon. If we were to go down the KC track it might be along the lines of the KC46 Pegasus.

The 5 C-130H's will likely be replaced by a single type rather then mixed, Ideally the A400M (Wouldn't mind to see Australia retire her SuperHerc's early and go in on a joint big buy with NZ), I don't see the C-27 or C295 being considered but you never know.

As for stripping Frigates, P3's and Herc's of upgrades to add onto any future acquisition you are just looking for a way to increase the cost's. not so much the Frigates but with the P3's and Herc's unless you are acquiring new airframes of the same type then you end up trying to fit a square block through a round hole, Just wont fit. Might be able to make it fit but will take longer, cost more and end up being an orphan aircraft years behind schedule.

There is nothing on the C130s and P3s worth taking through to the new platforms. Like you say it would be a costly exercise and an exercise in futility.

Was just thinking its a pity another A400M user wasn't present in the Pacific, it would be a be another good selling point for us to our pollies if a country the size of Australia bought into it. Does anyone have an idea what the comparative running costs of A400M would be compared to say C17 or hercules per hr? Also, if rotor blades have to be disconnected for the Nh90 to fit on the A400,how quickly could one be put back in service then?

There is an existing Pacific Rim A400 operator Malaysia. They ordered 4, 3 have been delivered.

Malaysia is not in the Pacific. It is strictly Asia. However it is part of the wider Asia - Pacific region.

From the photos I've seen it looks like that the NH90 rotors are removed to fit it inside an A400M. It appears the rotor mast is the issue, being too high. I haven't heard how long that it would take to dismantle and reassemble the rotor mast and rotor assembly. The A400M will have cheaper operational costs than the C17 just based on the fact that turboprops are cheaper to operate than turbofans. Airbus D&S claim that the A400M is cheaper to operate than the C130J which may be true because the engines are new and have FADEC.

I think Malaysia's 4th A400M is not too far off either. Maybe they could bring one down here for us to have a nosey at. CAF and his offsiders have had a good look at them in the UK having been taking for a flight in one at Farnborough in 2014.

 

[MrConservative]

I cannot find the link to it but an Air Mobility study submitted to the UK Defence Select Committee a few years back when the A400M was being selected noted that its per flight hour cost was between than the C-130K and the C-130J if that is any help.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

I cannot find the link to it but an Air Mobility study submitted the UK Defence Select Committee a few years back when the A400M was being selected noted that its per flight hour cost was between than the C-130K and the C-130J if that is any help.

Thanks for that, Mr C, and Ngati too. Looks like a winner yet again. all that extra capability and cost effective, if that doesnt convince the powers that be, nothing will.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

The Sprites were at bargain prices and are reconditioned airframes. A one off. They are less capable than the Romeos. You will also find that the acquisition costs are not the flyaway price. The NZ$242.2 million includes spares, manuals a simulator etc. The Australian acquisition cost will include similar plus possibly a maintenance contract. The RAN Romeos are also new builds and have the potential to last at least 20+ years whereas our Sprites will have to be replaced by 2030 which is 14 years away. If the SH2G(I) were not available we would have been looking at around a possibly a NZ$700 million - 1 billion acquisition to replace the old Sprites.

Would the Sprites replacement then fall inside, or outside the current 20 Billion funding?

 

[ngatimozart]

Would the Sprites replacement then fall inside, or outside the current 20 Billion funding?

I would argue that their replacement falls within the current $20 billion funding envelope.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

I would argue that their replacement falls within the current $20 billion funding envelope.

What would your opinion be of say, replacing them with a NH90 navy helicopter, or do you think there are better options out there?

 

[ngatimozart]

What would your opinion be of say, replacing them with a NH90 navy helicopter, or do you think there are better options out there?

I think that either the MH60R or the S70 Seahawk would be the ideal contenders. The NH NFH is quite expensive for what you get and it has problems at the moment.

 

[chis73]

A couple of points:

1. More grist for the mill on the strategic airlifter debate from Lloyd Burr at Newshub, post C-17 rejection. Air NZ 767-300s studied & rejected as well. Interesting for the reasons given.

Old Air NZ planes could've had new air force life | Politics | Newshub

2. Ngati, I think if you look at the defence budget figures, it looks like the Seasprites are already paid for. Note the expenditure bump in the defence equipment category of Vote Defence: $286m (2014) - $400m (2015) - $216m (2016) - $261m (2017, forecast).

So, I would postulate that the forecast $20b doesn't include the Seasprites. It probably includes infrastructure (perhaps $1.7b) and maybe increased operating expenditure though.