Haha yes definately variety of life in the forces air transport world. I've been on trips where we required both 727s for transport, a quarter full 757 with whole rows to yourself and that dreaded C130 RTU from Darwin sitting amongst the freight to a empty hold where you could swing a MWD. All unique in their own way and adding to service life but definately have my favourites in both types.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
On the subject of replacing the 757, one has to ask why are they replacing them at all in the near future? They are not worn out, they are not compromised like the 727s in regared to were they are acceptable. Any bigger airline type is compromised in regared to the limited number of NZ airfields available. There is a compromise in regared to antartic flights but as only represents 1-2% (4 flights last year) of their flights and most other aircraft of a similar size or smaller have the same or worse compromise. Is it because they like a lot of the gear purchased by the previous goverment are not realy fit for the intended purpose. If so what is the intended purpose and what type of aircraft is sutable to carry out this function.
Last edited by a moderator:
On the subject of replacing the 757, one has to ask why are they replacing them at all in the near future? They are not worn out, they are not compromised like the 727s in regared to were they are acceptable. Any bigger airline type is compromised in regared to the limited number of NZ airfields available. There is a compromise in regared to antartic flights but as only represents 1-2% (4 flights last year) of their flights and most other aircraft of a similar size or smaller have the same or worse compromise. Is it because they like a lot of the gear purchased by the previous goverment are not realy fit for the intended purpose. If so what is the intended purpose and what type of aircraft is sutable to carry out this function.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, I don't personally see the need to get our 757 or its replacement down to the ice as a deal breaker or potential show stopper as IMO it's a nice to have not a need to have and the amount of attention being thrown at it is all because some pollies got a fright on a tikki tour. As you say for that little amount of flight time then really is it that big of a deal? Just do what we have done in the decades pre-ceeding and use the hercs (or their replacements) or the reciporacil US air bridge. With commercial airlines considering flights down (although I do not support anyway) then for the handful of envisaged flights it would be easier to charter or book seats and let them sort the logistics.
Tried the fancy transport just because, did'nt work (or did), move on. Getting hung up on it is just another govt focus/distraction point that in the wider context is'nt very relevant overall, a considered option yes but definately not main focus.
B757 to make emergency landing at WP circa 10:00am. Looks like a puncture with 31 onboard.
Air Force Boeing 757 prepares for emergency landing at Whenuapai - National - NZ Herald News
Air Force Boeing 757 prepares for emergency landing at Whenuapai - National - NZ Herald News
I'm glad someone asked that - I had the same thought- the avionics have been updated and spares will probably be plentiful for some time. The view may be if your paying such a large capital charge you may as well be doing it on something more useful. Capital charges have been in the news recently with regard to health spending, and there is starting to be some whispers about scrapping them
On the subject of the 757's, one is about to land with what looks like a flat tyre: Air Force Boeing 757 prepares for emergency landing at Whenuapai - National - NZ Herald News
One possibility is that there is another agenda in regard to the type of aircraft required as our strategic transport. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the woodwork. G.B. has been quoted as saying the Air force will get an aircraft with the necessary range for uncompromised Antarctic flights. The interesting part will be if this happens, what category will this aircraft will be chosen from.
Can the A400 get to Antarctica and back with out refueling? Maybe with way less than max cargo...
Apart from the 767 what aircraft can reach Antarctica from ChCh with out refueling?
Will the Endeavor replacement reduce the cost of aviation fuel in Antarctica much?
Gidday Sam, welcome to the Forum. The A400M has the range to fly to Antarctica without a point of no return requirement. It would have a reduced payload in order to do that, but then again so would the C17. The C130s cannot undertake the flight to McMurdo with a full payload anyway. The B767 also has the range to fly to Antarctica without a point of no return requirement. The Endeavour replacement would possibly deliver fuel to McMurdo at a lower cost than hiring a civilian tanker.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Quick question, how many flights to Antarctica does NZ need to do? Is this requirement something that could be contracted out, assuming the number of flights is not significant?
The number of flights would be reasonably significant. The RNZAF has been providing aircraft each season, however this has been limited due to availability issues in recent years, hence the onus for the air bridge has fallen mostly on the US.
Actually not that much I believe, for the most part NZ has managed (at least this year) to get there supplied in through US shipping which considering McMurdo is literally just around the corner is the logical move. Janurary this year Ocean Giant delivered 468 containers to McMurdo of which 60 where 12 months of supplies for Scott base.
In the past flights only took place in the Summer mostly delivering personnel because who want's to sit on a ship for days or weeks on end when you can fly out of NZ or Hobart and be there in half a day?. They have now trialled winter flights that have had enough success the USAF (using C-17's) is planning to make them a monthly trip allowing better turn around in personnel along with delivery of gift's from family and fresh produce for personnel stationed at McMurdo and Scott.
I live in Christchurch and there is a significant quantity of personnel, equipment and stores go from Harewood to Pegasus field by C17, C130, B757, L100 and occasionally A319. Both USAF and RNZAF C130s are used. The season starts in late August and ramps up late September. It is heavily weather dependent at the McMurdo end and can lead to days of delays. The other issue that has affected the air bridge program in recent times, such as last season, has been the melting of the ice runway to a point where wheeled aircraft have been unable to be used, so the ski equipped LC130Hs have had to provide the air bridge capability. Yes the C17 has been successfully trialled for winter flights, but that is at present maybe only one flight a month not one a day or every two days as per the summer season - big difference. Another point is that they have to keep the aircraft serviceable when its on the Ice in the dark in temperatures of around minus 30 to minus 40 degrees Celsius. So it's not an easy evolution to undertake compared to the summer when a really hot day is 5 degrees Celsius.
Do we really have that big of a footprint in Antartica requireing an increased air bridge anyway? There are less than 100 people at scott base in the season at any one time (incl military assistance) max and as has been said most of the required equipment is shipped in with mainly time sensitive freight and pax rotations moving via the 6 scheduled (NZ) C130 flights. The added B757 flights were more a proof of concept and added option (especially while the SLEP was going on) rather than "we need this". Had a scare? Easy, stop using and go back to the proven types (C130, C17).
Seems to me if anything the priority would be time critical freight such as fresh foodstuffs (bonus at best), medical emergencies and shorter stint trips ie mil pers but again bar medical not exactly need to have more nice to have (as is proven/dictated by weather delays). With the US having the vastly larger base down there I would wonder is it really as one sided as is being made out or merely a case of pooling resources to support the larger operation with the obvious benefits of quid pro quo for our essentially next door base when required. The new endeavour being just another form of shared resources to support the combined operation.
With "issues" of late being exacerbated by the primary workhorse availability caused by numbers, reliability etc and bad press of the B757 incident is it really chronic or more an unfortunate time, mountain or molehill?
Seems to me if anything the priority would be time critical freight such as fresh foodstuffs (bonus at best), medical emergencies and shorter stint trips ie mil pers but again bar medical not exactly need to have more nice to have (as is proven/dictated by weather delays). With the US having the vastly larger base down there I would wonder is it really as one sided as is being made out or merely a case of pooling resources to support the larger operation with the obvious benefits of quid pro quo for our essentially next door base when required. The new endeavour being just another form of shared resources to support the combined operation.
With "issues" of late being exacerbated by the primary workhorse availability caused by numbers, reliability etc and bad press of the B757 incident is it really chronic or more an unfortunate time, mountain or molehill?
From what I understand there is an agreement between NZ and the US regarding the Joint Logistics Pool which covers both the air and sea bridge. NZ has not been pulling its weight with regard to the air bridge. The other point is that the US Antarctic Program provides a significant amount of support to the NZ Antarctic program and we would not be in a position to replicate or replace that if the NSF (US National Science Foundation) decided to reposition to Hobart. Hence there is more to it than just the NZDF side. It is a whole of govt policy.
Is the maximum all up weight cited? If it is then it may be possible to extrapolate the distance by comparing it with a B737NG with similar all up weight and engines. Just a suggestion.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
RegR
By coincidence, I posted the following link in another forum yesterday.
http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/c-17/2016-34-c-17-acquisition-options.pdf
The one-page graphic at the end compares the C-130 and C-17. Buried in the text it mentions that for the current season, NZ has airlifted 50 tonnes to the ice, while the US has airlifted 1100 tonnes. I don't know what the logistics agreement between NZ and the US requires, but our contribution looks a bit modest.
It's also clear from the Cab paper that the B757 is now used primarily to bring people back from the ice at the end of the summer season. I guess that is risk mitigation - it goes down only with crew on board (the potentially risk bit) and comes back with a load of scientists.
The paper itself has some interesting nuggets. It is described on the MOD website as a draft, but has actually dated but not signed out by the CDF and CEO MOD. This means it probably isn't a draft, but presumably was never presented to Cabinet.
Paras 4 and 11 both talk about the economic benefits to Christchurch and NZ of the Antarctic programme. Both are accompanied by a para withheld under section 6a of the OIA, the section that covers NZ's international reationships. Almost certainly referring to the US views on NZ' contribution to Antarctic logistics.
Paras 20-22 talk about changing the existing airlift fleets if a C-17 is bought. There is reference to a 'new commercial narrow-body', which presumably means both B757s would be replaced.
Para 26 notes that purchasing a C-17 will involve bringing forward some planned expenditure from the early 2020s
Para 39 provides Treasury comments - basically either savings have to be made elsewhere or the gov't will have to increase debt.
In the Cab Recs (the 'rubber meets road' part of any Paper),
Para 42 f and j seek authorisation to begin negotiations to purchase the one remaining C-17. Presumably Ministers agreed not to proceed down this track informally, hence the paper was withdrawn.
Para 33 sums it up best:
FAMC & FASC RFI's
The RFI's for the FAMC (Future Air Mobility Capability) and the FASC (Future Air Surveillance Capability) have been released via GETS.
FAMC RFI Closing time: 4pm 30 September 2016.
It is for the the replacement of the current B757-200 Combi and C130H(NZ) fleet at no less than equivalent current capability or matched to future needs. The C130 replacements are to be delivered by February 2020 with IOC February 2021 and FOC February 2024. The B757 replacement to be delivered by February 2025 with IOC February 2026. The following is excluded:
FASC RFI Closing time: 4pm 30 September 2016.
The FASC is for the replacement of the P3K2 Orion fleet and will be largely a continuation of the extant Orion based concept with adaptations to exploit any greater advantages that the chosen platform may offer. The current annual fleet airborne operations is 2,500 - 3,200 hours and the replacement must be able to deliver that and preferably greater. It must be able to support NZ government operations in New Zealand, the Southern Ocean, South Pacific, Asia-Pacific or at times globally. The roles required are:
The RFI's for the FAMC (Future Air Mobility Capability) and the FASC (Future Air Surveillance Capability) have been released via GETS.
FAMC RFI Closing time: 4pm 30 September 2016.
It is for the the replacement of the current B757-200 Combi and C130H(NZ) fleet at no less than equivalent current capability or matched to future needs. The C130 replacements are to be delivered by February 2020 with IOC February 2021 and FOC February 2024. The B757 replacement to be delivered by February 2025 with IOC February 2026. The following is excluded:
- any rotary wing component.
- solutions without any military component
- solutions that are unproven (without Type Certification), highly developmental and/or unsupported by a reliable evidence base
- disposal of current assets
.
FASC RFI Closing time: 4pm 30 September 2016.
The FASC is for the replacement of the P3K2 Orion fleet and will be largely a continuation of the extant Orion based concept with adaptations to exploit any greater advantages that the chosen platform may offer. The current annual fleet airborne operations is 2,500 - 3,200 hours and the replacement must be able to deliver that and preferably greater. It must be able to support NZ government operations in New Zealand, the Southern Ocean, South Pacific, Asia-Pacific or at times globally. The roles required are:
- surveillance and reconnaissance
- search and rescue
- direct support anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare
- precision strike
- command, control and communication
Whilst both RFI's are initial RFI's they do give an indication of what Defence is looking at. The FAMC has a definite time line stipulated, whereas I didn't see one in the FASC document. The FASC document did mention AAR capabilities (both as a distributor and receiver) which also said that information regarding it was being requested in the FAMC spreadsheet as well. Again the synergies between the two capabilities were mentioned.
Last edited:
The bring forward of the C130 replacement is of real interest as they had a life expectancy of at least to 2025. The possible use of two types also is very interesting as this could lead to something like this. A A400/C295 mix with the C295s also used in the multi engine training role ( now that we are using the T6 the step up is reasonable) They could also help in the reconnaissance role if the P3 replacement numbers are low. The possibility that there is some offer been made or that an understanding with our Defence/Antarctic partners has been reached cannot be dismissed, but due process must be seen to happen. Is Boeing in the mix, maybe a C17/kc390 mix? The P3 replacement again seems to be brought forward as it was only a short while ago they nominated Boeing as the prefered supplier for a ASW upgrade for the P3's. this would have inferred a significant remaining life available to the P3's. The possibility of there being some behind the scenes trading going on should not be surprising .
The P3 replacement hasn't really been bought forward according to these documents. Unlike the FAMC a delivery date hasn't been given for the FASC. The FAMC document states that the new capability solution has to be at no less than equivalent current capability so that may exclude the C295 and the delivery date of February 2020 makes it difficult for the A400M because the earliest available production slots are 2022. Realistically we would be looking at A400M delivery of around 2024, four years after the required delivery date of the C130H(NZ) replacement. I am of the opinion that aircraft of the ilk of the C295 and C27J are no longer suitable platforms for NZ because of the distances that they have to cover in our area of interest. That is why I actually see the C130 as our tactical airlifter per se.
Now regarding your MEPT, currently that is done using the B200 King Airs. A while back Mr C suggested to me another aircraft to replace the King Airs arguing that it will be of a similar cost, have longer range and has rough field capability. The beauty about it is that it is a twin jet and can do the trans Tasman hop in three or so hours. The Pilatus PC24 appears to be ideal and Mr C says that if a maritime surveillance radar was fitted, it could double as an EEZ surveillance aircraft as well. Pilatus state that it can go anywhere the PC12 can and they can go just about anywhere, more than the King Air can. I wouldn't want to take a King Air into some of those PNG or Indonesian highland strips that they fly PC12s into. The downside of it is that a turbofan is more expensive in the fuel department than a turboprop and the PC24 carries a slightly less payload than the B200 King Air.