Royal New Zealand Air Force

[KiwiRob]

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.

Well then that's a potential worry, a P8 has a slightly higher MTOW than the 737-900ER, at MTOW the 900ER requires nearly 3000m to get airborne, this is significantly longer than Whenuapai and Ohakea have, which would make me think a P8 would be range constrained if operating from either of these airports. This isn't really an issue for the RAAF and USN who have tanking capability, but for NZ won't this mean shorter patrols?

 

[Rob c]

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.

The really interesting parts to me are the short time frame and delivery time, Why would you want to hurry up and get more C130,s giving only a very modest improvement in performance when the old ones will last for more than 9 years (according to the RNZAF wed )and why the two aircraft option? Mind you personally I am not for the C130j as I think of it as Granddad's old axe with a new handle, I would get a chain saw.

 

[recce.k1]

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.

I do agree that in NZ's immediate area of interest (eg South Pacific, Asia-Pacific, Antarctica and Australia etc) would better suit the C-130 sized types for the tactical role rather than the smaller C-27J/C-295 types and for a small Air Force (and budget) operating the one type would be more likely.

Although nice to also have C-27J/C-295's in the fleet mix in an ideal world, realistically they would be limited to intra-NZ, occasional South Pacific and perhaps some infrequent trips to Australia etc. So can't see that happening.

The RFI timeframes suggest a potential C-130J buy (in the tactical role) and if so would NZ be looking at the stretched J-30 model?

I'd imagine the KC-390 would be considered too developmental as per the RFI (unproven/no Type Certification etc).

For the 757 replacements in the strategic role and the RFI timeframes (IOC 2026), that suggests the A-400M (assuming no second-hand C-17's are in the mix along the way somewhere). If A-400M could that be why no FOC date is given?

Could possibly also mean the door is also open to the Japanese Kawasaki C-2 design perhaps?

Regarding the FASC, any ideas what "continuation of the extant Orion based concept" actually means? I can only assume that means the Orions' globally recognised replacement the P-8 and judging by the RFI's roles that would seem to suggest so. Regardless of what type is chosen it's heartening to hear precision strike is a required capability (finally)!

Here's a thought and I wonder how practical this is. In terms of potential synergies between the FAMC and FASC projects, it would be highly desirable for NZ to acquire a P-8 type capability for a variety of reasons (as outlined here previously etc), but one potential issue could be the suitability of the P-8 to conduct some of the low level SAR operations the Orions regularly carry out in the South Pacific jettisoning life-rafts to stricken sailors etc. Could the P-8 be complemented by a standard C-130J type (purchased for the FAMC role), but having a couple of them (or all of them FFBNW and a couple of permanent) electro-optical sensor turrets and improved radar with surface search mode? Then deploy the SAR life-rafts out the rear ramp? Think of it as an improved version of what was being considered in the 1960's when the C-130 was being assessed for both air transport and maritime surveillance roles

 

[MrConservative]

Well then that's a potential worry, a P8 has a slightly higher MTOW than the 737-900ER, at MTOW the 900ER requires nearly 3000m to get airborne, this is significantly longer than Whenuapai and Ohakea have, which would make me think a P8 would be range constrained if operating from either of these airports. This isn't really an issue for the RAAF and USN who have tanking capability, but for NZ won't this mean shorter patrols?

There has been Govt level discussion on and off for about 15 years concerning the lengthening of 09/27 at OH to both the Fagan Rd and Tangimoana Rd ends. Originally as a B747 redirect and for visiting heavy lifters.

 

[recce.k1]

There has been Govt level discussion on and off for about 15 years concerning the lengthening of 09/27 at OH to both the Fagan Rd and Tangimoana Rd ends. Originally as a B747 redirect and for visiting heavy lifters.

Mr C - A curious type question, in your view (and with your knowledge of the area), if there was ever a genuine need to extend Whenuapai's main runway, apart from the NIMBY/environmental noise factors and the probable need to remove a few houses, could that be possible? Would the runway have to extend north-east into the harbour or is the area not so stable as I believe the tides have some effect on the base itself? Finally regarding the houses around Kauri road are they "base" houses for personnel or private residential etc? Asking in terms of how likely that would be to move them if they are private residential (which of course would be quite a sensitive issue, so just asking hypothetically)!

 

[ngatimozart]

There has been Govt level discussion on and off for about 15 years concerning the lengthening of 09/27 at OH to both the Fagan Rd and Tangimoana Rd ends. Originally as a B747 redirect and for visiting heavy lifters.

The other thing in the FASC RFI that that I forgot to include is that they are entertaining the idea of operation it from two separate airbases.

The capability would be operated and supported from a main operating base (or possibly two main operating bases if the fleet composition makes that more
appropriate)within New Zealand.

So the fleet could be spread between Whenuapai and Ohakea or maybe Woodbourne could get a look in too at the outside.

 

[ngatimozart]

Some more information from the FASC RFI

Airborne Targets
The ability to detect and track airborne targets in order to improve situational awareness and platform safety is also of interest to the FASC project. It is important to note that the FASC is not required to provide Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) capability.

Response Capability
The FASC project is currently analysing the need for response capabilities, also known as ‘air attack’ in air power doctrine terminology, which are able to coerce an actual, or potential, adversary into changing or maintaining their behaviour to the benefit of the NZDF or NZ Government. The response capabilities of interest to the FASC project are:
 Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW): Operations that are conducted with the intention of denying the enemy the effective use of submarines and mitigating against the threat of underwater units and mobile weapons within the maritime environment by destroying or neutralising the threat presented;
 Anti Surface Warfare (ASuW): Operations that are conducted to mitigate against the threat of enemy surface forces within the maritime environment and disrupting the enemy's sea lines of communication by destroying or neutralising their surface forces and merchant ships;
 Air Interdiction (AI): Action to destroy, disrupt, divert or delay the enemy’s surface potential before it can be used effectively against friendly forces, or otherwise achieve its objectives. It is carried out at such distance from friendly forces that detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of friendly forces is not required;
 Electronic Warfare (EW): Seeks control of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum, both to enable friendly-force operations, and to deny an enemy the same degree of freedom. It includes defending electronic emitters and receivers from attack via the electromagnetic spectrum (Electronic Protection or EP), and attacking or exploiting enemy electronic emitters and receivers (Electronic Attack or EA).

Finally the synergies that they are looking for in conjunction with the FAMC

Secondary Roles
In addition to the FASC project, the NZDF is currently executing a Future Air Mobility Capability (FAMC) project, with Full Operating Capability (FOC) planned over the 2020-2023 timeframe. The NZDF is interested in identifying any possible synergies between the two projects including exploring opportunities for the FASC to provide Air Manoeuvre (AM) and Air Transport (AT) capabilities as a secondary role, as detailed below.

Air Manoeuvre (AM) refers to those operations, conducted principally within the land tactical battle-space, aimed at achieving decisive advantage through exploiting the third dimension. The components of (AM) that are of interest to the FASC project are:
 Air Landing Operations: inserting ground forces using fixed-wing aircraft;
 Airborne Operations: inserting initial entry forces by parachute.

The components of Air Transport (AT) that are of interest to the FASC project are:
 Air Logistic Support (ALS): the ability to deploy, distribute or recover personnel, materiel or forces and provide special purpose airlift. ALS missions may be inter theatre or intra-theatre, and can use a traditional ‘hub and spoke’ logistics delivery model as well as providing direct access to smaller and/or austere airfields.
 Aeromedical Evacuation (AE): the movement of patients under qualified medical supervision to, and between, medical treatment facilities by air transportation. The levels of dependency care are defined as:
o High Dependency - Patients who require intensive support during the flight. For example, patients requiring ventilation, monitoring of central venous pressure and cardiac monitoring. They may be unconscious or under general anaesthesia. These will be stretcher patients.
o Medium Dependency - Patients who, although not requiring intensive support, require regular, frequent monitoring and whose condition may deteriorate in flight. For example, patients who require a combination of oxygen administration, one or more intravenous infusions and multiple drains or catheters. These will be stretcher patients.
o Low Dependency - Patients whose condition is not expected to deteriorate during flight but who require nursing care of, for example, simple oxygen therapy, an intravenous infusion or a urinary catheter. This level of dependency will enable patients to be seated in standard passenger seats.
 Air-to-Air Refuelling (AAR): used to extend the range, on-task time, or payload
of receiver-capable aircraft.

For the AAR question under the heading of High Capability it had listed: "Is both a provider and receiver of AAR capability.". These roles were spelt out more in the FASC pdf document than in the FAMC pdf document. The FAMC spreadsheet may have more details.

 

[ngatimozart]

Mr C - A curious type question, in your view (and with your knowledge of the area), if there was ever a genuine need to extend Whenuapai's main runway, apart from the NIMBY/environmental noise factors and the probable need to remove a few houses, could that be possible? Would the runway have to extend north-east into the harbour or is the area not so stable as I believe the tides have some effect on the base itself? Finally regarding the houses around Kauri road are they "base" houses for personnel or private residential etc? Asking in terms of how likely that would be to move them if they are private residential (which of course would be quite a sensitive issue, so just asking hypothetically)!

08-26 can't really be extended at the harbour end because of the Greenhithe hills by the bridge possibly interfering with the approach into 26 if it was extended into the harbour. At the other end there appears to be private property. Wasn't Defence property when I was based at Hobsonville in the early 80's. 03-21 has private property at the harbour end and at the Trigg Rd end it has the (small) hills so can't be extended that way. If a requirement was determined then I suppose the properties and adjacent land could be acquired under the Public Works Act (or its equivalent) but there would be much screaming, tearing of hair, gnashing of teeth and rendering of cloth by the locals.

The extension into the harbour can be engineered however it would be expensive and would depend upon the underlying sediments below the mud, and how deep the mud layer is. Wave action there may not be as energetic as say at Devonport so erosion and undercutting of the works by wave action may not be a serious issue, but you can mitigate that by place rocks etc., at d=(1/2)L [depth of half the wave length is where waves touch bottom]. That reduces (attenuates) the wave energy significantly before it reaches the shore. The thing to remember about changing a coast or beach is that when you change one part of a beach / coast you will change another part because you will have directly impacted a sediment flow, water current(s) and / or changed the shape of the beach which will in turn change how the incoming waves interact with it.

 

[htbrst]

Just a quick note as to not interrupt the interesting discussion above - one of the ex-RNZAF Skyhawks has crashed near Nellis - Pilot treated for minor injuries:

https://www.rt.com/usa/356396-aircraft-crash-las-vegas/

 

[40 deg south]

Mr C - A curious type question, in your view (and with your knowledge of the area), if there was ever a genuine need to extend Whenuapai's main runway, apart from the NIMBY/environmental noise factors and the probable need to remove a few houses, could that be possible? Would the runway have to extend north-east into the harbour or is the area not so stable as I believe the tides have some effect on the base itself? Finally regarding the houses around Kauri road are they "base" houses for personnel or private residential etc? Asking in terms of how likely that would be to move them if they are private residential (which of course would be quite a sensitive issue, so just asking hypothetically)!

http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/2016/defence-estate-regeneration-2016-2030.pdf

There is no mention in the recently released plan to repair/upgrade infrastructure of any runway extensions. There is an indicative five-year project list at the end of the document, broken down by base.
However, the bulk of major projects happen from 2020-2025, while this plan only extends to 2021/22. So there may yet be an extension plan further off in the distance.

 

[Rob c]

There has been Govt level discussion on and off for about 15 years concerning the lengthening of 09/27 at OH to both the Fagan Rd and Tangimoana Rd ends. Originally as a B747 redirect and for visiting heavy lifters.

Just a note, when I was in the RNZAF (1964-1984) most of the land around Ohakea was owned by Defence and let to farmers. this included quite large stretches of the ends of the runways, which if still true could make it fairly easy to extend Ohakea except for 27.

 

[Rob c]

The other thing in the FASC RFI that that I forgot to include is that they are entertaining the idea of operation it from two separate airbases.

So the fleet could be spread between Whenuapai and Ohakea or maybe Woodbourne could get a look in too at the outside.

Would it be possible to set up a satellite base at Mangere and operate the P8 from there. the number of flights involved per day should not be a significant problem and the aircraft type would easily fit in.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

From the MOD pdf's i've seen online about the C130,the first was done in 2010, the last 2015? so some will be actually past the extra ten years it was supposed to buy those frames, by 2020.So should we try and squeese an extra few yrs past that date to 2024, to buy A400 and replace all the hercs, or have a lot less capable aircraft a few years earlier?

Regards to Strategic Lift, I know now the last whitetail C17 has gone, but is there a slight chance C17 can be bought from American stock in storage now, given the interest expressed by Usa mentioned about our involvement in Antarctica, and our govt interest in buying them? If the argument was money then, surely with the current budget now, that isnt an issue.

 

[ngatimozart]

From the MOD pdf's i've seen online about the C130,the first was done in 2010, the last 2015? so some will be actually past the extra ten years it was supposed to buy those frames, by 2020.So should we try and squeese an extra few yrs past that date to 2024, to buy A400 and replace all the hercs, or have a lot less capable aircraft a few years earlier?

No because that will be asking for very big problems. Given that the earliest available production slots are in 2022, the earliest we could get any A400Ms would be 2024 and then it would take another two years to get to IOC, let alone FOC.

Regards to Strategic Lift, I know now the last whitetail C17 has gone, but is there a slight chance C17 can be bought from American stock in storage now, given the interest expressed by Usa mentioned about our involvement in Antarctica, and our govt interest in buying them? If the argument was money then, surely with the current budget now, that isnt an issue.

Based on the released Cabinet documents, the fat lady has sung and any C17 acquisition has well and truly flown (please excuse the pun).

Boeing could offer a package consisting of the P8 for the FASC, KC390 for tactical airlift, and the B737-800 MAX ER as the VIP medevac etc. Boeing has the worldwide sales and maintenance rights for the KC390. Because Defence are also interested in AAR, the KC46 may be in the picture instead of the B737-800 MAX ER. The KC390 has AAR delivery capability but it uses the drogue delivery system, so if the P8 is selected then it cannot be refuelled that way, because it uses the boom system.

 

[t68]

No because that will be asking for very big problems. Given that the earliest available production slots are in 2022, the earliest we could get any A400Ms would be 2024 and then it would take another two years to get to IOC, let alone FOC.

.

I would not totally disregard A400M at the moment, it's a known fact that some Euro countries are fiscally challenged at the moment, there may be scope to have aircraft built in one of these slots and the extra built at a later time for whatever country.

Long shot but can't be discounted yet.

 

[ngatimozart]

More from the FASC RFI

FASC SAR requirements.
The capabilities required in order to deliver this SAR response are:
 Locate distress beacon;
 Search for vessels and persons in distress;
 Deliver survival equipment;
 Recover persons to place of safety.
Note: This includes the physical act of recovery, as well as the ability to assist in any recovery action. Assistance includes activities such as remaining on scene, communicating with other SAR assets in the area, vectoring said assets, acting as on scene commander.

There may also be a need for the FASC to provide support to land SAR operations through the provision of land ISR capabilities including the ability to locate distress beacons within the land domain.

Given the requirements to monitor and police the EEZ I wonder if a second light platform will be acquired and if so what? They are after synergies between this capability and the FAMC so it will be interesting.

Regarding the FASC, any ideas what "continuation of the extant Orion based concept" actually means? I can only assume that means the Orions' globally recognised replacement the P-8 and judging by the RFI's roles that would seem to suggest so. Regardless of what type is chosen it's heartening to hear precision strike is a required capability (finally)!

I think the following is your answer, again taken from the FASC RFI.

Concept of Operations for FASC
1. The operational concept for the FASC in Defence will be largely a continuation of the extant P-3K2 Orion based concept, adapted to exploit any greater platform and capability systems performance of the FASC fleet and support systems.

2. The annual operational rate of effort for the FASC will be determined by the capabilities of the acquired platforms. The capacity of FASC to deliver at least the current rates of effort, between 2500 to 3200 hours of airborne operations per year, is expected from the project. The capacity of a FASC fleet to support contemporaneous operations in various areas including New Zealand and the Southern Ocean, South Pacific, Asia-Pacific or at times globally; is valued by the Government.

3. The capability would be operated and supported from a main operating base (or possibly two main operating bases if the fleet composition makes that more appropriate) within New Zealand.

4. Within the New Zealand area, FASC operations will assist with protecting New Zealand’s interests in the Exclusive Economic Zone and Southern Ocean, and contribute to security through combating terrorism and providing support to the civil power. In the broader region, the FASC will be one of the elements that will work with Australian forces to promote and maintain a cooperative approach to regional security.

5. Deployed operations will be conducted from appropriately supported forward operating bases and, where available, will integrate with coalition or partner operations and support arrangements.

6. In the South Pacific, the FASC will enable New Zealand to contribute to the region’s peace and security, and help to maintain the sovereignty of those territories for which New Zealand has constitutional responsibilities.

7. The FASC will also assist during civil emergencies, and with Exclusive Economic Zone surveillance, search and rescue and humanitarian assistance. In the Asia-Pacific region, the FASC will contribute to military operations and will continue to be a key Defence contribution to Five Power Defence Arrangement activities. Globally, the FASC may be used by the Government to support multilateral military operations.

8. Within the military context, these FASC operations will involve support for maritime forces, land forces, air forces and Special Forces, as well as independent air operations. Within the broader whole-of-Government context, FASC operations will also support Government agencies including Fisheries, Customs, Police, Conservation, Maritime New Zealand and the Rescue Coordination Centre.

9. Defence's concepts for a multi-mission force (multipurpose platforms) mean that several of these Government agencies will receive concurrent support from FASC operations. The roles required of the FASC to support these military and whole-of- Government operations consist of surveillance and reconnaissance, search and rescue, direct support anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare, precision strike and command, control and communication. The FASC will also undertake and enable core training and ancillary flying activities necessary to sustain its operations.

10. The existing command and control arrangements apply to the FASC and would deploy forward for both national and coalition missions with national command and control (C2) elements supporting deployed elements either stand alone or embedded in the coalition C2 arrangements. Where appropriate, operational control of FASC elements will be delegated for deployed operations and tactical control delegated for on-scene control of aircraft.

11. Where appropriate, FASC control arrangements must allow sufficient freedom of action for aircraft to contribute to a network enabled environment to allow a broader range of forces and stakeholders to operate more effectively with shared situational awareness. FASC information sharing will be accomplished using the aircrafts’ communication systems in the airborne environment and using a mission planning and analysis system in the ground environment.

 

[ngatimozart]

I would not totally disregard A400M at the moment, it's a known fact that some Euro countries are fiscally challenged at the moment, there may be scope to have aircraft built in one of these slots and the extra built at a later time for whatever country.

Long shot but can't be discounted yet.

At this point in time it has to be discounted because no such arrangement has been mooted at all. Given the rate of current production those aircraft on order are definite orders so the ones that Germany and Spain, for example, are not taking aren't included in the current production slots. Yes some countries are fiscally challenged, but they are also in the position of having to take the aircraft because they cannot extend their current platform lives any longer. The Germans are having troubles with their Transalls, as are the French and the French have had to acquire four KC130s to fill the capability gap because of ongoing developmental and delivery issues with the A400M.

 

[t68]

At this point in time it has to be discounted because no such arrangement has been mooted at all. Given the rate of current production those aircraft on order are definite orders so the ones that Germany and Spain, for example, are not taking aren't included in the current production slots. Yes some countries are fiscally challenged, but they are also in the position of having to take the aircraft because they cannot extend their current platform lives any longer. The Germans are having troubles with their Transalls, as are the French and the French have had to acquire four KC130s to fill the capability gap because of ongoing developmental and delivery issues with the A400M.

Agree with what you are saying Airbus are having there problems and hopefully they will get it sorted sooner rather than later.

But you know politicians if they can defer spending they will, don't forget the other demension because of the bail out a few years ago I think there was a clause any additional sales and the profits are shares equally among the consortium members. It's a good couple of years before this one will be put to bed.

 

[Rob c]

I would not totally disregard A400M at the moment, it's a known fact that some Euro countries are fiscally challenged at the moment, there may be scope to have aircraft built in one of these slots and the extra built at a later time for whatever country.

Long shot but can't be discounted yet.

From memory Germany and Spain have both indicated the wish to on sell some A400's. It may be possible to buy some of these delivery slots.

 

[Rob c]

From the MOD pdf's i've seen online about the C130,the first was done in 2010, the last 2015? so some will be actually past the extra ten years it was supposed to buy those frames, by 2020.So should we try and squeese an extra few yrs past that date to 2024, to buy A400 and replace all the hercs, or have a lot less capable aircraft a few years earlier?

Regards to Strategic Lift, I know now the last whitetail C17 has gone, but is there a slight chance C17 can be bought from American stock in storage now, given the interest expressed by Usa mentioned about our involvement in Antarctica, and our govt interest in buying them? If the argument was money then, surely with the current budget now, that isnt an issue.

Talking to Graham Gilmore (ex Gp Cpt D eng in charge of the rebuild) a couple of years ago. He was adamant that they could last considerably longer than the ten years . Thee other point is why the 2 aircraft option. This would not be a whim as it has been normal to reduce aircraft types. there has to be a good reason why this possibility was included.