Royal New Zealand Air Force

[RegR]

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 Presumably Ministers agreed not to proceed down this track informally, hence the paper was withdrawn.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:

Our modest contribution is actually all relative. The US operation is alot larger than ours and if you have worked with the yanks then you will know their logistics tail matches their personalities ie go big or go home and as you have mentioned we are abit more modest in our endeavours both figuratively and literally.

Our typical summer team is 50 pers whilst theirs is around 1450 with winter 10 and 305 respectively, again all relative. Mcmurdo is a mini town in comparison to our "camp" therefore has the support to match.

Now I'm not denying the overall need for our military airbridge just not really buying all the doom and gloom in terms of participation on this particular front. Yes pooled logistics to better serve both operations for mutual benefit but no need for us to go above and beyond especially at any potential risk to our core military outputs.

Obviously any C17 aqquisition would require us to lose something else in return which is all those summaries indicate in order to fund, maintain and even operate which is exactly why I was not big on the idea (for the numbers gained anyway). Govt will require sacrifice to support which was why the options were put forward for their consideration and ultimately failed, no doubt govt have a cheaper and probably minimal soloution up their sleeve

 

[RegR]

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.

See now I would read this to be keep the P3/P8 type in AK to better serve its primary AO of our vast pacific SAR responsibility (and beyond) as per now and then base a smaller type/UAV in OH near its primary AO, the NZ coast/EEZ. Transit times all add up on the clock and with it's shorter legs a central location is advantageous, still no reason why they cannot deploy interbase when/if required to share roles.

Another selling point in a split squadron is the fact there is currently a vacant hanger sitting in OH awaiting a tennant. I did hear a rumour awhile ago that 40sqn boeing flight might move down to fill the void and be nearer their main customers but again came to nothing.

 

[RegR]

In regards to some people continueing on with the C295, The RFI states that they are to be replaced by comparable or better aircraft of which the C295 does not compare to any of them and would actually be a step back.

NZ simply doesnt have a need for such an aircraft as they already have other options available and quite frankly dont have to travel as far internally to get what they need where it needs to be making the C295 redundant, as MrConservative says the B350 covers that role with out hassle.

There are literally just 4 aicraft that can fill the role for the C-130's (excluding Russian stuff because really, Do we expect NZ to deal with Putin?). One is flying today but the least capable (C-130J), another is going through IOC (C-2), another mixed between IOC and development (A400) and th last one in development (KC390).

It willl be one of them and nothing else unless a politician thinks he can save a few bucks and changes the RFI.

One must remember most if not all of these 4 aircraft have been designed to carry sizeable loads and land on small runways, The C-2 off hand can land on a 900m strip carrying 26 ton of cargo.

Actually states comparable or better capability, I would not take that to nesscessarily mean a particular aircraft type more an air transport requirement and for NZ this could actually be quite wide even within tactical and strategic fields.

If it's beneficial for air to investigate multi-tiered options for MPA then why would they not do it for transport as many of the reasonings are the same an the advantages of any potential common platform cannot be overlooked and in fact would specifically enhance a type overall.

We had andovers, why would it be such a stretch to go full circle (type wise)?

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Mr C you may want to read some of your own posts on the subject of the C295 as a possible mid tier MR and light utility resource when there was a possibility that cabinet was looking seriously at this a number of years ago. That attempt never came to fruition because things changed in government.

I don't need to tell Kiwis anything I just offered my opinion. The initial response to any large scale disaster is pretty much the same regardless of where it occurs. People need water, shelter and medical supplies. Everything else is secondary.

I am not saying to carpet bomb the entire impacted region but overflying a shredded landscape with people looking up at you can be pretty easy for a crew to determine that a portion of the aide can be kicked out as you continue the assessment.

Having prepackaged aid skids ready to go is part of the pre planning during cyclone season.

I was also not advocating a basic airframe. A E/O camera should be available on these aircraft to enhance their multi purpose role.

I enjoy the opportunity to participate in these forums but I have to admit there is a definite air of arrogance by some longtime posters. You may have service experience and you may have connections to senior staff and government officials but your opposition to the opinion of others is too much for me.

I will refrain from this thread and let you EXPERTS carry on.

 

[recce.k1]

Novascotiaboy - I quite enjoy reading your posts, they are rather well informed (particularly on the naval thread) and when offering an opinion quite a bit of thought is put in to explain your reasoning.

I guess sometimes it's best that we can all agree to disagree, but still well thought out differing views should be able to be presented.

 

[t68]

Whilst acknowledging MR C narrative, it does beg the question if NZ go for like for like C130H-C130J plus a replacement for the 757 are numbers still on the light side?

When crunching numbers a battlefield lifter with commonality with C130J (C27J)does look appealing considering the tasking that NZ does. But on the other hand I would like RNZAF have a common platform for economy of scale and introduce a platform that could carry just about the same sort of weight as C295 but in a rotary asset namely CH-47F. I think in NZ purple context and with a common prime Boeing a mixed CH-47F(4)KC-390(6)KC-46A(3) could cover both tactical strategic and HADR cover land and maritime operations.

Money will be the overriding factor here.

 

[Rob c]

Novascotiaboy - I quite enjoy reading your posts, they are rather well informed (particularly on the naval thread) and when offering an opinion quite a bit of thought is put in to explain your reasoning.

I guess sometimes it's best that we can all agree to disagree, but still well thought out differing views should be able to be presented.

Totally agree with you, It really is about Novascotiaboy expressing a well thought out opinion. whether he was right or wrong is irrelevant. I would point out that the photo part of the disagreement could have been carried out by just about any suitable aircraft.

 

[ngatimozart]

Whilst acknowledging MR C narrative, it does beg the question if NZ go for like for like C130H-C130J plus a replacement for the 757 are numbers still on the light side?

When crunching numbers a battlefield lifter with commonality with C130J (C27J)does look appealing considering the tasking that NZ does. But on the other hand I would like RNZAF have a common platform for economy of scale and introduce a platform that could carry just about the same sort of weight as C295 but in a rotary asset namely CH-47F. I think in NZ purple context and with a common prime Boeing a mixed CH-47F(4)KC-390(6)KC-46A(3) could cover both tactical strategic and HADR cover land and maritime operations.

Money will be the overriding factor here.

You can forget about the rotary wing element. The RFI specifically excludes rotary wing solutions, unfortunately.

 

[Rob c]

See now I would read this to be keep the P3/P8 type in AK to better serve its primary AO of our vast pacific SAR responsibility (and beyond) as per now and then base a smaller type/UAV in OH near its primary AO, the NZ coast/EEZ. Transit times all add up on the clock and with it's shorter legs a central location is advantageous, still no reason why they cannot deploy interbase when/if required to share roles.

Another selling point in a split squadron is the fact there is currently a vacant hanger sitting in OH awaiting a tennant. I did hear a rumour awhile ago that 40sqn boeing flight might move down to fill the void and be nearer their main customers but again came to nothing.

If the P8 does replace the P3 then it would be difficult for them to be based at WH. due to their runway requirements. However the Kawasaki P1 might solve this. I have not found out the P1's runway requirements but it has a significantly larger wing area, lower weight, equal power and a lower wing loading to the P8 which would suggest a far better runway performance. Going throught the various web sights the general opinion seems to be that they are fairly comparable in their capabilities. The P1 does have a MAD boom which was deleted from the P8 evidently for cost reasons.

 

[ngatimozart]

Mr C you may want to read some of your own posts on the subject of the C295 as a possible mid tier MR and light utility resource when there was a possibility that cabinet was looking seriously at this a number of years ago. That attempt never came to fruition because things changed in government.

I don't need to tell Kiwis anything I just offered my opinion. The initial response to any large scale disaster is pretty much the same regardless of where it occurs. People need water, shelter and medical supplies. Everything else is secondary.

I am not saying to carpet bomb the entire impacted region but overflying a shredded landscape with people looking up at you can be pretty easy for a crew to determine that a portion of the aide can be kicked out as you continue the assessment.

Having prepackaged aid skids ready to go is part of the pre planning during cyclone season.

I was also not advocating a basic airframe. A E/O camera should be available on these aircraft to enhance their multi purpose role.

I enjoy the opportunity to participate in these forums but I have to admit there is a definite air of arrogance by some longtime posters. You may have service experience and you may have connections to senior staff and government officials but your opposition to the opinion of others is too much for me.

I will refrain from this thread and let you EXPERTS carry on.

There is no need to spit the dummy. We have to deal in realities and it is not arrogance, but experience and also us being sick of having to continually keep repeating ourselves because people don't read what has been previously posted. There is also material that some defence professionals have access to but cannot disclose for OPSEC or confidentiality reasons but can be alluded to very indirectly. The only time we really oppose opinions is when those opinions are uninformed and / or fly in the face of logic and reason.

Those of us who have worn the uniform of our country have done so with pride and honour. It has also given us experience and knowledge that informs the defence conversation. That is why in my eyes the opinion of a serviceman carries weight in this conversation because they have been there, done that and there are things that cannot be learned from a book or in a series of university lectures. They have to be learned in the field, sea or sky.

Others, like Mr C, have moved within the halls of our political masters have an understanding of how the political and bureaucratic system of state works, which has equal bearing to that of the serviceman, because it is the pollies who make the policy and approve the expenditure. You cannot have the first without the second.

 

[ngatimozart]

If the P8 does replace the P3 then it would be difficult for them to be based at WH. due to their runway requirements. However the Kawasaki P1 might solve this. I have not found out the P1's runway requirements but it has a significantly larger wing area, lower weight, equal power and a lower wing loading to the P8 which would suggest a far better runway performance. Going throught the various web sights the general opinion seems to be that they are fairly comparable in their capabilities. The P1 does have a MAD boom which was deleted from the P8 evidently for cost reasons.

If the B757s can operate out of WP, why can't the P8? Just saying. The P8 can have a MAD boom if required because the P8(I) has the MAD boom fitted. However the P8A has other sensor technology that supersedes the requirement of MAD boom. Remember for a MAD to work properly you have to fly low, real low which in todays world can be somewhat fraught with danger for a sub hunting aircraft, because modern subs are now being fitted with sub launched SAM capabilities.

Regarding the Kawasaki P1, it will cost more to operate than the P8 - four engines vs two. Also does the P1 have the same ISR, EW, ESM, AI (Air Intercept) etc., capabilities as the P8? Then looking at the synergies requirement of the RFI, what synergies will there be between it and the FAMC? I do hope that Kawasaki submit a response to both RFIs because I think that there maybe some synergies between the P1 and the C2.

 

[htbrst]

We have to deal in realities and it is not arrogance, but experience and also us being sick of having to continually keep repeating ourselves because people don't read what has been previously posted.

I know I bit my tongue (out of respect for you and the discussion) about some of your comments in the past few pages trending toward the arrogant end of the spectrum, so I'm pretty confident some of the wonderful discussion in this thread has been stifled of late.

It's hard for the masses to tell mods to pull their heads in, but please don't be so hard on the rest of us carrying on pretty politely in such a long thread hwell

 

[RegR]

There is no need to spit the dummy. We have to deal in realities and it is not arrogance, but experience and also us being sick of having to continually keep repeating ourselves because people don't read what has been previously posted. There is also material that some defence professionals have access to but cannot disclose for OPSEC or confidentiality reasons but can be alluded to very indirectly. The only time we really oppose opinions is when those opinions are uninformed and / or fly in the face of logic and reason.

Those of us who have worn the uniform of our country have done so with pride and honour. It has also given us experience and knowledge that informs the defence conversation. That is why in my eyes the opinion of a serviceman carries weight in this conversation because they have been there, done that and there are things that cannot be learned from a book or in a series of university lectures. They have to be learned in the field, sea or sky.

Others, like Mr C, have moved within the halls of our political masters have an understanding of how the political and bureaucratic system of state works, which has equal bearing to that of the serviceman, because it is the pollies who make the policy and approve the expenditure. You cannot have the first without the second.

The thing is none of what he says flys in the face of logic and in fact has actually been mooted at some point by our very own government. Small tactical lifters of precisely C295 type have been mentioned as opposed to what I would consider uninformed reasonably illogical ospreys and hate to say it, chinooks, but again that is just my opinion and we all have them. Even though something has been mentioned in circles until we actually go down that particular path and commit it is still merely an option, take for example the Endeavour replacement and it's eventual outcome, went from a possible JSS to a actual AOR all within months.

If I believed everything I heard floating around the defence force hierarchy I would still be in as we would have quite an impressive kit, option and slick operating outfit but alas after years of false promise, adjustments and shifting goalposts the cynic in me knows better. Agreed some more informed rumours obviously come to fruition but then again alot do not or change rather quickly in the scheme of things. I would not take what our pollies discuss as a valid indicator as well as they tend to grossly mis-interpret most things military depending on what was the most recent overseas newsclip, youtube post or action film they last caught. Being advised does not nesscessarily equate to being understood and some are even ex military and yet I still find myself facepalming at some comments, knowledge can be a dangerous thing depending on its understanding of.

As has been stated we are all guesstimating, interpreting and concluding to the best of our abilities at this stage regardless of whos ear we have or office we are down the hall from and things change as has been proven numerous times on these threads judging by the amount of turnarounds, re-thinks and new versions of old ideas. But again all ideas are still interesting and informative to read (mostly) and I think being a smaller, and similarly funded, DF we tend not to stray into the realms of fantasy too much as is not only unlikely but literally unaffordable.

 

[RegR]

If the B757s can operate out of WP, why can't the P8? Just saying. The P8 can have a MAD boom if required because the P8(I) has the MAD boom fitted. However the P8A has other sensor technology that supersedes the requirement of MAD boom. Remember for a MAD to work properly you have to fly low, real low which in todays world can be somewhat fraught with danger for a sub hunting aircraft, because modern subs are now being fitted with sub launched SAM capabilities.

Regarding the Kawasaki P1, it will cost more to operate than the P8 - four engines vs two. Also does the P1 have the same ISR, EW, ESM, AI (Air Intercept) etc., capabilities as the P8? Then looking at the synergies requirement of the RFI, what synergies will there be between it and the FAMC? I do hope that Kawasaki submit a response to both RFIs because I think that there maybe some synergies between the P1 and the C2.

Agreed, I would assume a fully loaded 757 would be at least comparable to a P8 so would hope WP could handle it. A few larger AC have visited WP over the years so surely a relatively small 737 can do the same being similar to some of our regional airports that took AirNZ 737s.

 

[Rob c]

If the B757s can operate out of WP, why can't the P8? Just saying. The P8 can have a MAD boom if required because the P8(I) has the MAD boom fitted. However the P8A has other sensor technology that supersedes the requirement of MAD boom. Remember for a MAD to work properly you have to fly low, real low which in todays world can be somewhat fraught with danger for a sub hunting aircraft, because modern subs are now being fitted with sub launched SAM capabilities.

Regarding the Kawasaki P1, it will cost more to operate than the P8 - four engines vs two. Also does the P1 have the same ISR, EW, ESM, AI (Air Intercept) etc., capabilities as the P8? Then looking at the synergies requirement of the RFI, what synergies will there be between it and the FAMC? I do hope that Kawasaki submit a response to both RFIs because I think that there maybe some synergies between the P1 and the C2.

The Mad boom was just an after thought and probably not a lot of use (as you state)on a P8 due to the altitude detection criteria it operates under. However the runway requirement is an issue as my understanding is that the b737-800 ER (the base Aircraft for the P8)fully loaded requires 9000ft of runway. WH has 6500 and OH 8500. I have explored several web sites and cannot confirm the the P1 has all of the above capablities, the general consensus was that it's capabilities were similar to the P8. In regard to operating costs, engines are not the only costs and an aircraft with a larger runway requirement will generate far higher wheels, brakes, tyres and undercarriage component costs. On the missile problem, I am unaware of the performance of sub launched AA missiles But assuming the have a performance at least equal to the old sparrow it wont matter how high you fly as unless your detection /deception (ECM) gear is working you are in trouble. But I think the P8/P1 subject is worth discussing .

 

[Rob c]

Agreed, I would assume a fully loaded 757 would be at least comparable to a P8 so would hope WP could handle it. A few larger AC have visited WP over the years so surely a relatively small 737 can do the same being similar to some of our regional airports that took AirNZ 737s.

The ANZ 737-300 and the P8 are like chalk and cheese. The P8 is 20 tonnes max take of heaver. Also the ANZ aircraft civil aircraft only operate with enough(+reserves)fuel for the flight (surplus weight costs money) so the ANZ air craft would most often be operating between 10 to 20 tonnes under max.The P8 max is over 10 tonne heaver than a fully loaded C130. max take of weights take of distances for a 737-900er(similar weight to a P8) 9843ft for a 757-200(same as ours) 6500ft.

 

[vonnoobie]

Can't recall where I seen in but I did read an article I believe in relation to P-8's and Hawaii and that for extreme operational conditions (fully loaded) they would require an 8,000ft runway, No mention that I can recall of the minimum length for an aircraft with a basic load (I dont see the NZ government funding to have the fully loaded).

So OH should be able to handle them, Wh though even with a light load I don't see being able to but perhaps there may be some room in the budget to expand the runway.

 

[ngatimozart]

I know I bit my tongue (out of respect for you and the discussion) about some of your comments in the past few pages trending toward the arrogant end of the spectrum, so I'm pretty confident some of the wonderful discussion in this thread has been stifled of late.

It's hard for the masses to tell mods to pull their heads in, but please don't be so hard on the rest of us carrying on pretty politely in such a long thread hwell

Point noted. If I appear to be arrogant I apologise because I am certainly not. What I have been posting regarding the FAMC and FASC has been coming from the RFIs which I have copies of. I had posting selected quotes from them but will not post all of content from the documents. We are not trying to stifle the conversation, however we don't want it leaping off into flights of fantasy or regurgitating old worn arguments ad nauseum that have already been disproved. Myself, I would love nothing better than to see the RNZAF operating 2 - 3 x C17 but in reality that isn't going to happen, because the pollies were slow on the uptake. They have long pockets, short arms and their vmax (maximum velocity) is 1/2 sloth speed on a good day. But I and others who understand (which is most of the posters) don't rabbit on about it. It is just the minority.

The thing is none of what he says flys in the face of logic and in fact has actually been mooted at some point by our very own government. Small tactical lifters of precisely C295 type have been mentioned as opposed to what I would consider uninformed reasonably illogical ospreys and hate to say it, chinooks, but again that is just my opinion and we all have them. Even though something has been mentioned in circles until we actually go down that particular path and commit it is still merely an option, take for example the Endeavour replacement and it's eventual outcome, went from a possible JSS to a actual AOR all within months.

Well Ospreys were always going to be a real reach, but Chinooks were a possibility until the RFI came out. However that possibility has been deep sixed which I think is a mistake. However we have to play with the cards we are dealt with.

If I believed everything I heard floating around the defence force hierarchy I would still be in as we would have quite an impressive kit, option and slick operating outfit but alas after years of false promise, adjustments and shifting goalposts the cynic in me knows better. Agreed some more informed rumours obviously come to fruition but then again alot do not or change rather quickly in the scheme of things. I would not take what our pollies discuss as a valid indicator as well as they tend to grossly mis-interpret most things military depending on what was the most recent overseas newsclip, youtube post or action film they last caught. Being advised does not nesscessarily equate to being understood and some are even ex military and yet I still find myself facepalming at some comments, knowledge can be a dangerous thing depending on its understanding of.

As has been stated we are all guesstimating, interpreting and concluding to the best of our abilities at this stage regardless of whos ear we have or office we are down the hall from and things change as has been proven numerous times on these threads judging by the amount of turnarounds, re-thinks and new versions of old ideas. But again all ideas are still interesting and informative to read (mostly) and I think being a smaller, and similarly funded, DF we tend not to stray into the realms of fantasy too much as is not only unlikely but literally unaffordable.

Yes, we do tend to have to sometimes read the tea leaves and sheep entrails to try and decipher what may be the outcome to any given defence project. Pollies minds change more times than a certain lady's drawers go up and down.

 

[Rob c]

Can't recall where I seen in but I did read an article I believe in relation to P-8's and Hawaii and that for extreme operational conditions (fully loaded) they would require an 8,000ft runway, No mention that I can recall of the minimum length for an aircraft with a basic load (I dont see the NZ government funding to have the fully loaded).

So OH should be able to handle them, Wh though even with a light load I don't see being able to but perhaps there may be some room in the budget to expand the runway.

The fully loaded aircraft can be achieved in a P8 simply with full fuel and nothing else bar the basic aircraft. everything you add after that requires fuel to be deducted. so the question would be, can the RNZAF live with a range restricted aircraft when we live a long way from anywhere. The options are, without major works Base at OH and except the range restrictions even thought you are now further from your main operating area. Operate partly or holey from Mangere, doing shorter range and training from WH.

 

[Sam W]

The fully loaded aircraft can be achieved in a P8 simply with full fuel and nothing else bar the basic aircraft. everything you add after that requires fuel to be deducted. so the question would be, can the RNZAF live with a range restricted aircraft when we live a long way from anywhere. The options are, without major works Base at OH and except the range restrictions even thought you are now further from your main operating area. Operate partly or holey from Mangere, doing shorter range and training from WH.

A KC-46 or A330 MRTT would give the P-8 the ability to patrol most of the Pacific ocean even when operating from a shorter runway. However I very much doubt that a refueling airliner is even remotely being considered.

Would a forward operating or refueling base somewhere north of NZ for the RNZAF be a possibility?