Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Gibbo]

....
The main objection to a light lifter seems to be (as I read the comments here) it's inability to move meaningful loads to the Pacific (or further) for HADR purposes. This is unquestionably correct. However, it NZ opts for a either the A400 or C-2, there is going to be a need to shift goods delivered to the main international airport out to to smaller islands. In Vanuatu (Cyclone Pam) the French C235s based in Noumea did a lot of this work, and I saw footage of them in Fiji. presumably undertaking similar operations.

On a longer deployment (Timor Leste, Solomons, Afghanistan), there would be benefits in having the ability to contribute a tactical airlift capability to supply/transport ground forces. If we get small numbers of a larger aircraft, this will not be possible.

In summary, I think a 'light lifter' would be a useful asset. Whether it justifies buying reduced numbers of the 'major' airlifter is something Defence and the next Government will have to grapple with. People are welcome to disagree, but I don't think the idea should be dismissed out of hand.

You do have a point in that if NZ gets A400M it may well see a change to a 'hub & spoke' approach to Sth. Pacific taskings - ie: the A400M flies into the 'hub' and loads are broken down for the smaller lifter to operate the 'spokes' to various islands. But this depends on the nature of the deployment, threat assessment etc. It would, I'm guessing, have to be part of a conscious choice by RNZAF to start operating in this manner (assuming they don't already with the current B757 / C130 mix!?!

 

[Gibbo]

If they did not require organic helo support then there would also be the rather large flight deck and hanger to use for containers/ freight as well.

We do 6-8 flights per season plus the added boeing flights so not sure where this shortage has sprung from as if anything we have added flights. Possibly downtime from the ongoing SLEP but once that's cleared we will be back to normal plus the relatively recent 757 sorties. One boeing flight had 117 pax on board so obviously we are moving alot of our US neighbours (or govt tourists) as that's more than our entire nominal manning down there incl military peak assistance.

Interesting, so the (up to) 20 TEU capapcity on the tanker really is likely to take significant pressure off the C130 fleet! Although I'm picking this probably won't reduce flights much, but rather allow us to do it ourselves rather than bludge capacity on the US flights!?!.

I guess C130 do the bulk ot freight flights as B757 needs seats fitted for returning PAX?

So would it be fair to say our bigger issue getting to the ice is with PAX?

No mention of twist-locks on the flight deck, and no crane, so expect that's not where the extra 8 will go.

 

[Rob c]

So it would seem P8 would therefore not be as suitable for us then if it is limited in the local/regional runways it can operate from especially if it is not at least comparable to our P3s or even 757. If it is indeed that heavy would that not then pose problems with tarmac loading as even our 757s have the dual dollys and undercarriage to take/spread the load more?

In the RFI there is talk of operating from two locations, my thoughts on this are WH and Mangere as the two locations. To do southern patrols which seem to be gaining importance a refuel stop at CH would be in order. So the P8 could be easily made to work. however I would like to see a bid from japan on the P1 and more info on this aircraft as the only info i have found is rather generalized.

 

[Rob c]

Interesting, so the (up to) 20 TEU capapcity on the tanker really is likely to take significant pressure off the C130 fleet! Although I'm picking this probably won't reduce flights much, but rather allow us to do it ourselves rather than bludge capacity on the US flights!?!.

I guess C130 do the bulk ot freight flights as B757 needs seats fitted for returning PAX?

So would it be fair to say our bigger issue getting to the ice is with PAX?

No mention of twist-locks on the flight deck, and no crane, so expect that's not where the extra 8 will go.

I think the TEU capacity in the Antarctic context is just a bonus, the main feature is the delivery of fuel and as a trade off for us delivering the fuel and the yanks deliver the bulk.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

You do have a point in that if NZ gets A400M it may well see a change to a 'hub & spoke' approach to Sth. Pacific taskings - ie: the A400M flies into the 'hub' and loads are broken down for the smaller lifter to operate the 'spokes' to various islands. But this depends on the nature of the deployment, threat assessment etc. It would, I'm guessing, have to be part of a conscious choice by RNZAF to start operating in this manner (assuming they don't already with the current B757 / C130 mix!?!

I wonder i how important Nzdf sees the need to deploy NH90 or even trucks by air as an immediate response now , seeing A400M may not be able to be delivered in that timeframe, will C2 be able to do such a lift, in the very real scenario of another Cyclone or natural disaster? At least in the past hueys could be delivered by C130.

Will two airframes really be enough for strategic, outsized loads,plus pulling double duty as a Vip transport? We also have to think of the prospect of another conflict like east timor occurring, in either scenario days spent at sea to deliver can cost lives.

 

[Rob c]

You do have a point in that if NZ gets A400M it may well see a change to a 'hub & spoke' approach to Sth. Pacific taskings - ie: the A400M flies into the 'hub' and loads are broken down for the smaller lifter to operate the 'spokes' to various islands. But this depends on the nature of the deployment, threat assessment etc. It would, I'm guessing, have to be part of a conscious choice by RNZAF to start operating in this manner (assuming they don't already with the current B757 / C130 mix!?!

I think that the A400 is a long shot at best , but cannot be totally ruled out, as you never know what back yard deals could be made. The possibility of a light medium transport coming out of the current RFI would be low, however I it could be a possibility as a twin engine trainer replacement as I have heard some dissatisfaction with the current setup and its lack of flexibility. Time will tell and as time passes the likely hood of changes to what was laid down in the DWP increases. You only have to look at what happened and what did not happen in DWP 2010 to figure that out.

 

[Rob c]

I wonder i how important Nzdf sees the need to deploy NH90 or even trucks by air as an immediate response now , seeing A400M may not be able to be delivered in that timeframe, will C2 be able to do such a lift, in the very real scenario of another Cyclone or natural disaster? At least in the past hueys could be delivered by C130.

Will two airframes really be enough for strategic, outsized loads,plus pulling double duty as a Vip transport? We also have to think of the prospect of another conflict like east timor occurring, in either scenario days spent at sea to deliver can cost lives.

As a left field idea how about replace both the 757 and the 130 with C2s, say 6 or 7 aircraft. and to really improve the synergies get the P1 as well.

 

[kiwi in exile]

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

I have felt exactlty the same at times. Mostly though DT is a great read and Im thankful for the input and ideas of nearly all contributors regardless of who they are or what they do or did. At the same time its great to hear from those with inside knowledge and experience, which is part of what makes DT so great. The other thing is the range of ideas and perspectives from different people, and the subsequent reasoned discussion and debate. Sarcastic, angry and arrogant toned responses are always a turn off.

my $0.02

Now back to the discussion about the future direction of RNZAF

 

[kiwi in exile]

As a left field idea how about replace both the 757 and the 130 with C2s, say 6 or 7 aircraft. and to really improve the synergies get the P1 as well.

Looks good on paper, but I'd rather see us have operate P8s in common with our closest defence partners. I'd steer clear of the C2 for similar reasons, untill they are adopted more widely, it's stick with a more common platform.

 

[Rob c]

Looks good on paper, but I'd rather see us have operate P8s in common with our closest defence partners. I'd steer clear of the C2 for similar reasons, untill they are adopted more widely, it's stick with a more common platform.

Unfortunately the common platform in regard to tac transport is also the least capable, it may be the safes option but leaves us with little more than we have now. There is no need to operate the same aircraft as long as they can operate together and at times two different aircraft can be more effective than one type as they bring different strengths to the table. Also the Japanese tend to do just about everything in the engineering field very well.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

As a left field idea how about replace both the 757 and the 130 with C2s, say 6 or 7 aircraft. and to really improve the synergies get the P1 as well.

I have recently become a fan of the C2 because it is the only viable option, since the close of the Long Beach facility for C17 production (not a fan of A400), for out size loads.

This is a big aircraft with a price mid way between C-130J-30 and A400. The cargo bay is comparable to the A400 in both volume and carrying capacity. The deciding factor of moving to the larger capability will be the ongoing operating costs. As has been stated before will this be too much of an aircraft for the lower weight / partial loads? Even a mix of 3 C2 and 4 KC-130 or KC390 would offer an increase in lift over the current aircraft but passenger comfort would still be an issue I would presume.

You beat me to the post 40 Deg South as I was thinking about the hub and spoke delivery of cargo on my drive home tonight. Good job and well said.

I have a feeling that anything less than a C130 in capacity is being interpreted as a loss of face in the eyes of some people but I see it differently. Mr.C used a term a couple of years ago in a post where he described the RNZAF as a "boutique air force". I think a better description is a "niche" air force offering capabilities that few others have. As has been stated, the RNZAF is very proficient at providing the services it does with the assets at its disposal.

I view capability as an ability to provide a series of deliverables to government. The fact that NZ is so distant from a large portion of its AO has implications on the selection of assets but looking at the hub and spoke model that 40 Deg South described I see this as the niche that the twins can provide in addition to all the home based tasks listed. Like the C27's in OZ the twin lifter has the ability to be the intra theatre lifter in support of coalition Chinooks.

I don't think a Hi / Lo mix is the right way to go, as my preference is still a three type fleet, but it does offer a lot of flexibility without loss of capacity IMHO.

I compared the distances today that NZAF aircraft have to travel to get to its northern AO in support of the island nations and I compared it to where I live. In the long running saga of trying to replace our legacy Hercules that are used for SAR coverage and secondary transport the choice of aircraft is going to be C295 or C27J. KC390 has been bid but Bombardier will lobby against Embraer. Looking at the AO of fixed wing SAR aircraft from the Greenwood base here in Nova Scotia they cover well into the north of the country to Baffin island and beyond as well as 1000's of km from shore to the middle of the Atlantic ocean beyond Newfoundland as we currently only base three AW101's there for SAR coverage, no fixed wing based in Newfoundland.

In the end the final decision will be influenced by overall cost, not capability. I am old enough to have witnessed this in much of my life. We can only hope that when the decision is finally made that the RNZAF has aircraft that will serve them well, are safe and are well supported.

This discussion is not about influencing others to change their minds or to have influence on government decision making but to provide a perspective for conversation.

 

[40 deg south]

You do have a point in that if NZ gets A400M it may well see a change to a 'hub & spoke' approach to Sth. Pacific taskings - ie: the A400M flies into the 'hub' and loads are broken down for the smaller lifter to operate the 'spokes' to various islands. But this depends on the nature of the deployment, threat assessment etc. It would, I'm guessing, have to be part of a conscious choice by RNZAF to start operating in this manner (assuming they don't already with the current B757 / C130 mix!?!

Bingo!

'Hub and spoke' is the phrase I had in mind when writing the post, but I somehow forgot to use it.

NZ will have to move to this mode of aide distribution if we buy either the A400 or the similar-sized Kawasaki C2. Incidentally, these are the only two aircraft likely to be able to reach Antarctica with no point of safe return, which was described as a 'desirable' characteristic for the new capability.

 

[40 deg south]

As a left field idea how about replace both the 757 and the 130 with C2s, say 6 or 7 aircraft. and to really improve the synergies get the P1 as well.

As you say, this idea is a bit out of left field. Irrespective of the capability of the different platforms, it would be a highly political decision by the government of the day. They would be deliberately tying us closer to Japan for defence purposes, and potentially irritating China (currently our No 1 trade partner).

I feel the only way either capability would be acquired would be as part of a package deal for both C-2 and P-1. And perhaps a Mitsubushi MRJ thrown in as VIP transport for good measure...

Stranger things have happened. But not very often!

 

[40 deg south]

I have felt exactlty the same at times. Mostly though DT is a great read and Im thankful for the input and ideas of nearly all contributors regardless of who they are or what they do or did. At the same time its great to hear from those with inside knowledge and experience, which is part of what makes DT so great. The other thing is the range of ideas and perspectives from different people, and the subsequent reasoned discussion and debate. Sarcastic, angry and arrogant toned responses are always a turn off.

my $0.02

Now back to the discussion about the future direction of RNZAF

+1

Respectfully

 

[Rob c]

As you say, this idea is a bit out of left field. Irrespective of the capability of the different platforms, it would be a highly political decision by the government of the day. They would be deliberately tying us closer to Japan for defence purposes, and potentially irritating China (currently our No 1 trade partner).

I feel the only way either capability would be acquired would be as part of a package deal for both C-2 and P-1. And perhaps a Mitsubushi MRJ thrown in as VIP transport for good measure...

Stranger things have happened. But not very often!

I think a big plus for a A400/C2 sized aircraft is that it falls neatly between the aus C17 and C130, carrying about twice a 130 load and half a 17 load.

 

[vonnoobie]

So it would seem P8 would therefore not be as suitable for us then if it is limited in the local/regional runways it can operate from especially if it is not at least comparable to our P3s or even 757. If it is indeed that heavy would that not then pose problems with tarmac loading as even our 757s have the dual dollys and undercarriage to take/spread the load more?

In the RFI there is talk of operating from two locations, my thoughts on this are WH and Mangere as the two locations. To do southern patrols which seem to be gaining importance a refuel stop at CH would be in order. So the P8 could be easily made to work. however I would like to see a bid from japan on the P1 and more info on this aircraft as the only info i have found is rather generalized.

Admittedly info is based off of what I read on wiki however using that as a guide I'm not so sure there is major differences between them, the P-1 at max load is just over 5 ton lighter then the P-8 and has a max range 300km less.

If that 5 ton will make a major difference in runway requirement's I cant say. What will work against it though is the engine, Not because it is a bad engine (Not that I know of) but because the P-1 is the only aircraft using it eliminating the ability to tap into other supply sources quickly when needed.

Cost wise it is cheaper with fly away costs of around $140m compared to $170m give or take a few million but not enough difference in my opinion to make it a clear winner.

The way I see it unless NZ zero's out the current P-3's and upgrades them they will have to settle with a smaller ASW aircraft or enlarge the airfields

 

[ngatimozart]

I wonder if the discussion of whether or not the P8 can operate out of WP (Whenuapai) is side tracking the conversation. To me this is less of an issue than what the platform offers NZDF, so IMHO the main issues are what are the differences in capability between the P8 and P1? Each platform has its individual strengths and weaknesses and whether or not a platform may or may not have problems getting in and out of WP is not a deal breaker. There can be work arounds. For example, currently the P3s have to fly to OH (Ohakea) to be "bombed up" (loaded with Mk82 500lb GP bombs) before returning to Auckland to drop them at the Kaipara range. I am unsure of the reasoning for this but can guess that OSH and NIMBYism is probably to the fore. It is not writ large in stone nor an Act of Parliament that 5 Sqn have to be based at WP. So relocating 5 Sqn is another option.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

The "niche" capability that I recently spoke of includes the strategically important maritime aircraft but I am not sold on P8 as it requires a completely different set of operations compared to the P3. The P8 operates predominantly at altitude, including ASW, whereas the P3 operates low near the water. Is NZ ready for that complete transition in operations?

I realize the 5i's potential of the P8 but can something else tick off most of the boxes like the P1 while retaining the low level ops? The issues of range and endurance are moot if AAR aircraft are acquired as part of the transport rationalization.

P8 will not be as common a platform amongst allied nations like the P3 because its production run is likely to be short. If NZ does opt for P8 will the four suggested actually be enough to cover the existing taskings and tempo?

The Indian P8i does not have all the boxes ticked as it is not equipped with all the ISR electronics that a full fledged P8 in US service has but how has that affected cost? Would a mix of full blown P8 and P8i be an option or does this not make sense? I know Canada operated three Arcturus aircraft as trainers and limited ability MR aircraft based on the same Orion / Aurora platform but these are now in the Arizona boneyard.

I personally like the Japanese options and see other Japanese weapon systems as options for more than just NZ.

 

[ngatimozart]

The "niche" capability that I recently spoke of includes the strategically important maritime aircraft but I am not sold on P8 as it requires a completely different set of operations compared to the P3. The P8 operates predominantly at altitude, including ASW, whereas the P3 operates low near the water. Is NZ ready for that complete transition in operations?

I realize the 5i's potential of the P8 but can something else tick off most of the boxes like the P1 while retaining the low level ops? The issues of range and endurance are moot if AAR aircraft are acquired as part of the transport rationalization.

P8 will not be as common a platform amongst allied nations like the P3 because its production run is likely to be short. If NZ does opt for P8 will the four suggested actually be enough to cover the existing taskings and tempo?

The Indian P8i does not have all the boxes ticked as it is not equipped with all the ISR electronics that a full fledged P8 in US service has but how has that affected cost? Would a mix of full blown P8 and P8i be an option or does this not make sense? I know Canada operated three Arcturus aircraft as trainers and limited ability MR aircraft based on the same Orion / Aurora platform but these are now in the Arizona boneyard.

I personally like the Japanese options and see other Japanese weapon systems as options for more than just NZ.

The thing to remember about the P8 (and modern warfare) is that it is very different to how the likes of legacy systems are operated due to the RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs). It is very much information based and the aircraft onboard systems are operated totally differently to those on the P3. The Arrival of a Maritime-Domain Awareness Strike Capability: The Impact of the P-8/Triton Dyad | SLDInfo The RAAF Plan Jericho is a way ahead and how they are utilising their onboard workstations and workflow on the Wedgetail E7A AEW&C. The USN has taken great interest in how the RAAF have been operating the Wedgetail workstations because they believe that it shows how to operate the P8 workstations / workflows etc.

 

[Rob c]

Admittedly info is based off of what I read on wiki however using that as a guide I'm not so sure there is major differences between them, the P-1 at max load is just over 5 ton lighter then the P-8 and has a max range 300km less.

If that 5 ton will make a major difference in runway requirement's I cant say. What will work against it though is the engine, Not because it is a bad engine (Not that I know of) but because the P-1 is the only aircraft using it eliminating the ability to tap into other supply sources quickly when needed.

Cost wise it is cheaper with fly away costs of around $140m compared to $170m give or take a few million but not enough difference in my opinion to make it a clear winner.

The way I see it unless NZ zero's out the current P-3's and upgrades them they will have to settle with a smaller ASW aircraft or enlarge the airfields

The weight factor in regard to the runway requirements of the P8/P1 has little to do with their runway requirements it is about their wing loading and configuration of their slats,flaps and engine power For example the C2 which weighs almost twice the weight of the P8 can take off with 26 tonne freight in 900mtrs. If the P8 used Mangere for long range work I think all options regarding types are still open
It is also unlikely that a smaller type would satisfy the RFI.

Rob & Vonoobie, apologies for being the formatting police, but can you both please check your BB coding and preview your posts before posting when you are replying to posts. Would be greatly appreciated.