40 deg south
Well-Known Member
https://www.facebook.com/RoyalNewZe...3676209100040/884583761675944/?type=3&theater
Latest Air Force News now out.
Latest Air Force News now out.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
What needs to be remembered here is that the number of C130's involved is very small compared with the size of the transport fleets involved. I think what is happening is that a niche unit is being formed to fill a perceived gap in their transport fleet when all the A400's are delivered. The A400 being more in the Tactical/Strategic role than dedicated tactical. I don't think it has any relevance to the RNZAF program as our Herks are mainly used as a multi tactical/Strategic role aircraft also
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
40 degrees south ,Given that they will be servicing NZ military helicopters and aircraft, would that make China privy to foriegn technology they otherwise would not be able to get hold of,surely Airbus themselves, Lockheed would have some say?
If Airwork have any sensitive defence work, then yes it will present a security concern. The deal has not yet been approved by the Airwork board or the appropriate regulatory authorities.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
That's the question. Does anyone know how much RNZAF support is carried out by AirWork?
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/mil-log/c295w-aerial-refuel-testing/
C-295 close to adding another useful capability. Can't help but think the C-27J is struggling to keep up.
How much use it is to NZ is a different question, given we have no history of air-air re-fueling.
C-295 close to adding another useful capability. Can't help but think the C-27J is struggling to keep up.
How much use it is to NZ is a different question, given we have no history of air-air re-fueling.
Last edited by a moderator:
t68
Well-Known Member
Well it could be a useful capabilty if NZ ever feels the need to put probes on the NH-90 as an assurance if they need to self deploy, but if they get A400 up and running to its design parameters it could also do the job is it was selected.
That is the question and I always though of Airwork as a top dressing company. They used to operate a DC3 as a top dressing aircraft. Didn't realise that they'd gone into MRO or similar work.
It must be remembered that the transport renewal RFI had AAR as a desirable attribute as both a receiver and deliverer of fuel. This was included in both the Tactical and strategic requirements. What use was planned for this ability I don't know but both the A400 and the KC390 have this ability.
t68
Well-Known Member
Ahh yes, slipped the mind that was part of the RFI. Don't forget that C130 has meets a majority of requirements as options
Yes, but only in special versions, which compromise it's performance in it's prime role. It clearly misses out on the upgrade, requirement which is rated as essential. A fine old aircraft which still does an excellent job, but which has been developed to the limit of it's potential. It's hydro-mechanical systems are not suited modernisation by electronic or computer inputs.
A few updates from Japan on the Kawasaki P-1 & C-2, via Flightglobal's Greg Waldron:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/japan-aerospace-kawasaki-sees-unique-niche-for-c-2-430287/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/japan-aerospace-kawasaki-takes-aim-at-internationa-430286/
It seems the proposed commercial variant of the C-2, the YCX, is no longer happening. Development is suspended. Still, I don't think that will seriously affect it's chances of potential export to NZ. The C-2 is a cargo plane, not exactly a stealth fighter. The military variant stands a good chance of surpassing Japan's military export restrictions.
As to the undisclosed customers interested in the P-1, well, I think we can include NZ & Thailand at least.
OT: It seems the export of the US-2 flying boat to India is on the go-slow again (is anyone surprised?). Some interest from Indonesia though.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/japan-aerospace-india-us-2-deal-sees-no-progress-430292/
P.S. Crikey, Mr Waldron is a busy chap at the moment. Here's another Kawasaki-related story.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/japan-aerospace-honeywell-eyes-japanese-aircraft-e-430337/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/japan-aerospace-kawasaki-sees-unique-niche-for-c-2-430287/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/japan-aerospace-kawasaki-takes-aim-at-internationa-430286/
It seems the proposed commercial variant of the C-2, the YCX, is no longer happening. Development is suspended. Still, I don't think that will seriously affect it's chances of potential export to NZ. The C-2 is a cargo plane, not exactly a stealth fighter. The military variant stands a good chance of surpassing Japan's military export restrictions.
As to the undisclosed customers interested in the P-1, well, I think we can include NZ & Thailand at least.
OT: It seems the export of the US-2 flying boat to India is on the go-slow again (is anyone surprised?). Some interest from Indonesia though.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/japan-aerospace-india-us-2-deal-sees-no-progress-430292/
P.S. Crikey, Mr Waldron is a busy chap at the moment. Here's another Kawasaki-related story.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/japan-aerospace-honeywell-eyes-japanese-aircraft-e-430337/
Last edited:
On a related note, since the RNZAF is in the market for medium-sized airlifters, the Acquisition, Technology, & Logistics Agency (ATLA) of Japan has recently published the specifications of the C-2 such as range and payload.
Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency : C-2 Cargo Aircraft
These data should effectively replace the commonly listed maximum payload of "around 30-tonnes".
Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency : C-2 Cargo Aircraft
These data should effectively replace the commonly listed maximum payload of "around 30-tonnes".
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
36 ton. That's impressive. NZ dollar to the yen is better than to the Euro. Good time to buy in to start the process. If like for like against the Hercules that's NZ$1 billion plus parts and training. Nice bird.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Impressive speed and range too, ticks all the boxes, including price as you say, five of which will increase our airlift capability dramatically. Id imagine ,being Japanese, it would have American tech in it,Whats their reputation for meeting deadlines though?
On the surface the US-2 seems like it could do a lot for the RNZAF. With a range of 4700 km it could reach Tokelau and the Antipodes Islands both of which are New Zealand territory which is only accessible by boat right now.
The ability to provide immediate disaster relief to remote pacific islands, bypassing the main airports seems attractive.
Finally it seems ideal for sea search and rescue with the ability to actually carry out a rescue once it spots survivors.
I also wonder if it could be used to launch boarding operations on ships in our EEZ that have been spotted carrying out illegal fishing by our surveillance aircraft.
I have struggled to find out much about what sort of sea conditions this aircraft can land in. What soft of sea conditions does a large amphibian require to land?
What other issues am I missing?
It doesn't fit our CONOPS for a start and boarding of ships from an aircraft is not really viable or safe. From what I have read the US-2 can take off in seas up to 3m but is that seas or swells? Big difference. Is the aircraft able to alight on seas of up to 3m? That would be the more interesting question. So if you have the aircraft on the surface you then have to get the boarding party from the aircraft to the vessel. It's very tiring, difficult and dangerous to paddle rubber boats in 3m seas so you would have to figure out a way of launching and recovering an outboard powered IRB of at least 4m in length from the aircraft. Then how do provide oversight and coverage of the boarding with guns whilst they approach the target vessel and ensure at the same time the target vessel isn't ditching gear / contraband over the side? It's too much trouble, especially for a small defence force.
Nice find. Range with load converted from km to nm (nautical miles) are as follows with load in brackets:
- 4,500km = 2,400nm (36t)
- 5,700km = 3,070nm (30t)
- 7,600km = 4,100nm (20t)
- 9,800km = 5,250nm (Ferry)
As a comparison the A400M is claimed to have the following lift / range:
- 2,450nm - 33t
- 1,780nm - 40t
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
I agree completely with you Ngati about the C2 engines being far superior to the A400 turbo nightmares.
If C2 is acquired is it likely to be a C130 replacement at the tactical level or is it to be the B757 replacement? Since it is capable of both tactical and strategic distances could it be conceivable to see the single type purchased for both taskings?
Not to be labour the issue that we talked about before but is C2 too large as a single type transport for all the situations involved? Looking at recent decisions by France and Germany to acquire C130J for special operations because of size concerns could these decisions have a bearing on RNZAF purchase decision making? The ongoing operating costs including crew training could be streamlined with a single type fleet. Since P1 and C2 share many components could not there be viability in foregoing P8 in favour of an all Kawasaki fleet? I understand the rationale for P8 and all of its un published abilities but are these that important going forward. If the pundits are correct will P8 even be still in production?
In the past I have advocated for a mixed fleet of 3 C2, 3 KC390 and 3 C295W but I see value in a Hi / Lo mix of 4 C2 and 4 C295W for a total of eight aircraft to replace the current seven. With nearly twice the load capacity of a legacy C130 the four C2 would far exceed the current lift capacity over much longer distances while the four C295W would fill in those areas where C2 is just too large and uneconomic to use. I know that the legs of the C295W are not there for some taskings but intra theater and inter island may be a niche that they would fulfill in that hub and spoke operation.
In the end the Government needs to agree to a program that offers a solution to the NZDF that allows it to fulfill the missions they are sent upon. As has been said before NZ is a long way from anywhere and the long range of the C2 offers a strategic capability in an enlarged tactical transport. Hopefully the Japanese will send one down as part of the official sales pitch.
If C2 is acquired is it likely to be a C130 replacement at the tactical level or is it to be the B757 replacement? Since it is capable of both tactical and strategic distances could it be conceivable to see the single type purchased for both taskings?
Not to be labour the issue that we talked about before but is C2 too large as a single type transport for all the situations involved? Looking at recent decisions by France and Germany to acquire C130J for special operations because of size concerns could these decisions have a bearing on RNZAF purchase decision making? The ongoing operating costs including crew training could be streamlined with a single type fleet. Since P1 and C2 share many components could not there be viability in foregoing P8 in favour of an all Kawasaki fleet? I understand the rationale for P8 and all of its un published abilities but are these that important going forward. If the pundits are correct will P8 even be still in production?
In the past I have advocated for a mixed fleet of 3 C2, 3 KC390 and 3 C295W but I see value in a Hi / Lo mix of 4 C2 and 4 C295W for a total of eight aircraft to replace the current seven. With nearly twice the load capacity of a legacy C130 the four C2 would far exceed the current lift capacity over much longer distances while the four C295W would fill in those areas where C2 is just too large and uneconomic to use. I know that the legs of the C295W are not there for some taskings but intra theater and inter island may be a niche that they would fulfill in that hub and spoke operation.
In the end the Government needs to agree to a program that offers a solution to the NZDF that allows it to fulfill the missions they are sent upon. As has been said before NZ is a long way from anywhere and the long range of the C2 offers a strategic capability in an enlarged tactical transport. Hopefully the Japanese will send one down as part of the official sales pitch.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Kaz
Great find. As others have commented, those are very impressive payload/range figures.
As an additional note, Google give the distance from Christchurch to McMurdo Sound as 3791km, or 7582km for the return trip. That (just) squeaks in under the claimed 7600km range with a 20 tonne payload. If correct, it means a C-2 (or C2?) could fly to McMurdo with roughly the equivalent of a full Hercules load, not land and return to base on a single tank.
The real problem for NZ is revealed in Chis73's first link. Only a single example has been delivered, and a second one is due next year. Total Japanese requirements are given as between 20 and 40 aircraft, which is a remarkably loose estimate for a major national aircraft programme. Production 'could' ramp up to a max of 3-4 aircraft/year, depending on Japan's defence budget. The primary manufacturer has limited recent experience as a prime aircraft designer/builder.
By way of comparison, the Airbus A400 has approx. 170 orders. Around 25 have been delivered to date, and full-rate production (which was supposed to be reached this year, but won't be) is 20 aircraft per year.
A briefing to the Minister (released as part of the C-17 document dump) briefly mentioned the A400 and C-2 as being the only aircraft likely to meet NZ's desire for Antarctic capability. It described both as developmental, and suggested neither could be ordered at that point.
From the figures above, it strikes me that one of them looks a hell of a lot more developmental than the other. I think risk aversion will steer NZ away from an aircraft being produced in such limited numbers for (at this point) a single client. This isn't to dismiss the aircraft's capabilities - I think the chance of it all turning to crap if the heavily indebted Japanese government pulls the plug, or some undetected flaw requires significant re-work, will frighten off the Defence Ministry and politicians. Maybe the lease of a single airframe on highly favourable terms to give NZ confidence would change things, but given the numbers built there is unlikely to be a spare aircraft floating around.
Great find. As others have commented, those are very impressive payload/range figures.
As an additional note, Google give the distance from Christchurch to McMurdo Sound as 3791km, or 7582km for the return trip. That (just) squeaks in under the claimed 7600km range with a 20 tonne payload. If correct, it means a C-2 (or C2?) could fly to McMurdo with roughly the equivalent of a full Hercules load, not land and return to base on a single tank.
The real problem for NZ is revealed in Chis73's first link. Only a single example has been delivered, and a second one is due next year. Total Japanese requirements are given as between 20 and 40 aircraft, which is a remarkably loose estimate for a major national aircraft programme. Production 'could' ramp up to a max of 3-4 aircraft/year, depending on Japan's defence budget. The primary manufacturer has limited recent experience as a prime aircraft designer/builder.
By way of comparison, the Airbus A400 has approx. 170 orders. Around 25 have been delivered to date, and full-rate production (which was supposed to be reached this year, but won't be) is 20 aircraft per year.
A briefing to the Minister (released as part of the C-17 document dump) briefly mentioned the A400 and C-2 as being the only aircraft likely to meet NZ's desire for Antarctic capability. It described both as developmental, and suggested neither could be ordered at that point.
From the figures above, it strikes me that one of them looks a hell of a lot more developmental than the other. I think risk aversion will steer NZ away from an aircraft being produced in such limited numbers for (at this point) a single client. This isn't to dismiss the aircraft's capabilities - I think the chance of it all turning to crap if the heavily indebted Japanese government pulls the plug, or some undetected flaw requires significant re-work, will frighten off the Defence Ministry and politicians. Maybe the lease of a single airframe on highly favourable terms to give NZ confidence would change things, but given the numbers built there is unlikely to be a spare aircraft floating around.