Converting an aircraft to probe & drogue from boom by fitting a probe over the receptacle for boom refuelling is usually a fairly minor matter.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
Agree, apart from some structural strengthening to carry the probe you would just need to connect up with the existing system.
As I mentioned in the discussion about the P1, the NZDF/MOD really doesn't have an appetite for buying unproven aircraft with limited worldwide numbers and operators. We'd be buying a very small fleet for a single squadron. There's little to no redundancy.
The RNZAF can go to conferences and talk to other operators of the Boeing, Hercules and Orion for advice on things. What happens when there's a problem with the C2? Who is there to talk to?
I'm not beating up on the Japanese but I have heard the opinions of very senior officers first hand. I have heard several stories about how they operate and maintain their P3s, they are just not on the same level. There's just no way we would get C2s based on all that.
I have no personal preference towards the A400 or C130J etc etc (not that my opinion on it matters), but the fact of the matter is they both have many operators and a thorough bedding in process. As a small Air Force we can't spend years working out all the kinks, we need other countries to do that for us.
The RNZAF can go to conferences and talk to other operators of the Boeing, Hercules and Orion for advice on things. What happens when there's a problem with the C2? Who is there to talk to?
I'm not beating up on the Japanese but I have heard the opinions of very senior officers first hand. I have heard several stories about how they operate and maintain their P3s, they are just not on the same level. There's just no way we would get C2s based on all that.
I have no personal preference towards the A400 or C130J etc etc (not that my opinion on it matters), but the fact of the matter is they both have many operators and a thorough bedding in process. As a small Air Force we can't spend years working out all the kinks, we need other countries to do that for us.
Exactly.
NZ would be very brave to go with anything that is not in widespread use by others. NZ have been very canny in their procurement over the years (out of necessity - they cannot afford to get it wrong).
Other aircraft may well turn out in future to be great successes, but they also may unexpectedly have signif problems.
Especially with a basic workhorse piece of equipment, where you do not need the advaced but unproven capability to provide for your needs, then crazy to be an early adopter of some system, especially sourced from a non traditional source.
As stated before the C2 and KC390 are not totally new aircraft as they use borrowed systems from already flying aircraft and well proven engines in world wide use, only the basic airframe is new and in the modern era of computer design there is very seldom a major problem with that. The A400 is completely new from the ground up and that shows in the raft of problems they have had. While it is too early to discount anything, I feel that the C130J misses the mark on too many of the RFI requirements, including an essential one, to be a leading contender. Whether the C2 is in the picture at all ,I would not know, but it has just been declared operational in the Japanese air force and would have several years of service before our required service entry date. We do know that there have been discussions with Embraer in regared to the KC390 and these would not have occurred just to be polite. When reading MrC's recent post on the air transport requirements, I am of the belief that a A400/C2 sized aircraft is required to achieve the goals of these requirements, Whether that is for the tactical or strategic aircraft buy we shall have to wait and see. However the next election and the politicians in power in the next government could be a deciding factor. In regard to communications I am sure that Kawasaki would set up the necessary communications with any customer as this is a normal aviation practice.
AFAIK, JMSDF air wings are very active at their home waters and recently overseas, possibly more so than New Zealand's and the others, so they should be quite heavy on the maintenance aspect if that's what you mean.
I'm not entirely certain how the C2 gets into this as either is operated by different services unless this is about the relationship between the Japanese MOD and defence-industrial (sub)contractors e.g. KHI, GE, Honeywell?
I'm not beating up on the Japanese but I have heard the opinions of very senior officers first hand. I have heard several stories about how they operate and maintain their P3s, they are just not on the same level. There's just no way we would get C2s based on all that.
How the Japanese maintain or operate their aircraft is irrelevant as any operating and maintaining would be to our standards. As for newness we brought the NH 90 before it had been declared operational and that was a, "from the ground up" new design with technology that had never been used in a production helicopter before
How the Japanese maintain or operate their aircraft is irrelevant as any operating and maintaining would be to our standards. As for newness we brought the NH 90 before it had been declared operational and that was a, "from the ground up" new design with technology that had never been used in a production helicopter before
I agree Bob that they will take a conservative approach. In my view the most conservative option mix which meets the essentials and desirables contained within the RFI for the FAMC is the A400M x 5 with the tactical suite replacing the C-130H and the Boeing KC-46 / KC-767 x 2 replacing the B-757 in the strategic role.
The key thing through all this that the FAMC solution must traverse a number of requirements and avoidances. When it all washes out I am only left with those two standing and as a 'team' or 'pairing' they are the ones which stand-out - not just as a single platform of this versus that - but as a combination based on particular merits that are sufficient to be the most plausible solution.
In that case, why not a couple of second hand ex lease A-330-200's, put through the MRTT conversion. Relatively inexpensive, and if they had the full MRTT conversion with boom as well, would offer a potential for a useful and valued contribution to coalition ops in future if NZ Gov want to earn brownie points with someone.
No, to expensive and large, whereas the KC46 will be USAF with the associated support etc., from both USAF and Boeing.
This would certainly cover the brief and would give us a significant improvement in capability. The only questions in my mind are would we need a KC type for 757 replacement as the A400 has that ability? and are delivery dates for the A400 acceptable to us? I have also view both the C2 and the KC390 as less of a risk than the A400 due to their more mature systems and engines than the A400 (and it is systems then engines that give the most developmental grief) especially the KC390 as it is built by the worlds third biggest manufacturer who have gained a good reputation and their AT29 was recently chosen over the AT6 by the USAF
Last edited:
Delivery dates acceptable to Airbus partners you mean - that is the question. I believe that refuelling P-8A's and other regional assets maybe useful.
There are still real questions about the C-2 and KC-390 to be asked. There is frankly an element of risk in all three of them - and the A400M is further down the development / IOC path. The A400M has capabilities that are essential the other two don't have - and when teamed with the KC-46 the 'system' they offer together covers the FAMC brief. The other combinations do not offer that capability depth and breadth. Nothing against them as individual platforms but its the combination that counts and delivers.
Bingo - The associated support and the synergies with the most likely FASC contender also coming from the Everett shops. The same cockpit fit-out is only the start of the advantages one would assume.
Yes, I have questioned the options for B757 replacement and am sure the A400 would be a suitable type. This also being able to do some larger tactical ops too.
Would I be right in saying that our project team of experienced experts be looking at more a one shop deal from the one tenderer that would cover both roles with different aircraft and may include some maintenance and support or would cost not be a problem if they selected separate aircraft from different ones..
I agree, although with the A330 MRTT offering superior performance across both capacity and takeoff/landing distance, a (potentially) hot conversion line across the ditch and the potential to use pre-owned air-frames which are coming off lease at about the right time (as Australia are doing with the next two) I wouldn't feel too confident putting any money on it just yet.
The NZ Dollars strength vs the Australian dollar at the moment could drop the price of the conversion in the A330's favour too.
No conversion line across the ditch for only two aircraft. AFAIK they are being done in Toulouse. What perceived disadvantages that the KC46 may have vis a vis the KC30 around take off / landing are out weighed by the synergies with the USAF, Boeing and P8 cockpit.
yep, people can seriously underestimate the human factors influence
when we were designing the common operating picture front end we bought in the HF scientists to deal with it
common layout, common symbology, common training influence etc across front ends has a huge impact across the fleet and services. the long term benefits, sustainment and training savings are significant.
Last edited:
There would be many combinations still on the table and the requirements that the serious contenders would be working to would be far more detailed than we have access too and would be considered military and commercial sensitive and would not be available to us.
Due to our very limited budget I think that adding the cost of a probe refueling ability to an aircraft that may have a very limited use by someone regionally and possibly none by ourselves would have a very tough time getting past both cabinet and treasury.
Rob you did a good job above getting to the FAMC key attributes in the RFI - I have bolded and underlined the key areas sought. One of the important considerations is that the FASC is looking for attributes that synergetically blend into the FAMC such as being being both a possible provider and receiver of an AAR capability.
So folks have a look at and digest the above as it focuses on what elements the FAMC is after with respect to the RFI.