Both AIA and CHCH are long enough for a fully loaded P8 being 11926ft and 10785ft respectively and due to the nature of the P8's types of op's I don't see a problem in this regard for them to carry out OP's from these locations. OH and WH are 8028ft and 6665ft so are a little short. the combined use (civil/Military) of airfields has been a common practice in NZ in the past and is still in use at Woodbourne today. In the past OH was used as the Palmerston airfield and WH as the Auckland air port.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
As I have previously stated, the FASC specifically states that the location of the aircraft basing is not an issue because Defence is open to relocation of FASC assets if necessary. Therefore Whenuapai is not the only location. Ohakea and Mangere (AIA) or even Harewood (NZCH) could all be options.
To answer your question.
The core required roles of the FASC are:
ISR
Direct support of ASW & ASuW
Precision Strike
Command, Control and Communication
SAR
Enforcement agency jurisdiction around prosecution has no bearing as it is via the Solicitor General acting on advice from the Crown Law Office regardless of what Govt agency collected it and enacted upon it.
The day to day operations currently that 5 Sqd focuses on are C3, ISR & SAR and training for those roles. Yet now the government has wisely decided to re-activate latent ASW, ASuW and Precision Strike within the FASC and they are looking for an aircraft platform that can oblige.
From the FASC FFI
"The FASC is for the replacement of the P3K2 Orion fleet and will be largely a continuation of the extant Orion based concept with adaptations to exploit any greater advantages that the chosen platform may offer. The current annual fleet airborne operations is 2,500 - 3,200 hours and the replacement must be able to deliver that and preferably greater. It must be able to support NZ government operations in New Zealand, the Southern Ocean, South Pacific, Asia-Pacific or at times globally."
The platforms to garner evidence be it P-8 or a humble Cessna 172 on behalf of their governments and the agency operating that platform again has no bearing on the course of justice through their courts with respect to enforcement.
Changing from a P-3 to a P-8 wont change this either and will not make any change to what we do. It wont change how they deal with and punish transgression against the statute books.
Last edited:
The attached videos about the latest info (02JAN17) I can find as to where the current production run for the P8 stands. They seem quite sanguine about future orders from various nations. Worth a look
https://youtu.be/tGd3zE9NScI
https://youtu.be/tGd3zE9NScI
Thanks the FASC FFI is a little basic , it would be great to get hold of more off the info the makers would have got. eg the mach .82 requirement and some idea of the timing required.
that would be in the RFT CONOPS which would be classified as it involves operational reqs
The plot thickens. The Japanese govt are throwing their weight behind the KHI C2 and P1 responses to the FAMC and FASC RFIs respectively. According to Nikkei represents of the Japanese MOD and KHI are in negotiations with the NZG in an attempt to preempt the US and Europeans and will negotiate a treaty with New Zealand to allow the transfer of defense equipment and technology. Given that we will in all probability see a JASDF KHI C2 out here next month for the Air Tattoo at Ohakea and the offer of offsets could sweeten the pot. I would say that they would have reasonable room to move on the price too.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Its good to see that the Japanese and the Brazilian companies are actively in the hunt for the RNZAF contracts.
What I am still concerned about though is the numbers to be acquired for both programs.
Embraers announcement before Christmas noted the number of 5 aircraft on offer. Back when Australia bought their J model Hercules New Zealand had options for 8 aircraft. The current fleet of five likely has no more than two or three available at anyone time. Even with more capacity with regard to payload and range the fact that numbers alone have a significant bearing on capability. If the turbo fan equipped C2 has an internal noise equivalent to a typical passenger airliner I see no merit in acquiring a militarized airliner for RNZAF use. If the optimum number of J models was seen 20 years ago as 8 aircraft a mix of 3 C2 and five KC390 would allow an all turbo fan fleet and all equipped with a ramp able to serve as tactical freighters if needed. This still leaves two airframes the same as today to support. If acquisition costs are to be believed from the internet then these eight aircraft would cost just slightly more than NZ$1.2 billion plus training and support costs. Is this a realistic dollar value for NZ to likely expend for such a national capacity? How much of the NZ$20 billion planned expenditure is for the transport side of the equation? The involvement of Boeing in both companies product support is a plus.
Now that its 2017 hopefully there will be a decision during the year.
Always a pleasure to learn from those here on DT. Happy New Year all.
What I am still concerned about though is the numbers to be acquired for both programs.
Embraers announcement before Christmas noted the number of 5 aircraft on offer. Back when Australia bought their J model Hercules New Zealand had options for 8 aircraft. The current fleet of five likely has no more than two or three available at anyone time. Even with more capacity with regard to payload and range the fact that numbers alone have a significant bearing on capability. If the turbo fan equipped C2 has an internal noise equivalent to a typical passenger airliner I see no merit in acquiring a militarized airliner for RNZAF use. If the optimum number of J models was seen 20 years ago as 8 aircraft a mix of 3 C2 and five KC390 would allow an all turbo fan fleet and all equipped with a ramp able to serve as tactical freighters if needed. This still leaves two airframes the same as today to support. If acquisition costs are to be believed from the internet then these eight aircraft would cost just slightly more than NZ$1.2 billion plus training and support costs. Is this a realistic dollar value for NZ to likely expend for such a national capacity? How much of the NZ$20 billion planned expenditure is for the transport side of the equation? The involvement of Boeing in both companies product support is a plus.
Now that its 2017 hopefully there will be a decision during the year.
Always a pleasure to learn from those here on DT. Happy New Year all.
Due to the small numbers and NZD's good reputation on defence purchases they may be prepared to made significant price concessions to get overseas sales moving. this could be interesting. I think that the C2 would have more of a chance, but my old dark horse of C2 and P1 from left field is still running, though how far back is hard to tell.
I don't remember what they were called in my time at Deng but as I had to have the second highest security clearance in my position I did get to see stuff including one being written for a Skyhawk replacement (didn't happen ) and it was small book sized. It had a lot more than operational requirements in it, even stuff like down to the percentage size range of the pilot from nominal. Getting the security clearance was interesting as it involved SIS and as I had a cousin living in South Africa (a no no country then) I had to answer some interesting questions.
operational specifics would tread into classified areas.
eg tasking = ASW is ok for general release
must have time on station/loiter for nn hours at nn range would be classified and withheld from the public domain
A roughy at the on course TAB with a hope to see the back of the tote you reckon
A major point; the govt have already stated that the replacements will be like for like so we would expect to see 5 tactical airlifters replaced by 5 strategic / tactical airlifters. Hence current thinking is that will be the A400 with the C2 in 2nd place. We won't see a C2/KC390 mix as much as it may be desirable. The B757 replacement will most likely be the KC46 because it does tick a lot of the boxes that are in the FAMC requirement. It does have the range and capability to operate the NZCH - McMurdo flights without a PNR requirement and it has the desired AAR capability.
Regarding the Nikkei article about the Japanese negotiating with the NZG the following applies:
So I wonder how that will impacts upon the "negotiations". Regardless, the involvement of Embraer and KHI does make it interesting and offers a wider sample for selection.
AFAIK, the bulk order of twenty or so P-1s for the JMSDF reduced procurement costs immensely. KHI and co. could take the gamble and cut the price tag with the assumption that new foreign orders for the C-2 would start coming in fast after one successful pitch.
There would have to be a major stumble at the jumps for the C2/P1 to come about, but the synergies would be great and the race has some distance to go. How well would the KC46 handle the internal VIP trips, viewed as essential in the RFI?A roughy at the on course TAB with a hope to see the back of the tote you reckon
A major point; the govt have already stated that the replacements will be like for like so we would expect to see 5 tactical airlifters replaced by 5 strategic / tactical airlifters. Hence current thinking is that will be the A400 with the C2 in 2nd place. We won't see a C2/KC390 mix as much as it may be desirable. The B757 replacement will most likely be the KC46 because it does tick a lot of the boxes that are in the FAMC requirement. It does have the range and capability to operate the NZCH - McMurdo flights without a PNR requirement and it has the desired AAR capability.
Regarding the Nikkei article about the Japanese negotiating with the NZG the following applies:
So I wonder how that will impacts upon the "negotiations". Regardless, the involvement of Embraer and KHI does make it interesting and offers a wider sample for selection.
The KC46 could handle AKL, WLG, OH, CHC, Invercargill and possibly Dunedin and the Tron (Hamilton). They got the B757 in and out of Queenstown with two HRH on board but I think that a KC46 would be pushing it. Anyway there are the Kingairs or our mooted PC24s or the A400M / C2. IIRC HRH Prince William did a flit from Wellington to Woodbourne in a C130H and the HRHs used NH90s whilst they were here as well. VIP is not a deal breaker.
The Boeing KC-46 meets or has the capacity to meet all the essentials & desirable of the FAMC strategic airlifter component with the exception of Large Heavy Cargo such as the NH-90. Again for reference:
Essential:
- Military Component
- VIP Domestic and International
- Certified (EASA & FAA are noted in the RFI)
- Upgrade Path
Desirable:
- Antarctic Ops
- Large Heavy Cargo (NH90)
- Enhanced Payload/Range
- Self Protection
- SAR
- Austere Ops
- AAR
- ISR
The only two known plausible options that can meet the Large Heavy Cargo requirement are the A-400M and the C-2 (Parking the C-17A away from this assumption for the time being).
The A400M and C-2 however are not as strong with respect to the essential VIP role or the desirable A2A role where the KC-46 standouts. The KC-46 has both drogue and boom and thus a more flexible option. A boom serves the P-8A, which is a desirable contingency and has regional advantages, as it will be able to service for example RAAF P-8’s and other deployed aircraft in a coalition environment. With respect to the FASC the KC-46 has a number of potential synergies and capability enablers with a possible P-8 buy. A customer driven variant of the Boeing 737-800 BCF possibly could meet a substantial part of the FAMC essentials and desirables but not all. The AAR aspect is problematic and has less strategic lift capabilities than the current B757. It lacks outsize load capability as well. It does have a number of potential synergies and capability enablers with a possible P-8 buy.
The A400M meets or has the capacity to meet all the essentials & desirable of the FAMC tactical air-lifter component. Again for reference.
Essential:
- Certified (EASA & FAA are noted in the RFI)
- Upgrade Path
- Self Protection
- SAR
- Austere Ops
Desirable:
- Antarctic Ops
- Large Heavy Load (NH90)
- Enhanced Payload/Range
- ISR
- AAR
The C-2 meets or has the potential to meet the above. However at present it has only met with Japanese type certification, meaning it will need to get EASA/FAA. What it does have in its favour is a clear willingness by its vendor to provide industrial offsets and be competitively priced.
The KC-390 like the KC-130J does not have Large Heavy Load (NH90) abilities and its Enhanced Payload/Range is not as strong as other contenders in both the strategic and tactical roles. They do however look attractive on price, the KC-390 especially so. They do not meet the required PSR for Antarctic operations with respect to payload and range. The KC-390 is yet to achieve a full EASA or FAA type certification – that may happen but not as yet in January 2017. It would need the selected strategic platform to be able to deliver those capabilities. Aircraft such as the A400M and C-2, which are probably just as capable in the tactical role – and would likely require us to buy just a single type. However, the A400M and C-2 don’t deliver the VIP component of the strategic lift as well as the KC-46 or indeed the A2A component of the RFI as well as the KC-46. The KC-390 would be a great aircraft for us but for one inconvenient geographical hurdle, we are a twin island nation thousands of kilometres from our neighbours. If we were part of a continental land-mass – fine. Tactical loads – strategic distances has been the 40 Sqd raison d'etre of the past and the C-130H served us well but now we also require out-sized load capability those strategic distances.
There is a calculated risk with all options that meet the RFI. However, what we do know is that with the IOC for the next tactical lifter due to start in 2021 with five aircraft to be introduced over the following two years and with C-130H staying in the inventory until the full Squadron IOC of the aircraft thus probably not for another 6 years away – thus there is plenty of time for current risk mitigation solutions and upgrades to mature.
Essential:
- Military Component
- VIP Domestic and International
- Certified (EASA & FAA are noted in the RFI)
- Upgrade Path
Desirable:
- Antarctic Ops
- Large Heavy Cargo (NH90)
- Enhanced Payload/Range
- Self Protection
- SAR
- Austere Ops
- AAR
- ISR
The only two known plausible options that can meet the Large Heavy Cargo requirement are the A-400M and the C-2 (Parking the C-17A away from this assumption for the time being).
The A400M and C-2 however are not as strong with respect to the essential VIP role or the desirable A2A role where the KC-46 standouts. The KC-46 has both drogue and boom and thus a more flexible option. A boom serves the P-8A, which is a desirable contingency and has regional advantages, as it will be able to service for example RAAF P-8’s and other deployed aircraft in a coalition environment. With respect to the FASC the KC-46 has a number of potential synergies and capability enablers with a possible P-8 buy. A customer driven variant of the Boeing 737-800 BCF possibly could meet a substantial part of the FAMC essentials and desirables but not all. The AAR aspect is problematic and has less strategic lift capabilities than the current B757. It lacks outsize load capability as well. It does have a number of potential synergies and capability enablers with a possible P-8 buy.
The A400M meets or has the capacity to meet all the essentials & desirable of the FAMC tactical air-lifter component. Again for reference.
Essential:
- Certified (EASA & FAA are noted in the RFI)
- Upgrade Path
- Self Protection
- SAR
- Austere Ops
Desirable:
- Antarctic Ops
- Large Heavy Load (NH90)
- Enhanced Payload/Range
- ISR
- AAR
The C-2 meets or has the potential to meet the above. However at present it has only met with Japanese type certification, meaning it will need to get EASA/FAA. What it does have in its favour is a clear willingness by its vendor to provide industrial offsets and be competitively priced.
The KC-390 like the KC-130J does not have Large Heavy Load (NH90) abilities and its Enhanced Payload/Range is not as strong as other contenders in both the strategic and tactical roles. They do however look attractive on price, the KC-390 especially so. They do not meet the required PSR for Antarctic operations with respect to payload and range. The KC-390 is yet to achieve a full EASA or FAA type certification – that may happen but not as yet in January 2017. It would need the selected strategic platform to be able to deliver those capabilities. Aircraft such as the A400M and C-2, which are probably just as capable in the tactical role – and would likely require us to buy just a single type. However, the A400M and C-2 don’t deliver the VIP component of the strategic lift as well as the KC-46 or indeed the A2A component of the RFI as well as the KC-46. The KC-390 would be a great aircraft for us but for one inconvenient geographical hurdle, we are a twin island nation thousands of kilometres from our neighbours. If we were part of a continental land-mass – fine. Tactical loads – strategic distances has been the 40 Sqd raison d'etre of the past and the C-130H served us well but now we also require out-sized load capability those strategic distances.
There is a calculated risk with all options that meet the RFI. However, what we do know is that with the IOC for the next tactical lifter due to start in 2021 with five aircraft to be introduced over the following two years and with C-130H staying in the inventory until the full Squadron IOC of the aircraft thus probably not for another 6 years away – thus there is plenty of time for current risk mitigation solutions and upgrades to mature.
Risk management is the name of the game with most options but well handled should provide a good outcome. The C2 would be easier to convert for VIP if needed than an A400 due to its low internal noise levels meaning only a pod or clip on interior would be needed. Agree that the out sized load combined with Antarctic distances will be significant factors, especial as Gerry has hung his hat on it publicly.
The KC-46 meets all the criteria but for Heavy Lift in the FAMC strat role. The A400M meets all the criteria in both the strategic and tactical roles but for VIP. The C-2 also meets all the criteria in both the strategic and tactical roles but for VIP. With those three aircraft you cover all the essentials and desirables of the FAMC. And have compelling synergies with the FASC. But in my view the FASC has a clear front runner and that will also inform the FAMC decision. I think it will be 5 x A400M and 2 x KC-46 once it all comes out in the FAMC wash with 4 x P-8A in the FASC and 4 x B-350 in the MEPT/AWCT role which will include a MarServ component as per its recent RFI.
Last edited:
Agree but the B350 will be more than 4 because of the AWOT (Air Warfare Officer / Operator) Training role and MarSurv (a.k.a., SeaSpy
) are new roles so my feeling is 6; 8 at the outside. It may be difficult to undertake MEPT and AWOT during the same flight because the mission criteria and required outcomes are different. However both roles could easily incorporate MarSurv within their mission sets. There are also the straight transport taskings that 42 Sqn undertake as well. The maritime surveillance capability also gives the B350 a basic overland ISR component as well.
Last edited:
True once they decide on a permanent acquired solution for MEPT/AWCT and general support roles such as MarSurv, VIP, SAR, light utility et al then the numbers will be higher. I am talking more in the short term here NG. While they are leasing over the next 5-7 year it'll be not much different than at present numbers wise concerning airframes.Agree but the B350 will be more than 4 because of the AWOT (Air Warfare Officer / Operator) Training role and MarSurv (a.k.a., SeaSpy
A fair bit of the flight training for MEPT post T-6 wings can indeed be finessed into AWO training and other 42 Sqd roles. That is why it is so attractive to the beancounters. With Sims providing more and more of a cost / value maximisation approach it will be carefully calculated down to the last budgetary hour. IIRC the RAF multi-engine advanced flying phase on the King Air aircraft comprises 70 hours. Multiply that by just a handful of pilots per year it is not a great number of additional hours per annum.