Royal New Zealand Air Force

[ngatimozart]

When one looks at the KHI website the relationship exists with both Boeing And Embraer. I understand the need for a wider relationship and would assume that the Japanese understand the benefits that a support partnership with the likes of Boeing would offer. Given the very strong ties that exist between US companies and KHI I believe that that alone makes a C2 purchase more viable than a purchase from Airbus.

A look at allied experience with Euro military equipment shows a trend that should not be overlooked. The Tiger in Australia. ERYX and ADATS missile systems along with Iveco trucks here in Canada. How many countries used Transalls or Atlantics? Time and again American systems have offered longevity due to support from the US military establishment. Although I am a fan of many Euro systems such as C295W, Canadian engines, an A400 purchase by NZ would not provide the cost value that I believe would come from a C2 or KC390 purchase.

Similar to Canada's recent concern for its arctic area I am skeptical of the need to justify capabilities of military aircraft with a view to Antarctica support. Going back to Gibbo's comments regarding the essential capabilities of the next transport aircraft the 50% increase in payload that the KC390 offers over the existing legacy Hercules would be a huge capability increase on a one for one basis.

Does the RCAF have to fly over 2000nm of cold ocean without any hope of possible rescue or land? NO. At least in the Canadian far north if an aircraft has to put down it can do any emergency crash landing on land. Between the NZ and Antarctica there is no land apart from very few small remote islands and I mean small and remote. If an aircraft ditches in the water in the Great Southern Ocean the chances of surviving until rescue are really nil. So there is no comparison.

With respect to the potential for more than four B200 replacements I also hope that more are acquired to allow greater capacity. Time will tell.

Regarding the KC390 that discussion has been done to death and no point carrying it on.

The ACTC RFT has not stipulated Kingair numbers or type. All it states is that any variant from the B200 - B350 is acceptable and that numbers required are to be determined by the respondents in their responses. The respondents have been advised of annual budget figure to work too, so they are able to structure their response within that.

 

[MrConservative]

When one looks at the KHI website the relationship exists with both Boeing And Embraer. I understand the need for a wider relationship and would assume that the Japanese understand the benefits that a support partnership with the likes of Boeing would offer. Given the very strong ties that exist between US companies and KHI I believe that that alone makes a C2 purchase more viable than a purchase from Airbus.

True but they will have to have a formal venture hook up with respect to a support partnership for this deal to provide the comfort level the NZ Govt requires. It will be a significant export arrangement with longterm support required. Quite different to being a US manufacturing supplier based in Aichi-Ken providing into a domestic build situation. I would guess that the Embraer - Boeing tie up has a non compete clause (standard commercial practice in JV projects) which may preclude them in this situation.

A look at allied experience with Euro military equipment shows a trend that should not be overlooked. The Tiger in Australia. ERYX and ADATS missile systems along with Iveco trucks here in Canada. How many countries used Transalls or Atlantics? Time and again American systems have offered longevity due to support from the US military establishment. Although I am a fan of many Euro systems such as C295W, Canadian engines, an A400 purchase by NZ would not provide the cost value that I believe would come from a C2 or KC390 purchase.

The US does this better than anyone. However, with the Airbus outfit they are no slugs. They are very significant and established players in the aviation & defence sector. The business case stage will be the 3rd quarter of this year. There we will see the cost-benefit analysis first hand.

Similar to Canada's recent concern for its arctic area I am skeptical of the need to justify capabilities of military aircraft with a view to Antarctica support. Going back to Gibbo's comments regarding the essential capabilities of the next transport aircraft the 50% increase in payload that the KC390 offers over the existing legacy Hercules would be a huge capability increase on a one for one basis.

The ability to cargo 12 tonnes down to the Ice and meet the PSR requirements are what the the NZ government is after in putting out their RFI. That is not something the FAMC is sceptical about. It is not there as a jolly. It is there to enable a significant policy policy rationale spelt out front and centre in the DWP and DCP.

 

[40 deg south]

Interesting discussion, gents.

Japan positions P-1 MPA to meet New Zealand requirement | IHS Jane's 360

Jane's reports the KHI proposal, but with no new detail evident.

 

[Rob c]

Rob two reasons. They have issued an RFI so they can gain an understanding from industry about what is available, what capabilities it has, costs etc. From the responses they will then drill down and refine their requirements for a RFT. Prior to a RFT being issued the MOD and NZDF build a business case which they then present to Cabinet for approval to issue a RFT. Of course Treasury has its input into the approval process.

The second reason is that whilst they can go down the path of a single source procurement it can leave the MOD, NZDF and the NZG open to accusations of favouritism, or political interference in the acquisition process and other sorts of accusations from political foes. Plus they could be taken to court by other primes because they weren't allowed to compete for the lucrative contract. So all sorts of issues. Mr C is much more of an authority than I on the political side of this.

Most of what you say is correct but you must be seen to be using a level playing field, issuing an RFI then adding extra's without issuing a new RFI then going to a RFT with out allowing original respondents to respond to the changes can lead to all sorts of legal issues and claims for damages etc. To make it clear, I have no issues with the P8 as an aircraft and a superb weapon system, however I do see several issues on the periphery that could derail it's procurement by us, which would be a pity, but that's Life. The other point about RFI's is they usually aim high not low as in the FAMC RFI which as Mr C said that in reality they would like the attributes spread over both types but asked for them over each type, which I agree with.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Ngati

2000 nm or 3700 km doesn't get us across the Atlantic which is done regularly by a variety of aircraft including Hercules and CP140 (Canadian P3) Travel north from our southern bases to CFS Alert has claimed lives because of the conditions being so extreme. The last being a C130E model in 1991 approximately 20 km South of the airstrip. It just so happens that Alert is 2000 nm from CFB Winnipeg. Yes there are a variety of air fields to land at but a crash upnorth isn't going to get a quick response due to the remoteness and inhospitable conditions.

The challenge of distance NZ faces is a serious issue. Decisions have been made that will impact NZDF operations for decades to come involving the failure to act on the C17. The next inline are all new platforms and the level of risk that the government is willing to accept will result in a purchase. Hopefully they pick the right one.

it's going to be disappointing if the government cheats out and buys C130J-30's as a replacement. Excellent as they are they offer little change.

 

[ngatimozart]

it's going to be disappointing if the government cheats out and buys C130J-30's as a replacement. Excellent as they are they offer little change.

Don't swear and don't put ideas into their heads.

 

[ADMk2]

Ngati

2000 nm or 3700 km doesn't get us across the Atlantic which is done regularly by a variety of aircraft including Hercules and CP140 (Canadian P3) Travel north from our southern bases to CFS Alert has claimed lives because of the conditions being so extreme. The last being a C130E model in 1991 approximately 20 km South of the airstrip. It just so happens that Alert is 2000 nm from CFB Winnipeg. Yes there are a variety of air fields to land at but a crash upnorth isn't going to get a quick response due to the remoteness and inhospitable conditions.

The challenge of distance NZ faces is a serious issue. Decisions have been made that will impact NZDF operations for decades to come involving the failure to act on the C17. The next inline are all new platforms and the level of risk that the government is willing to accept will result in a purchase. Hopefully they pick the right one.

it's going to be disappointing if the government cheats out and buys C130J-30's as a replacement. Excellent as they are they offer little change.

Little change? The C-130J-30 offers a 15 foot longer cabin, increased MTOW up from 155k pounds to 164k pounds and 3000kgs additional payload.

It has a 40% faster climb at MTOW, 16% higher ceiling, 30 KTAS higher cruising speed and a 737nm range increase over RNZAF's existing C-130H's at MTOW...

It isn't a trivial upgrade IMHO...

 

[Rob c]

Little change? The C-130J-30 offers a 15 foot longer cabin, increased MTOW up from 155k pounds to 164k pounds and 3000kgs additional payload.

It has a 40% faster climb at MTOW, 16% higher ceiling, 30 KTAS higher cruising speed and a 737nm range increase over RNZAF's existing C-130H's at MTOW...

It isn't a trivial upgrade IMHO...

Against the other options, the incremental increases are fairly pathetic and really don't cut it in regard to the overall tone of the RFI A fine old aircraft on Botox

 

[Novascotiaboy]

ADMk2

In comparison to the competition those increases are marginal. Using the smallest of the options proposed, the KC390, its max payload is nearly 60000 pounds. That's fifty percent more than the legacy C130.

The J is a fantastic aircraft. The original and longest serving tactical in service worldwide. My concern was just that it's cargo capability is not as much as the others likely to be in the race.

 

[t68]

Little change? The C-130J-30 offers a 15 foot longer cabin, increased MTOW up from 155k pounds to 164k pounds and 3000kgs additional payload.

It has a 40% faster climb at MTOW, 16% higher ceiling, 30 KTAS higher cruising speed and a 737nm range increase over RNZAF's existing C-130H's at MTOW...

It isn't a trivial upgrade IMHO...

Agree C130J is an increase over the H's, but is marginal when compared to A400M. I think that the movement of NH-90 with the lesser amount or disassembly should be the overriding factor which the A400M has in its favour also the rapid movement of the new MAN GS trucks now in service.

Whilst I like the C130J it's a good aircraft incombanation with C17, but for NZ they need the greater carring capacity of A400M over C130J. From a pure logistical point of view A400M is the aircraft to beat, but from a treasury point C130J has the lead. Those making the informed choice the tactical loads over stratgic distance should be kept in mind.

An old comparison of C130J and A400M from a UK perspective,

The Airbus A400M Atlas – Part 2 (What is So Good about It Anyway) - Think Defence

 

[gf0012-aust]

there seems to be a focus in here purely on platform performance - capability assessments are done on much more than that - they are never just about empirical platform performance specs

if you were going to do an agnostic acquisition assessment there are a whole pile of reasons why the J would be selected over an A-400, to just look at range, MTOW etc... could be 40% of a capability assessment

 

[Rob c]

there seems to be a focus in here purely on platform performance - capability assessments are done on much more than that - they are never just about empirical platform performance specs

if you were going to do an agnostic acquisition assessment there are a whole pile of reasons why the J would be selected over an A-400, to just look at range, MTOW etc... could be 40% of a capability assessment

The biggest problem in regard to the C130 J is that it fails on too many of the RFI requirements and the overall FAMC requirements and would leave too much slack to be picked up by the Strategic replacement. For our small fleet of transport aircraft it would mean a huge imbalance, which would inevitably lead to significant problems in achieving the overall FAMC outcome and to ongoing tasking problems

 

[Novascotiaboy]

The biggest problem in regard to the C130 J is that it fails on too many of the RFI requirements and the overall FAMC requirements and would leave too much slack to be picked up by the Strategic replacement. For our small fleet of transport aircraft it would mean a huge imbalance, which would inevitably lead to significant problems in achieving the overall FAMC outcome and to ongoing tasking problems

Well said.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

My concern is the rate of production of the A400 M, at present they have a huge backlog of orders too to the same countries that funded the project in the first place, like France, Germany, UK and Turkey. Would Airbus really prioritise a small order for Nz over them? which they would have to move sharply on, to meet our deadlines.

 

[swerve]

They have a backlog, but I think there's at least one customer willing to defer (at least) some of its order. Different air forces have different problems: they don't all have fleets of Transalls which are past their retirement date & urgently need replacement.

 

[ngatimozart]

My concern is the rate of production of the A400 M, at present they have a huge backlog of orders too to the same countries that funded the project in the first place, like France, Germany, UK and Turkey. Would Airbus really prioritise a small order for Nz over them? which they would have to move sharply on, to meet our deadlines.

They would because it breaks into a new market for them. They too play the long game and they will be looking at the eventual RAAF C130J replacement.

 

[Rob c]

They would because it breaks into a new market for them. They too play the long game and they will be looking at the eventual RAAF C130J replacement.

Yes Ngati you are right in this regard and I think a lot of this type of thinking will be to our advantage in both the FAMC options and the FASC contest as it will allow manufacturers to get the sales ball rolling for their various reason's

 

[kaz]

The biggest problem in regard to the C130 J is that it fails on too many of the RFI requirements and the overall FAMC requirements and would leave too much slack to be picked up by the Strategic replacement. For our small fleet of transport aircraft it would mean a huge imbalance, which would inevitably lead to significant problems in achieving the overall FAMC outcome and to ongoing tasking problems

It isn't exactly too unusual for services to choose platforms apparently inferior to or come short of fulfilling the requirements. AFAIK, some apparently assume the RNZAF could settle for a C295 transport and MPA.
In the end, it's often what they believe pays off in the long term.

 

[ngatimozart]

AFAIK, some apparently assume the RNZAF could settle for a C295 transport and MPA.

Those that believe and propose that show their ignorance of NZs geographical situation and strategic interests which comprise of political, economic, trade, diplomatic and defence interests. I see that on other forums and in some msm. In NZs case maritime (naval & merchant) and trade interests are very closely related and essential to our national lifeblood, extending far beyond our 200nm EEZ.

 

[t68]

Whilst not a critical part of the RFI/RFT the UK has got the ball rolling for support contracts for the A400M as part of that they hope to have a global sustainment program with 6 nations involved, would make life a bit easier knowing that once you get to far flung places a source of spares can be potencialy close by If problems develop.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...support-contract-secures-at-least-400-uk-jobs