Looks like Jap journalists are about the same as the rest of the world. My guess is that at this stage there MAY have been some questions asked or clarifications asked for.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Companies line up to provide air force's new wings - National - NZ Herald News
NZ Herald piece on RNZAF shopping for new aircraft.
NZ Herald piece on RNZAF shopping for new aircraft.
One has to wonder were the writer got his pricing for the aircraft and his facts from. But all of a sudden the Kawasaki aircraft seem real cheap. If these prices are even in the ball park it would make the Kawasaki aircraft very attractive, however I would like to see some reliable conformation of them. But the Japaneses may make significant concessions on price to get the sales ball rolling.
Rehashing other badly written MSM reports with a bit of Wikipedia research thrown in are all par for the course for David Fisher best mate of Kim Dotcom and Nicky Hager.
The first 10 ordered for the JASDF are contracted at JPY18.8B or around USD$160m. Mr Fisher has quoted 10 year old Japanese media reports about the C-2 costing USD$80m and simply ran it through an online currency convertor to get his $115m.
An other case of lazy journalism, It all sounded too good to be true in regard to the prices. What the real deals that will be offered for the packages, I would imagine will not be clear for some time. Package deals, depending on what they involve can easily pass the doubling of the fly away costs or more. Historically this is not unusual.
If those prices are right then the Japanese are really starting to get their act together.
When I think of Japanese aircraft costs I always think back to the F2. Essentially it was just an upgraded F-16 that ended up costing more than an F-15.
Maybe, maybe not. They are getting their act together with respect to the aircraft itself, but the prices are not yet there. They have a target price of getting it down to JPY14.4B per unit (NZD$175m) once production builds up beyond the initial 20 airframes - but whether that can be achieved remains to be seen. The current C-2 price (NZD$230m) as delivered is very likely to be a MDE acquisition price paid by the Japanese MinDef to KHI without inclusion of a training, infrastructure, spares, support & sustainment package.
As a contrast the contracted price for Luxembourg's sole A400M with the Airbus Consortium including initial training and support and was Eur168m or USD$178m for a 2019 delivery. Also the all up revised budget for the 22 RAF A400M's is £3.75B including training, infrastructure, spares, global support & sustainment, or effectively £170m per unit or USD$207m. The MDE acquisition price that the RAF paid was around £132m per unit or USD$162m (Up from the initial £125m due to delays) In my view the training, infrastructure, spares, global support & sustainment price is the real price and going on the UK's A400M acquisition the RNZAF would be looking at least $NZD 290m or $1.45B for the five aircraft. As there is really effectively no great price differential between the A400M as sold to the RAF/Luxembourg or the C-2 delivered to the JASDF as a MDE acquisition, both circa USD$160m, it would come down to who is best able to deliver training, infrastructure, spares, global support & sustainment - I cannot see therefore a C-2 total procurement 'package' being substantially less than what the similar sized A400M can offer. Currently the A400M has its GSP setup for it operators - the C-2 does not. The closeness and traditional ties between the RAF & RNZAF as well as being members of the FPDA (along with Malaysia - another A400M operator and regional participant) is another reason that people should not discard the A400M.
Special 'deals' are problematic because they can be challenged in the WTO, of which NZ and Japan are signatories along with the other competing countries per Brazil and the USA. So called product 'dumping' is seen as anti-competitive practice and can be dealt with harshly. The special sweetener deals would have to come elsewhere within the relationship at a G2G level and not demonstratively part of the 'deal' directly and would be along the lines of reciprocal trade access preferences.
And that's where the proposed NZ - EU FTA will come into play. The EU head said yesterday in a newsbite that he envisaged the FTA being done and dusted within 3 years, unlike the Canadian one which took 10 years. So the two main participants in the A400M program France and Germany are also the two powerhouses in the EU. I understand that all nations have to ratify a FTA and that at the end the Canadian one was held up by one small Belgium local govt area, so it will be interesting.
MrConservative said:
A special deal may not come under WTO rules as as far as I know the importing country has to show damage to it's own industry. As we make neither medium transports or patrol aircraft, it may not apply. There however I believe is a change in the pipeline though I don't know what it is, must look it up.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nope, any of the other competitors can claim that the exporting nation created unfair conditions which unfairly prevented them from competing on a level playing field; for example the exporting nation grossly subsidizing the export. So, purely as an example, if the Japanese Govt decided to subsidise the cost of the C2 sale to NZ by say 40% then the EU could and probably would go to the WTO.
Maybe I shouldn't have used 'dumping' in that context as it is easy to confuse it with the National Treatment Principle, which you have touched on. I used the term 'dumping' it to make it easier for people to essentially understand from a legal sense. My point is - one of the core principles of the WTO is stop any kind of special 'deal' that is discriminatory against other member nations in that the actual deal or subsidy precludes those 3rd Parties from competing on an international bid or contract on a fair and reasonable basis. This goes against GATT principals that became the bedrock of WTO and International Trade Law jurisprudence, and thus opens up litigation from those precluded parties. For example, if NZ accepted a sweetheart deal from another nation or contractor from that nation, then other parties who were bidders on the contract who made an offer, are within their rights to take NZ and the other party to the WTO or other international arbitration entity.
Thanks, that explain's it better as I was not finding any thing going through section VI of WTO/GATT. There may be an out if the other contractors are not invited to submit a tender, For example a preferred supplier named and the price negotiated with them, on the basis that their product more fully meets the recipients requirements.
there is nothing that precludes sole source selection - various militaries do this
NZ companies have the same right of access to Australian defence contracts and vice versa
if ADO selected a kiwi company instead of an australian one they would just need to defend (no pun intended) the reason behind that SSS. If ADO did a SSS and just selected an Oz company for national/parochial reasons over capability reasons, then that's not a defensible selection
the decision has to survive on capability reasons. I've seen a number of SSS decisions survive challenges.
An other point to this is the WTO concept of volume. This basically says that the rules apply when the volume is significant and would have significant economic implications. Would the numbers involve in an NZ order be considered as significant volume?
I would have thought that is relative to the companies that might bid
eg competitive tension applies as the numbers go north.
eg an order for 25 is easier to defend on pure sole source selection terms than an order for 100 as commercial orders of scale relative to each company start kicking in.
bear in mind that some companies are prepared to come in at cost neutral if they think that it provides a leg in for further work opportunities.
its when they come in at cost neg that issues of real "dumping" can get called in.
you can also apply sole source when a company has a distinct and propietary technology - but then it starts to call in the issues of greater risk, escrow on unique IP if not transferred to the Govt (excluding FMS specific gear) etc....
Just to add, in Oz we cannot just select a vendor based on the lowest submitted price. Lowest price is not the defining determinant
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Over the last fifty years the transport aircraft of the RNZAF have included Hercules, Bristol Freighters, Andovers, Golden Eagles, B200, B727 and B757. During this time the numbers have of aircraft have decreased.
During the crossover time when both the Hercules and the Andover were used, approximately 20 years from what I can determine, how were the two types utilized? With their limited range were the Andovers used in country to support operations? I see detachments were deployed overseas to support UN missions. When they were retired were they clapped out or was it a funding issue?
I don't want to revisit the issue of a light tactical with this post, just looking for some first hand history from those of you who flew on these beasts of burden.
Thanks
During the crossover time when both the Hercules and the Andover were used, approximately 20 years from what I can determine, how were the two types utilized? With their limited range were the Andovers used in country to support operations? I see detachments were deployed overseas to support UN missions. When they were retired were they clapped out or was it a funding issue?
I don't want to revisit the issue of a light tactical with this post, just looking for some first hand history from those of you who flew on these beasts of burden.
Thanks
The Andovers were bought second hand from the RAF in 1976 to replace the C47 Dakotas and the B170 Bristol Frighteners. They were retired because it was expensive to support and maintain them and it was also a funding issue because it was during the 1990s when the drastic funding cuts to defence occurred with a 23% cut in funding. They were about 30 years old and well used when retired so clapped out would most likely be an apt description. None are flying now.
The Andovers undertook the traditional tactical role whilst the C130s concentrated on the strategic role. Andovers also did the internal VIP taskings where the B727 couldn't get in to, plus pax roles and the daily SATS service (internal shuttle service for pax and freight). They had one that was the para variant set up for parachuting. IIRC 3 were VIP / pax on 42 Sqn and the other 7 on 1 Sqn until 1 Sqn was disbanded and the aircraft absorbed by 42 Sqn. As you noted they undertook some UN missions, notably in Somalia and Iran. I also think that they may have been in Rhodesia / Zimbabwe as well, but am unsure of that. I do know we had NZ Army there during the change over from the Smith apartheid regime to black majority govt.
Last edited:
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Thanks Ngati.
Were they effective in what was asked of them? The kneeling undercarriage was a unique feature. Could the Andover carry vehicles or was the cross section and ramp design unable to accommodate?
A 23% cut to funding was more than a peace dividend. Hopefully better times ahead given the plans detailed to date.
Were they effective in what was asked of them? The kneeling undercarriage was a unique feature. Could the Andover carry vehicles or was the cross section and ramp design unable to accommodate?
A 23% cut to funding was more than a peace dividend. Hopefully better times ahead given the plans detailed to date.
They were effective and a leap in capability over the C47 and B170. The kneeling undercart worked quite well as did the ability to reverse which came in handy more than once. One year at a warbirds Over Wanaka an Andover was going to its designated parking area and couldn't get in so they just reversed out and parked elsewhere much to the enjoyment of us ex RNZAF and the astonishment of the civvies. IIRC they carried landrovers, cars etc. They were luxury to fly in after the B170 that's for sure having flown in both
and the whine of the RR Dart wasn't as noisy as the Bristol Hercules radials of the B170.