Going through some web sites including the French government and Wiki (surprise they actually agree ) it appears that the unit production costs for a A400 is Euro 152.4m and the developed cost is Euro 178m.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
t68
Well-Known Member
Is that fly away?
As that's 229m NZD by the converter(1.1b for 5),is there a breakdown on the estimate on each type they want to spend out of the 20b?
Yes because the wiki article cited the French Senate source. Quite obvious if you check the sources. That's part of my research methodology; following the sources / citings back to the primary source where I can. Comes from my geoscience background.
That's flyaway cost which the French govt were paying. That doesn't include the development cost. Add 50% to the flyaway cost for simulators, spares, manuals and other associated costs and that will give you an idea of the cost that the NZG will possibly be looking at as per the following quote:
So what will Airbus offer in their response to the RFI? Well my pick is the following:
- A400M
- KC-30 MRTT
- C-295W including AAR tanker kit that's just been trialed
- C-295W MPA
- Possibly A-321 neo for VIP
Yep I agree with your selection in regard to what Airbus would offer and if the airforce went with it it would provide a reasonable solution. The C295 MPA would struggle as it misses on to many requirements, including the Mach .82 speed. however I would certainly go for the KC30 over the KC46, less troublesome and slightly better performing in regard to range/payload. My reasons for questioning the 50% are that that recent aircraft programs,eg NH90, Seasprite and T6 have all gone well over the 50% mark and it was reported that when an Australian delegation was in Wellington last year and they were questioned in regard to the possible C17 purchase their comment was that they thought the NZ costings were very unrealistic and that a 2 C17 package would be at least $A1B. I must stress that this was simply what was in the DOM and not an official release.
And finally may we get back to the point - that being the best guideline for what an A400M acquisition will cost the NZ taxpayer is from the the UK full project costings tabled in Whitehall. Which are no doubt of intense interest to any potential purchase by us and will highly likely inform Treasury, our acquisition team pouring over the business case and Cabinet.
The SH-2G(I) Seasprite didn't go over the 50% mark. If anything that was the deal of the century; even better than the F-16 deal of 1997, because the costs were known in advance. The other options were a MLU for the SH-2G(NZ) Seasprite plus acquisition of extra airframes or acquisition of a new type either which would be an expensive undertaking. The NH-90 acquisition - well that was the Euros offering a paper helo saying that it was all hunky dory when in fact it wasn't. Just ask the Aussies. The T6C, I doubt it because the costs were well known in advance and there would not have been any surprises. The Aussies were correct about a 2 x C-17A package. The media only quoted the flyaway costs and not any of the other associated costs.
So from reading all the comments on these past 2 pages, is it my feeling that most people are believing that the aircraft that is most likely chosen will be the A400 Atlas. I would have preferred they kept the prototypes name of Grizzly though. Or has it been a battle of who thinks what costings will be the right one that matches the closest to NZ.
Well the RNZAF call the NH90 the Warrior in NZ service so I suppose they could call the A-400 the Tupu-ā-nuku (Atlas) which is a star in the Pleiades a.k.a., The Seven Sisters an open cluster of many stars in the constellation Taurus, with at least six stars visible to the naked eye. The brightest star is also known as Matariki (Alcyone) - (copied from Te Aka Māori-English, English-Māori Dictionary and Index) or they could call it the rererangi-a-taraka - the aircraft truck or flying truck.
nfloorl:
Last edited:
Yes but will it be the strategic component or the tactical component!?! I'm nervous about the continual issues being experienced and the impact that's having on delivery schedule - although some countries talk of on-selling, but that's a double-edged sword as that ultimately reduces the eventual overall production run which only hightens my concerns about spares etc long-term.
Their tactical ability still comes across as a 'work in progress' and I'm worried their weight will restrict the types of airfield surface they'll be able to work out of. It's really just a gut-feel but there's something about them that worries me... yes hardly a technical appraisal but sometimes you have to listen to your gut!
The A400M leaves a big gap between B200 & A400M for transport taskings and the 'like for like' mantra has effectively discounted any C235/C295 sized options.
A330-MRTT would be good as an adjunct to the RAAF fleet (ie: inter-operability) and do the ice flights well, also with proven AAR & VIP/PAX capability.
Dunno... this whole FAMC is doing my head in!:wah
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
This cost seems realistic as Canada set aside close to $500 million CDN for its fifth and last C-17. This price included spares and support as per the initial purchase of 4 C-17s a couple of years earlier.
the problem is that everyone is looking at this as though we all have a common procurement model. we don't
australian through life costings are different to the US and Canada. The prev US SecDef looked at how ADO estimated ours as it was regarded as more realistic.
we're not comparing procurement and through life costing apples with the same apples
it would appear that the kiwi model is closest to the UK modelling
I read a treasury doc which said that the aircraft cost for the SH2G(I) was $135m. and the rest was the program. Sorry I did not keep the link. I agree with you that it was a very good deal and saved a hell of a lot of money. The interesting part of what you said is the other deals that are being looked at in the back ground, during a programs build up phase. The one I saw in my time in Wellington was a F16 program in conjunction with the Skyhawk update and increase in numbers. The money said we could have 12 F16s, or 22 upgraded Skyhawks and I think the sixth Orion, which was wanted to give 24/7 coverage.
My thoughts are that the KC390 would be the front runner for the C130 replacement and that either the A400 or the C2 as the strategic replacement. As getting the KC390,(the cheapest option) will leave more funds available for the strategic options and will enable us to get the numbers we need. Plus it could ensure more funds for the P3 replacement.
F15's coming to Ohakea air show
NZDF - Feast of Fast Jets at Ohakea Air Tattoo
NZDF - Feast of Fast Jets at Ohakea Air Tattoo
t68
Well-Known Member
If NZG decided to go with KC-390 I think there is a real chance a lift in aircraft numbers may happen, but that all depends on their own take on like for like capabilty.
Like for like can be measured in different ways in number of aircraft or capabilty of aircraft as Mr C has said a few posts ago. At the moment a C130H max cargo weigh is roughly 100000 kg, As it stands if a one for one is acheived they will meet that requirment irrespective of which aircraft is chosen, but if you look at a mixed approach from Airbus 2x A400M & 3x C295 will give you a lift capacity of 101,750kg and also give you an oversize load capabilty and the AAR capabilty desired. It's for this reason if the cost comes within budget Inthink Airbus will get up with a mixed approach, and all the better if an actual increase in airframes can be acheived in the final outcome an extra airframe of either would be good.
If you can keep the tactical lift under the one prime there should be some cost relief dealing with the one prime, same goes for the strategic lift & ASW capabilty leveraging of a single prime should see some cost advantages to NZG
Ah but people forget that thing called the tyranny of distance that our geography presents us with; something that we cannot change. Something like a battlefield airlifter makes sense if we lived on a continental land mass where most of the land mass was above the median sea level and / or we were relatively close to our nearest neighbours, friendly or otherwise; but because of geological processes over time we are not, so we have to live with it. Hence in the NZ context we can and have used the NH90 to move cargo and pax in theatre once we have got it there. Within NZ we are able to use other logistics infrastructure, besides defence equipment, to move freight and pax between locations, which are cost effective. What we have done in the past has not always been the most effective way of doing things and we should be open to new methodologies.
No flying display by them either :wah :wah Looks like the flying display is going to be somewhat mediocre with the USAF F16 flying display being the only new one. :wah The JASFD K767 is going to be at Avalon a week later so presume that will be their aircraft at Ohakea. I'm not going anyway so it won't disappoint me personally but I thought that they'd pull all the stops out. They'd better have their traffic management plan sorted as well. Apparently last time it was a massive stuff up and stuff ups like that keep the punters away and don't enhance an organisations image.
I agree with your thoughts on this, but have a horrible feeling that treasury and the dollar will prevail on this as you could buy 2 KC390s for roughly the price of 1 A400 and the KC390 will be seen as having significantly more capability than half of the A400. in other words more capability for your buck. If this is the case, hopefully the strategic option would be the A400/C2. My preferred option would be for either the A400 or C2 to cover both roles, but I cannot see this happening as treasury would say that the aircraft were too big for a significant number of their tasks.
Treasury has its input but apparently it doesn't have the same sway that it used too. Mr C will be able to answer this better, but from what I understand, it is now just one voice within the DPM&C group that advises Cabinet. The current govt has come to understand the pitfalls of cheap and nasty regarding defence acquisition and appears to give more weight to industry and defence advice. Also Defence and Treasury are working closer together so each has a greater understanding of the others requirements and Defence appears to be Treasury's golden child regarding procurement management in that Treasury is using Defence Procurement as its poster child on how it should be done. So I think that if Treasury has a good working understanding of why defence equipment requirements are different to civilian requirements then they will be more open to having the better quality, more suitable and albeit expensive kit.
Well we can live in hope