With the KC390 you basically get a jet version of a C-130 but without the short field performance, on paper the KHI C-2 has better short field ability ( although this may be limited to prepared surfaces) I would have thought that a C27J or CN235 made more sense to tackle the tactical workload, flying the larger aircraft for some of the current tasking in NZ seems like a bit of overkill.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Given that Vip was listed as essential task for any Strategic lift our airforce gets ,wouldnt we be better off chartering for this role, freeing up the few we might have for military tasks, or is it unavoidabe? just how often do we fly heads of state around Nz, or our govt officials abroad in them? How difficult is it to modify a plane for this role,as what was done before,whIch aircraft of say A400, C2, ect would best suit?
The KC390 is more than a jet powered C130 as it has a better range/payload and the short field performance is only marginally longer. Its higher speed would also allow greater utilization. The C27J and the CN235 would not be a very good replacement for the C130 due to, as Ngati put it the " tyranny of distance" from NZ to our locations of interest, as a significant part of the C130 tasking is more of a strategic nature than pure tactical.
The pollies like to be seen in an aircraft which is definitely of the "Realm of New Zealand", not a commercial company aircraft, and with some of the countries that we deal with, that may be advantageous. So arriving in an aircraft with RNZAF emblazoned on the fuselage along with the roundel, may be important diplomatic symbols. Again Mr C would be better placed to comment upon that.
t68
Well-Known Member
I've been trying to find past C130H utilization rates and how often they run around the Pacfic nation part loaded. a mixed fleet has both pro's and con's for instance the C295 might achieve a better rate of effort around the SWP, but over the last decade or so NZG has placed tactical lift aircraft for extended deployments in theater across the ME from around 2002 and last anywhere from 4 to 6 mth dueration .
It appears that RNZAF may have a requirment for a battlefield airlifter judging by some of the goverments sites on past deployments, would be very interesting to hear from people who have been involved to see wether a C130H was the right size for the tasking or a smaller battlefield lifter more desirable.
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nzdf-involvement-operation-enduring-freedom—-update
NZDF - NZDF to Support Middle East Operations
What I would like to see (won't happen)is a separate government flight formed (separately funded ) like Australia or the RAF Queens flight for the VIP role. That's if the Pollies are so concerned about maintaining their ego's.
I don't see a C295 type as a direct replacement for the current C130Hs in much the same way as a C17 would not be a direct replacement for the boeings or even the C130s for that matter but merely an added capability that fills a niche that we are currently lacking/missing. In C17s case heavy/outsize, C295 medium/light.
A C295 completing a task in NZ still frees up a C130/A400/whatever and there in lies its value from the get go, add regional and even international as bonus options. Fiji would have provided a perfect regional deployment and as Somalia has shown with the andovers there are always international oppourtunities for deployment as well. C130 is our only realistic option at the moment and therefore always our automatic response depending on what we want to acheive, our P3 fleet is in a similar position. Whether that is a good or bad thing is debateble I guess depending how you look at it but I do think the powers are beginning to see that maybe sometimes one shoe does not fit all tasks and is inefficient and uneconomical to try and do so vs maybe having a tiered approach.
t68
Well-Known Member
It's not about what might be seen as desirable but what meets the criteria laid out in the RFI which in turn is informed by CONOPS, funding availability and govt policy. So dragging up the battlefield airlifter when it is apparent from the like for like statement by the Minister that such a capability is not on the cards is a waste of time and just regurgitating old arguments that have been dealt with. So whilst I have included it in what I believe that Airbus will offer, that does not mean that it will gain any traction. At present a battlefield airlifter is not seen as an option, nor is a rotary option either because that has been specifically excluded. So no more rabbiting on about battlefield airlifters.
Like for like could just mean in terms of replacing what we currently have whereas a C295 type would be akin to the lost andovers therefore added not inclusive. There was talk way back when I was in of over kill and inefficiencies on a great many tasks adding to increased wear and tear of the C130s and as they got older and issues became more prominent this then became more of a consideration rather than wishful.
Replacing the the C130s like for like or bigger is not going to solve this and infact would make it worse and I guess at the start at least we would get by as the maintanence issues should decrease markedly with new however in 10-20 years we will just be back in the same position having to juggle aircraft, cancel tasks or pay a penalty. Whilst I know a helo option such as chinooks has never even been on the table they have atleast acknowledged the missing andovers and mooted a C295 type and its possible merits. I would actually see it more as a seperate project at this stage (we seem to be getting hung up on the wording as gospel which in my experience is more fluid than solid) as it is somewhat a new, albeit lost, capability rather than an actual replacement consideration for the C130s or 757s. It's all funding driven and costs vs gains so like anything just comes down to someone making the D to sell it as viable and more importantly commit to it as a requirement.
If the monies there they will spend it if not they will cut it. This goes for numbers, options, roles and capability and is nothing new with our govt.
I won't say I could answer any better but remember current PM Bill did originate from Treasury - the poacher-gamekeeper analogy comes to mind. He is not always in agreement with them and at times publicly spurned their advice. Treasury has not had the same level of influence or agenda setting during the last few years compared to around 15 years ago or so.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.
Well we can live in hope
As NG noted earlier:
Within NZ we are able to use other logistics infrastructure, besides defence equipment, to move freight and pax between locations, which are cost effective.
The above is how we move a lot of defence material around in the 21st Century as it is far far cheaper than buying and supporting aircraft types we once used such as Andovers in the 70' and 80's when the commercial logistics sector were somewhat undeveloped, not anymore. It kind of makes any reason for a Defence Force to invest in a capability such as a light tactical transport to do local tasks kind of redundant - and if for a reason such as OpSec or another directed military air tasking is required we either use the NH90 or a larger air lifter such as the C-130. It might at first glance come across as counter to orthodox thinking but sometimes for overall organisational cost efficiency and operative practicality it is better to be occasionally inefficient.
To be honest NZ politicians are less vainglorious than many other countries and Premium Business on Air NZ is very very good according the Polly mates I have talked with.
Evacuating NZ nationals under urgency from foreign soil due to a major HADR incident or sudden political unrest, when commercial options are not available is a role that under certain circumstances can only be permitted to be conducted by defence capabilities ala the B757's. That such a platform can also conduct Medevac, do strategic lift, transport troops overseas (and get them home - which use to be a heck of an issue), fly Vets to commemorations, as well as the PM or GG on state visits to distant parts with MFAT officials plus media, kind of shifts the balance towards an owned or controlled capability.
NZ also has agreements in place where allies will uplift NZ nationals if they are better placed to assist etc...
gets back to the prev comment about not necessarily needing to buy everything when there are commercial contracts to trigger, or allied resources to access. eg NZ has support agreements in place with various countries across the globe and can call on that support (and vice versa) where needed
when it comes to HADR its a mutual admiration society
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Something like the US Govt Airforce one type arrangement perhaps?:
Agreed, everyone seems to get hung up on the VIP portion of the boeings overall use when in fact that is only a small percentage of the allocated hours, and thus joe public attacks it's entire purpose in general as they then think it is the PMs personal "limosuine" and therefore considered a waste of money.
As you have stated it is it's other roles and as ngati has said it's projection of NZ itself that this is actually something you cannot guarantee (or outright have) with a commercial entity, even air NZ, as they are buisnesses first and foremost (regardless of if govt is a major stakeholder) with shareholders to keep happy first not the NZDF. Throw into the mix the often demanding and out of the norm ops our aircraft conduct (yes even the boeings) requiring the spec training, tolerance and conduct our crews recieve then the benefits begin to outweigh any perceived disadvantages including the elephant in the room, cost. Yes these are not C130s, A400s or even C17s but IMO nor are they supposed to be or should be.
Yes GF as you say we have agreements and arrangements with various mil and civ organisations but these should be more back up and contingency rather than primary response as especially in the case of military usually more reciporacal in nature ie if you're going that way anyway we'll do the return leg to share costs plus you can more guarantee use/availability of equipment if you own/manage said equipment especially in short notice times of need, requirement or difficulty. Also better to be self sustaining as much as possible rather than any added logistical burden as once the heat is on it's usually for all parties involved so priority is key.
wasn't trying to offer it up as the primary get out of procurement gaol solution, just as a fallback when things go south
one of the reasons why the RAAF C-17's got up with minimal resistance was the sheer savings made by no longer leasing phat antonovs and no longer using commercial carriers
Exactly, if you are constantly deploying even semi-regularly the costs work out and the added cost of the "extra" capability (ie size) are justified and it is for this very reason I hope we go for A400 vs say C130J as much as I am a fan as it just does not offer enough growth and future proofing in it's current form. The issues with A400 are a concern but a risk worth taking IMO considering the potential advantages offered as the others so far just seem too similar to our current fleet in terms of lift/load. A difficult selection nonetheless.
What I think and has been inferred by others, is that the selection for both the FAMC and the FASC will be looked as an overall package in regard to what is selected. Not only will there be technical synergies, but in my view, more importantly there will need to be operational synergies as well. My own view as said before is that this could be best achieved by a single type for the FAMC, but I think that budget pressure would preclude this option, as any of the cheaper options could not realistically do all the tasks required by the overall tone of the RFI. and the overall budget I don't think will stretch far enough for the necessary unit numbers of more capable units, to enable this to happen.
Last edited:
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
The first aircraft to replace the C130H fleet is due in service by February 2020 with all aircraft due in service by 2024.
Of the expected contenders which suppliers can meet this deadline?
IMHO I don't see the ability of Airbus to meet this timeline due to their existing order book for A400. If they bid C295W they may be able to meet the date. ( I'm not advocating for the type just stating an obvious possibility)
Lockheed would be able to offer Super Hercules by the deadlines.
Embraer would have to bump the Brazilian Air Force to meet the deadlines unless they can ramp up production to two aircraft per month.
I don't see C2 as a Hercules replacement but as a B757 replacement which it will be able to meet delivery timelines based on the current production rate.
So just based on delivery dates I still don't see A400 as an option for tactical.
Of the expected contenders which suppliers can meet this deadline?
IMHO I don't see the ability of Airbus to meet this timeline due to their existing order book for A400. If they bid C295W they may be able to meet the date. ( I'm not advocating for the type just stating an obvious possibility)
Lockheed would be able to offer Super Hercules by the deadlines.
Embraer would have to bump the Brazilian Air Force to meet the deadlines unless they can ramp up production to two aircraft per month.
I don't see C2 as a Hercules replacement but as a B757 replacement which it will be able to meet delivery timelines based on the current production rate.
So just based on delivery dates I still don't see A400 as an option for tactical.