The KC-390 is due in Auckland International airport at approx 1823 tonight (Monday 10/7). No idea of itinerary. The time is according to the Flight Aware flight tracker.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
She flies to whenupai in the morning, I wonder why she didn't fly direct?
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Embraer KC-390 lands in Australia en route to New Zealand for demonstration tour | Australian Aviation
Defence Minister looks over Brazilian contender to replace Hercules on flying visit to Auckland - NZ Herald
Embraer's KC-390 Makes NZ Stopover as Part of World Tour | Scoop News
More info on Embraer's NZ visit. I'm still not clear on how it's range compares to the C-130 at moderate-high levels of load? From a size point of view, I assume both are too small to transport an NH90. Therefore range is one factor that could separate them.
http://airforce.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/airforce-news/afn193.pdf
Latest Air Force News out, but doesn't contain anything of particular interest.
Last edited:
Yeah, I read the article on 42 Sqn expecting discussion about the end of the lease on their current 4 x B200 in 2-3 months (Sept) - and the plan to start AWO training in NZ - which logically will go to 42 Sqn. Seemed quite strange they talk of the Sqn history then completely ignore the future, with potential fleet & role changes due shortly.
Gracie1234
Well-Known Member
I have been following everyone's comments on the transport conversation. I remember there was talk that the requirements were going to be released that would provide a good idea of the numbers being looked at. Did that ever happen?
From my understanding i am picking:
A400M for Strategic Lift. I would like to see 4 of these
KC390 for Tactical Lift and VIP. I would like to see 4 of these. I am keen on others thoughts on this. The KC390 is nearly as fast as the 757 and is pressurised so in my mind it could meet the VIP role. The range is less but would that be a big deal?
In terms of numbers, i think we need an increase in our heavy lift capability.
As far as budget goes since the govt is predicting a surplus of 25-30 Billion over the next 5 years, money is not an issue. The issue is how well the guys or girls who write the business case do their job.
I think that the way USA seems to be operating at the moment will also have an impact on defense budgets globally for NATO and it's friends.
From my understanding i am picking:
A400M for Strategic Lift. I would like to see 4 of these
KC390 for Tactical Lift and VIP. I would like to see 4 of these. I am keen on others thoughts on this. The KC390 is nearly as fast as the 757 and is pressurised so in my mind it could meet the VIP role. The range is less but would that be a big deal?
In terms of numbers, i think we need an increase in our heavy lift capability.
As far as budget goes since the govt is predicting a surplus of 25-30 Billion over the next 5 years, money is not an issue. The issue is how well the guys or girls who write the business case do their job.
I think that the way USA seems to be operating at the moment will also have an impact on defense budgets globally for NATO and it's friends.
There was a RFI published in 2016 with essentials and desirables. The minister and following docs revealed a likelihood of a like for like replacement. That means the strategic element will kind of look like what we have at present and the tactical element will again kind of look like what we have at present.
More likely would be a converted commercial twin engined jet and milspec lifter with four propellors.
the road runner
Active Member
MrC you think the KC390 would be to small...and the A400 or C130J would be the go for NZ lifter ?
I have heard a number of people on the net say the KC390 is a shoe in for NZ but i have always though NZ would choose the A400 or C130J
The FAMC is the A400M's to lose is one way of putting it. Only the C-130 has operational platform maturity and seems to be the fallback position if the A400M with all its capability advantages cannot prove sufficient in the acquisition risk sense.
Taking an agnostic evaluation the KC-390 does not meet enough of the essentials or desirables within the FAMC Tactical RFI requirements. Its acquisition cost advantage is not that dramatically favourable with respect to the C-130J-30. Playing the crowd favourites game I have a soft spot for the KHI C-2 which ticks many RFI boxes but like the KC-390 is not yet a mature platform.
I have always considered the KC-390 an outsider without platform maturity and still do. The maturity of the C-130 is unquestioned and politically its stars line up. The platform maturity of the A400M is the biggest thing holding it back as confirmed to the FAD&T select committee last year.
t68
Well-Known Member
I don't think KC390 will get up without some other larger country opting for them, I think the support side of thing would be a worry even tho Boeing are supporting the product.
I personally think its a race between A400M & C130J
My personal view is that the C130 J brings little to the table that we don't already have and the Assies have pencilled in the replacement of theirs in the early 2030's.I think we would do well with a A400/KHI C2 sized aircraft, in the strategic or tactical role. I would not count out the KC 390 as it offers a better payload/range than the C130 at a significantly cheaper price, has AAR built in and a quieter cabin for personnel transport. I like the C2 over the A400 as it has been far less troublesome during development, has a better range payload, has airline noise levels in the cabin, and uses commercial engines and parts, It also has been approved for full service and appears to be slightly cheaper. However the A400 would be a great buy. I would be disappointed if the C130J was selected as I think it falls short on to many of the RFI's requirements and would mean we would be standing still for a long time into the future.
Both have had a difficult gestation - it is just that the A400M has had to put up with an open competitive and contestable media and PR machine - something that does not happen in Japan which is more circumspect with such things. C-2 may use some commercial parts and the CF-6 but there have been huge challenges along the way with pressurisation, rear cargo door failure, de-lamination issues with using KMS6115 a composite honeycomb sandwich in the horizontal/vertical tails, flaps, engine nacelles, landing gear door, cargo and winglets. Like the A400M there have been weight control issues and up to 7 years of delays. It has been certified in Japan as yet but it needs to get through the US/EU certification and ITARS hurdles.
The C-2 though has completed its cold weather / ice runway testing which is good! It only carries the same amount of 463L's as the C-130-30 which is a shame though. Estimated lower cpfh, global support framework and the 27 tonne load onto austere sub 900m strip capability of the A400M, is likely to favour Airbus.
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
I belive the wording is for like for like replacement with secondary value added capabilties which can be incorporated in the C130.
RAAF may or may not replace like for like aswell, we have C17 for outsize cargo and a mix of C27 and CH -47F for battlefield lift, also the other item to take into account is the additional spare parts holding avalibilty on hand in Australia, I havnt heard anything except for the C17 sustainment program but I would imagine the J's would have a similer program inplace.
RAAF may or may not replace like for like aswell, we have C17 for outsize cargo and a mix of C27 and CH -47F for battlefield lift, also the other item to take into account is the additional spare parts holding avalibilty on hand in Australia, I havnt heard anything except for the C17 sustainment program but I would imagine the J's would have a similer program inplace.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Like for Like + Plus option?
It would be great if NZDF could advocate for the "Like for Like + Plus" option (after all the "money" is there with forecast surpluses ahead and the geo-political demands will only become greater).
Tactical airlift, has a delivery date of Feb 2020 for the first aircraft, reports June APDR (that suggests placing an order within the next year or sooner), IOC is reported as Feb 2021 & FOC Feb 2024. For simplicity let's assume something like the C-130J variant gets the nod as it's the most likely to meet those timeframes (or potentially the KC-390 etc).
If numbers can be boosted from 5 to 6-8 (like for like +) that would allow the NZDF to reliably deploy more than the current 2 max to overseas operations (with 1 on standby in NZ etc). Be great if that figure was higher eg 3-4 available, including rotation support, if NZ is to be taken seriously on the political world stage (and obviously in conjunction with the ADF anyway etc).
Strategic airlift has an approx. 2025 delivery timeframe so presumably that gives the A-400 and C-2 time to mature and achieve relevant certifications (and who knows possibly ex-USAF C-17's maybe). Ideally a minimum of 2-3 (-4?) aircraft would allow for NZDF outsized loads to be deployed quickly overseas (or to the likes of the Darwin NT staging area etc). Now in terms of numbers, with say only 2, the NZDF can't guarantee availability due to servicing (remember ADF doubled their C-17 fleet numbers because of these factors), so again 2+ etc.
So another aspect of the "Plus" part would be in addition to the 2-3 strategic (heavy) airlifters mooted above ... would be another 2-3 long range multirole airliner types (eg the 737, KC-46 or A330MRTT etc) as mooted here by commentators previously, for Pax/VIP/medevac/possibly AAR etc.
I honesty don't think the NZDF can have a "one type fits all" approach here - if one reads the NZDF C-17 Acquisition docs from a couple of years ago - to me this is was a major factor in NZDF not being able to obtain Treasury/Govt sign-off in a timely manner ... as the RNZAF struggled to convince the funders/decision makers that it could juggle 757 numbers (retire 1 or both off to acquire the C-17's (and/or a 737 for VIP from memory?) ... because it was obvious to the government that the C-17 couldn't perform all the 757 roles. As Treasury/Govt kept going back to NZDF to rethink options (under the then budget constraints of that time) the timing to acquire last of the C-17 Whitetails ran out, with no clear capability mix pathway forward without another a/c type option in addition to the C-17 as such additional funding wasn't available at that stage. This isn't the case this time now!
It would be great if NZDF could advocate for the "Like for Like + Plus" option (after all the "money" is there with forecast surpluses ahead and the geo-political demands will only become greater).
Tactical airlift, has a delivery date of Feb 2020 for the first aircraft, reports June APDR (that suggests placing an order within the next year or sooner), IOC is reported as Feb 2021 & FOC Feb 2024. For simplicity let's assume something like the C-130J variant gets the nod as it's the most likely to meet those timeframes (or potentially the KC-390 etc).
If numbers can be boosted from 5 to 6-8 (like for like +) that would allow the NZDF to reliably deploy more than the current 2 max to overseas operations (with 1 on standby in NZ etc). Be great if that figure was higher eg 3-4 available, including rotation support, if NZ is to be taken seriously on the political world stage (and obviously in conjunction with the ADF anyway etc).
Strategic airlift has an approx. 2025 delivery timeframe so presumably that gives the A-400 and C-2 time to mature and achieve relevant certifications (and who knows possibly ex-USAF C-17's maybe). Ideally a minimum of 2-3 (-4?) aircraft would allow for NZDF outsized loads to be deployed quickly overseas (or to the likes of the Darwin NT staging area etc). Now in terms of numbers, with say only 2, the NZDF can't guarantee availability due to servicing (remember ADF doubled their C-17 fleet numbers because of these factors), so again 2+ etc.
So another aspect of the "Plus" part would be in addition to the 2-3 strategic (heavy) airlifters mooted above ... would be another 2-3 long range multirole airliner types (eg the 737, KC-46 or A330MRTT etc) as mooted here by commentators previously, for Pax/VIP/medevac/possibly AAR etc.
I honesty don't think the NZDF can have a "one type fits all" approach here - if one reads the NZDF C-17 Acquisition docs from a couple of years ago - to me this is was a major factor in NZDF not being able to obtain Treasury/Govt sign-off in a timely manner ... as the RNZAF struggled to convince the funders/decision makers that it could juggle 757 numbers (retire 1 or both off to acquire the C-17's (and/or a 737 for VIP from memory?) ... because it was obvious to the government that the C-17 couldn't perform all the 757 roles. As Treasury/Govt kept going back to NZDF to rethink options (under the then budget constraints of that time) the timing to acquire last of the C-17 Whitetails ran out, with no clear capability mix pathway forward without another a/c type option in addition to the C-17 as such additional funding wasn't available at that stage. This isn't the case this time now!
The only reference I could find (Wiki's yes I know ) said the C2 was designed to operate out of 800mtr grass strips on outlying islands with 26 tonne payload at 120 T gross weight. With a 4m x 4m cross section hold I am sure it would be far more versatile than a C130-30 in what it could carry. I remember an unconfirmed report mentioning a 500m takeoff at tactical weight, however the Japanese play their cards far closer to their chests than the Americans , so getting official info is difficult or only in Japanese.MrConservative said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Australia seems to love its C17 and noises have been heard about acquiring ex USAF ones. I'm not sure how that will go. After land400 they might be looking at something a bit more capable to replace the c130.
It might then also make sense to pass on the C27's as well. C130/C27 will fit many nations needs and wants.
If Australia was to get something like Boxer, I would find it believable that Australia might try and get A400's. Then might look at augmenting it with MV22's. Certainly if Australia replaced its C130's one for one with A400m that would take a lot off the C17.
In other words, I don't think NZ should always bet on Australia operating C130's.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
But that may be ok for NZ anyway, as there is always a place for the likes of the C-130 in the NZDF inventory eg ideal for South Pacific (and Antarctic) operations due to its range and airfield performance etc.
For the ADF though, if it were down to a choice of replacing the C-130's in the 2030's (?) would it be better to have new C-130's and retire some or all of the C-27's at the "lower" end of the capability mix ... with C-17's and A-400's at the "higher end" complementing each other?
The C-130 would give the ADF more utility in its wider area of operations (neighborhood) and provide seamless Coalition interoperability in places afar.
Are the C-27's working out ok or the delays simply part and parcel of introducing a new type?
(These all may be moot points anyway as by the mid-late 2020's when the ADF looks towards replacing the C-130J's there will be undoubtedly a number of advanced options to choose from)!
As a thought from left field if the RNZAF wished to continue to operate C130's. the last 3 through the rebuild have only come out less than 4 years ago giving a possible life of 10 to 15 years from now. ( bloody hope not.)But that may be ok for NZ anyway, as there is always a place for the likes of the C-130 in the NZDF inventory eg ideal for South Pacific (and Antarctic) operations due to its range and airfield performance etc.
For the ADF though, if it were down to a choice of replacing the C-130's in the 2030's (?) would it be better to have new C-130's and retire some or all of the C-27's at the "lower" end of the capability mix ... with C-17's and A-400's at the "higher end" complementing each other?
The C-130 would give the ADF more utility in its wider area of operations (neighborhood) and provide seamless Coalition interoperability in places afar.
Are the C-27's working out ok or the delays simply part and parcel of introducing a new type?
(These all may be moot points anyway as by the mid-late 2020's when the ADF looks towards replacing the C-130J's there will be undoubtedly a number of advanced options to choose from)!
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
From memory, the SLEP was to provide an additional decade of service from the C-130H's. Which has been part of the problem, since that extra decade of service is up circa 2023, by which time the Hercules replacement needs to be at, or about to be at, FOC. Given that there are about six years left and no contracts have been signed (never mind long lead time items ordered or construction initiated) this time frame is getting tighter and tighter. Unfortunately this is what a few of us have been anticipating for a few years now.
The C-2 is really an outsider. The design requirements set down in 2001 were for all airstrips in Japan and capable of the C-1 and C-130's of which the shortest is 800m and in an urban area close to Nagasaki. All Japanese outlying islands both civilian and military are all serviced with concrete or asphalt runways - there are no grass strips - the Japanese don't do grass other than golf courses or sport fields
. That is the problem as the C-2 remains untested on rough terrain and Kawasaki will not fund further testing.In an article by Tadayuki Yoshikawa in Aviation Wire 30/6/16
According to the aeronautical staff officials, "If demand comes out, we will think about improving capacity, but now it is a blank sheet of paper, so far it has not been taken up as a consideration for consideration"
å·å´Žé‡å·¥ã€ç©ºè‡ªã«æ–°åž‹è¼¸é€æ©ŸC-2ç´å…¥ã€€43å¹´ã¶ã‚Šã€æœ€å¤§ã®å›½ç”£æ©Ÿ
Snow and Ice landing obviously because Hokkaido and much of northern Honshu is covered in the stuff for months each year.
t68
Well-Known Member
I wonder how advanced the talks are about ex USAF airframes, could that include our Kiwi mates?
Yes I belive the USAF requirements for a C130 replacement was about the size of A400M, I remember reading that Australia has join the US as a capabilty partner in the future C130 replacement program, but unfortunately I can't find the article in relation to it, I'm lead to believe the program is called "Joint Future Theatre Lift" it may have been updated.
This is an old article from a few years ago(2010)about possabilties and requirements
https://www.defensetech.org/2010/10/25/so-the-air-force-wants-a-c-130-replacement-by-2024/?mobile=1