Justin Case
New Member
Hi, friends.
Brazilian President Michel Temer, after meeting Portuguese President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa on his way to China (AUG 31), said that Portugal confirmed the acquisition of six KC-390 (5 + 1 option).
Cheers,
Justin
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
Brazilian President Michel Temer, after meeting Portuguese President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa on his way to China (AUG 31), said that Portugal confirmed the acquisition of six KC-390 (5 + 1 option).
Cheers,
Justin
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Thanks Justin (great name, by the way)
https://www.aeroaustraliamag.com/portugal-order-five-kc-390-airlifters/
Everyone knew they were negotiating, but great news for Embraer to get their first export sale. If NZ were to order this aircraft (still a long shot, I think) the Portuguese sale should give a good price indication, as NZ would probably be looking for 5-6 aircraft as well.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
NZDF - NZDF Lifts Hut to World's Clearest Lake
An NH-90 giving DOC a lift in Nelson. Not quite as spectacular as the mission to the White Island volcano last year.
An NH-90 giving DOC a lift in Nelson. Not quite as spectacular as the mission to the White Island volcano last year.
It must not be practical to move an NH-90 by road given Wellington to Ohakeas not that far? The blog post includes pictures of the NH-90 being loaded.
The other major visitors in town, the Singaporean F-16s, have been out and about having arrived a few days ago - I've heard but not seen them yet
MRC Aviation: Royal Australian Air Force C17 A41-208
The other major visitors in town, the Singaporean F-16s, have been out and about having arrived a few days ago - I've heard but not seen them yet
MRC Aviation: Royal Australian Air Force C17 A41-208
Lgjonesxjs
New Member
t68
Well-Known Member
Would be interesting to see what the RAAF is Billing the RNZAF, flight costs from Amberly wouldn't be cheap
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
It could be that the C-17 was coming over anyway for another tasking or training and that opportunity coincided with moving the NH-90? If so perhaps any RAAF billing may have been at the lower end to cover the diversionary part of the flight?
Incidentally saw a large T-tailed jet that appeared to be "hanging" in the air moving away from me (presumably it was the C-17) late Thursday afternoon whilst travelling north through the Kapiti Coast, it sure wasn't very high, maybe a few thousand feet if that and not less!
Hello my Kiwi friends, wonder if this will tickle your fancy?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/israel-to-sell-f-16as-with-upgrade-package-440657/
Israel to sell F-16As with upgrade package
29 August, 2017 SOURCE: FlightGlobal.com BY: Arie Egozi London
Normally fierce rivals, Elbit Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries are co-operating on an upgrade package for elderly Lockheed Martin F-16As.
Israel retired its "Netz" fighters earlier this year and is now looking to sell the 40-strong inventory, which would be extensively modernised by the partners.
No details of the enhancements has been revealed, but the Israeli air force previously upgraded of its F-16C/Ds under the "Barak 2020" initiative.
The aircraft gained an avionics and mission system enhancement, as well as structural strengthening.
Modifications will begin only when a customer has signed for the aircraft.
The F-16As have been in Israeli service since 1980, but most recently have been employed as aggressor aircraft for training
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/israel-to-sell-f-16as-with-upgrade-package-440657/
Israel to sell F-16As with upgrade package
29 August, 2017 SOURCE: FlightGlobal.com BY: Arie Egozi London
Normally fierce rivals, Elbit Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries are co-operating on an upgrade package for elderly Lockheed Martin F-16As.
Israel retired its "Netz" fighters earlier this year and is now looking to sell the 40-strong inventory, which would be extensively modernised by the partners.
No details of the enhancements has been revealed, but the Israeli air force previously upgraded of its F-16C/Ds under the "Barak 2020" initiative.
The aircraft gained an avionics and mission system enhancement, as well as structural strengthening.
Modifications will begin only when a customer has signed for the aircraft.
The F-16As have been in Israeli service since 1980, but most recently have been employed as aggressor aircraft for training
Only one party has a policy for acquire strike aircraft and will only look at training type aircraft at this stage - I get the feeling it will again be parked off into the future.
In fact one party who may form the government who is not the current government - will reduce defence spending because their fiscal forecast does not allow for any capital spending nor is any capital charge allocation funded. There is a billion dollar hole each year in their forecast compared to the governments defence budget spending track.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The "one" party must be in bed with our dimwit junior! Both NZ and Canada have shite pollies although I still think ours are worse, little consolation for defence minded citizens of NZ (Canada has very few).
Unfortunately I can't post links but I have found information regarding Labours defence policy. By searching "labour nz defence policy 2017" on google, a link comes up to the interest.co.nz website. At the bottom of the Labour section there are two links to more information, which leads to a document on defence, and a document on disarmament.
I hope this is helpfull.
Link: Election 2017 - Party Policies - Defence and Security - Defence
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder what the Labour Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control will do?
Lookout you deer hunters on Stewart Island, you're in deep $hit.
I think that the current Labour leader is a Uncle Helen (Clark) clone with regard to political philosophy and outlook.
Stewart Island is very nice and I think there are some wild pigs down there too. I have a couple of mates who go down there every May for a fortnight hunting. They have to be inserted and recovered by boat as they are right out in the wop wops. I've had a couple of good runs ashore in Half Moon Bay (Oban).
danonz
Member
Article and short vid on the Singapore f16's training in NZ. Nice looking jets
https://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-st...ek-training-exercise?_sm_au_=iNV4Ws4T4TpkPqsn
https://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-st...ek-training-exercise?_sm_au_=iNV4Ws4T4TpkPqsn
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
I've been rereading this forum and others looking at options for the RNZAF if the upcoming election brings a new group with different priorities to the table.
Without causing kniptions amongst some mods I want to revisit the discussion of how transport service can be provided at a reduced level. The discussion has centered around high end replacements for the existing Hercules and Boeing fleet with A400 and KC46 mooted as plausible contenders. Such replacements come with big dollar price tags of more than NZ$200 million per airframe. A one for one replacement would cost at least NZ$1.4 billion just for the planes.
With a one third increase in troop capacity and a fifty percent increase in paratroops and its 44000 pound max payload the C130J30 is a low risk transition from the current Hercules and LM is very likely to meet the timelines. It's in service with all Five Eyes partners for the foreseeable future plus most other allied nations. The legacy Hercules fleet has provided 50 years of service so we know it works.
Four of these would allow international commitments to be met along with many other transport tasks. These aircraft would receive full defensive aid protection for use in hazardous locations. If P8 is the likely replacement for the P3 then so be it but as it's been said it's too few frames to allow it to provide the lower tier of operations for domestic SAR. To fulfill this role and a multitude of others the C295W is the obvious choice. A fleet of four of these could be acquired for the cost of one C130J30 but with twice the lift capability of the one Super Herc. This mix increases aircraft numbers to 8 from the current five. I know it "adds" another type to the mix but in reality it only returns a partial level of capability lost when the Andovers and Freindships were phased out. From all that I have read there are more reasons to return this capacity than there are to keep the status quo. Each of the C295W should be equipped with EO turrets and two modular FITS pallets should be available for rapid plug and play. I would suggest the acquisition of two AAR and two firefighting kits as well for these aircraft. The AAR capability would allow the NH90s to safely self deploy if needed. The firefighting kits would provide an enhanced domestic preparedness capability. As a SAR aircraft it has an 11 hour endurance with a range of @5000 km. I realize the size of the SAR zone that NZ is responsible for and this aircraft offers a very credible capability. If the distance is further and a P8 is available it can cover it.
Four C130J30 at NZ$160 million equals NZ$640 million plus four C295W at NZ$40 million a piece equals NZ$160 million for a total of NZ$800 million.
Given the tight timelines for delivery and IOC the C295W will be able to be delivered first followed by the Super Hercules.
The replacement of the Boeings is another story. I believe the Pegasus is a non issue as it is too new and too expensive. Another conversion of ex airline aircraft is likely from a cost perspective. If so IAI could be an option with a 767 MMTT. Similar capability with an option for both hose and boom AAR if this capability actually is needed or funded.
Although not part of the current requirements the B200 replacement should still happen with a follow on lease of three B350 aircraft. These would provide the same services as they do now but some of the tasks can be split with the C295W.
I know this is controversial with some here but it is a compromise that I feel is very realistic as it is financially prudent. I realize it doesn't deal with outsize cargo but with two seabourne options after 2020 LAV's can go by ship. One or two LAV's by air aren't going to make a difference. The C130J30 can transport the new vehicles of the SAS with little adjustment. With AAR the NH90's can self deploy and a couple of trailers can solve the recent transport issue that used an OZ C-17.
Hopefully information will be forthcoming on these replacement programs in the near future.
Without causing kniptions amongst some mods I want to revisit the discussion of how transport service can be provided at a reduced level. The discussion has centered around high end replacements for the existing Hercules and Boeing fleet with A400 and KC46 mooted as plausible contenders. Such replacements come with big dollar price tags of more than NZ$200 million per airframe. A one for one replacement would cost at least NZ$1.4 billion just for the planes.
With a one third increase in troop capacity and a fifty percent increase in paratroops and its 44000 pound max payload the C130J30 is a low risk transition from the current Hercules and LM is very likely to meet the timelines. It's in service with all Five Eyes partners for the foreseeable future plus most other allied nations. The legacy Hercules fleet has provided 50 years of service so we know it works.
Four of these would allow international commitments to be met along with many other transport tasks. These aircraft would receive full defensive aid protection for use in hazardous locations. If P8 is the likely replacement for the P3 then so be it but as it's been said it's too few frames to allow it to provide the lower tier of operations for domestic SAR. To fulfill this role and a multitude of others the C295W is the obvious choice. A fleet of four of these could be acquired for the cost of one C130J30 but with twice the lift capability of the one Super Herc. This mix increases aircraft numbers to 8 from the current five. I know it "adds" another type to the mix but in reality it only returns a partial level of capability lost when the Andovers and Freindships were phased out. From all that I have read there are more reasons to return this capacity than there are to keep the status quo. Each of the C295W should be equipped with EO turrets and two modular FITS pallets should be available for rapid plug and play. I would suggest the acquisition of two AAR and two firefighting kits as well for these aircraft. The AAR capability would allow the NH90s to safely self deploy if needed. The firefighting kits would provide an enhanced domestic preparedness capability. As a SAR aircraft it has an 11 hour endurance with a range of @5000 km. I realize the size of the SAR zone that NZ is responsible for and this aircraft offers a very credible capability. If the distance is further and a P8 is available it can cover it.
Four C130J30 at NZ$160 million equals NZ$640 million plus four C295W at NZ$40 million a piece equals NZ$160 million for a total of NZ$800 million.
Given the tight timelines for delivery and IOC the C295W will be able to be delivered first followed by the Super Hercules.
The replacement of the Boeings is another story. I believe the Pegasus is a non issue as it is too new and too expensive. Another conversion of ex airline aircraft is likely from a cost perspective. If so IAI could be an option with a 767 MMTT. Similar capability with an option for both hose and boom AAR if this capability actually is needed or funded.
Although not part of the current requirements the B200 replacement should still happen with a follow on lease of three B350 aircraft. These would provide the same services as they do now but some of the tasks can be split with the C295W.
I know this is controversial with some here but it is a compromise that I feel is very realistic as it is financially prudent. I realize it doesn't deal with outsize cargo but with two seabourne options after 2020 LAV's can go by ship. One or two LAV's by air aren't going to make a difference. The C130J30 can transport the new vehicles of the SAS with little adjustment. With AAR the NH90's can self deploy and a couple of trailers can solve the recent transport issue that used an OZ C-17.
Hopefully information will be forthcoming on these replacement programs in the near future.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
IMO there are some inherent issues with the ideas you posted.
One of the first is just the raw numbers of transport aircraft, or the lack thereof. A fleet of 4 aircraft (following the Rule of Threes) should be enough to provide a minimum of a single aircraft that is either available for operations, or on deployment at a given moment. Depending on training, operations, maintenance and upgrade schedules, that single aircraft could potentially be surged up to three aircraft. However, responsible contingency planning can only count on that one single aircraft. That itself becomes problematic because things do go wrong, malfunctions happen, and very suddenly that single available aircraft could be forced out of service leaving no aircraft available for a mission. That is something which happened with the RNZAF actually, during some of the unrest in Thailand.
At the time, the RNZAF airlift fleet consisted of five C-130H Hercules (prior to the current upgrade programme) and a pair of then recently acquired B757's which were undergoing conversion. Due issues with upgrading and replacing the RNZAF airlift fleet (which I blame the Gov't of the day and prior gov'ts along with MFAT for) out of a total of seven airlifters in the inventory, only a single C-130H aircraft was available for a mission. The mission itself was to fly from NZ to Thailand to evacuate Kiwis trapped in Thailand during/by the unrest. Unfortunately what happened was that the ~50 year old C-130H had a malfunction either on the ground, during takeoff, or shortly after takeoff and had to immediately return to base. As a result, the RNZAF had no functional airlifters to utilize and meet the gov't directed mission of evacuating Kiwi citizens.
Going with such a small number of replacement airlifters can easily lead to a single point of failure for future lift missions due to aircraft functionality and availability. Especially for such a widely used role like airlift/transportation.
Now I do like, and have on multiple occasions advocated for a light to medium multi-role airlifter which can provide airlifter for smaller, lighter cargoes over shorter distances, and as needed or desired also provide an MPA capability, etc. Again however, quantities count. If four C-295 airframes were purchased as suggested, that would still limit the number reliably available to only one. That means only one C-295 which could be used for airlift, OR MPA, OR SAR, etc. at any given moment. Again, such a lack of numbers (especially given a split fleet of airlifters) means the multi-role capability becomes less important, since so few will be available at a given moment.
Three other factors which IMO were overlooked in their importance, especially for a force like the NZDF. These factors are airlift cargo load weight, range for a given cargo load, and size/volume of a cargo load.
Given NZ's location, apart from airlift missions from one part of NZ to another, NZ can expect many airlift missions to be of strategic as opposed to tactical distances. This will generally require a larger airlifter to ensure sufficient range for more missions.
Relating to the range is the cargo load weight, and especially the range for a given load weight. IIRC studies done by the US and Oz determined that for many airlift missions, their C-130J's were flying half empty or with even less capacity used. This was one of the drivers behind the development of the C-27J Spartan. Now I can certainly believe that a similar situation exists for the RNZAF, where often the C-130H's in service were not 'full' for many airlift missions. However, there were certainly times when more/most of that capacity was used. Also relating to that would be how much cargo weight a transport can carry a given distance, with most of the larger transports have both a greater max cargo, but also greater range for either a useful cargo load, or greater range for a cargo load of a given weight. To provide some numbers, according to the USAF C-130 fact sheet, a C-130H has a max normal payload of ~16,590 kg, with a max range at normal payload of ~1,050 n miles, or ~1,933 km. That max range can be problematic because the distance from Auckland to Sydney is ~2,155 km. For even smaller airlifters, with both less range and cargo capacity, the situation would be even worse.
Now for the importance of being able to carry out-sized loads. While NZ does appear to be looking to expand the sealift capability, and that is a good thing, for all the advantages sealift has, there are some distinct limitations. The two relevant ones when measured against airlift are speed, and access. The amount of cargo which can be delivered in a ship for sealift naturally dwarfs the amount of cargo airlift can feasibly deliver. However, it can take days or even weeks for a vessel to make the transit from the embarking port to where the cargo will ultimately be delivered. If speed is required, airlift is much more appropriate. Delivering an entire company of LAV's and associated personnel and support should go via sea, but if a single replacement LAV or NH90 was required, it would be both too slow, and too inefficient a use of resources to ship that cargo via sealift (unless commercial shipping could be used). Relating to that, the cargo's destination might be somewhere that is not reasonably accessible from the sea. Afghanistan comes to mind, where some supplies were shipped over land, but in very large convoys which slowly brought in large volumes of cargo. Cargo was flown in if needed quickly, or if the destination was inaccessible by road. With that in mind, NZ kit like the NH90 and NZLAV basically cannot be delivered by even the C-130 because they do not fit without being basically disassembled. If memory serves, the NZLAV also exceeds the max payload for a C-130, as well as being too large. What that would basically mean is that if anything the size of the C-130J were selected as the replacement for the RNZAF C-130H, then deployment and support of NZDF NH90's and NZLAV's would be confined areas the RNZN can get a ship either to port, or for a beach/amphibious landing unless the NZDF receives outside support. To give an idea of the potential utility in having an outsized cargo capacity, the RAAF currently has 8 C-17 Globemasters. Before deciding to get the C-17's, Australia had leased An-124 transports to airlift outsized cargo into and out of Afghanistan. Given the limitations imposed on when, where, and how the leased aircraft would be available, the RAAF felt having an organic outsized cargo capacity was important. Or at least important enough to drop what is likely more than $1.6 bil. in flyaway costs.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Todjaeger
I do not disagree with anything you have presented. It would be fantastic if government would stump for more airframes but given the recent helicopter acquisitions, NH90 and AW109LUH, the likelihood of larger numbers of transport aircraft is questionable at best.
My interest in the C295W is for primarily domestic use. The Kaikoura earthquake showed the need for a smaller lifter due to the short runway and destruction of road networks. The ever more frequent wildfires presents a requirement for government to have a contingency plan and as a primary SAR platform. I view this aircraft as a multi purpose platform to support whole of government operations relieving the Hercules fleet of such tasks.
Aircraft like the A400 and C2 are too big and costly for day to day operations. If that out size capability is so imperative then these will replace the 757's in due course. The timeline for A400 options from Germany or Spain would be just about in line with the planned in service schedule so let's wait the seven years and see where that goes.
If money wasn't a concern it would be very easy to add numbers but I was trying to be realistic with my numbers. Having the four platforms should ensure two of each at any given time at least for the first 10 years.
Even a larger fleet of eight C130J30,as has been suggested by some on other sites, would be very welcome but does one size fit all situations? I still believe that there is a requirement for a multi purpose platform for those non military government functions between Hercules and the B200 King Airs as was provided by the F27 Freindships and the Andovers.
The statement of requirements from government stated a minimum of like for like in capability so I know a medium lifter is not a likely option but with a possible change in government all bets could be off. May not be what the military wants but might be what they get.
I do not disagree with anything you have presented. It would be fantastic if government would stump for more airframes but given the recent helicopter acquisitions, NH90 and AW109LUH, the likelihood of larger numbers of transport aircraft is questionable at best.
My interest in the C295W is for primarily domestic use. The Kaikoura earthquake showed the need for a smaller lifter due to the short runway and destruction of road networks. The ever more frequent wildfires presents a requirement for government to have a contingency plan and as a primary SAR platform. I view this aircraft as a multi purpose platform to support whole of government operations relieving the Hercules fleet of such tasks.
Aircraft like the A400 and C2 are too big and costly for day to day operations. If that out size capability is so imperative then these will replace the 757's in due course. The timeline for A400 options from Germany or Spain would be just about in line with the planned in service schedule so let's wait the seven years and see where that goes.
If money wasn't a concern it would be very easy to add numbers but I was trying to be realistic with my numbers. Having the four platforms should ensure two of each at any given time at least for the first 10 years.
Even a larger fleet of eight C130J30,as has been suggested by some on other sites, would be very welcome but does one size fit all situations? I still believe that there is a requirement for a multi purpose platform for those non military government functions between Hercules and the B200 King Airs as was provided by the F27 Freindships and the Andovers.
The statement of requirements from government stated a minimum of like for like in capability so I know a medium lifter is not a likely option but with a possible change in government all bets could be off. May not be what the military wants but might be what they get.
In and ideal world the RNZAF could operate a 3 or 4 tier airlift capability. However we don't live in an ideal world therefore we have to make do. Politically we have two major political parties, with the right wing one being parsimonious with defence funding and the left wing one liable to decimate defence by redirecting part or all of the $20 billion capex to other portfolios.
At the moment the C130H(NZ) will be replaced during 2020 - 2023/4 period. The strategic lift will most likely be 2 different platforms; an A400M / C-2 type and a twin jet pax aircraft. Acquiring the C295 or C27J would be most likely a waste of scarce defence funds because they won't meet policy requirements. Domestic airlift requirements have been met by the C130 and B200 for the last 20 years. Now they have 3 platforms that can undertake the domestic airlift role;C130, B200 and NH90. The tyranny of distance has a very fundamental role in what platforms are viable for NZ. The Andovers could not cross the Tasman with half decent load. IIRC they used to island hop across the Tasman. Then there is the distance to the Pacific Islands; again a long distance across water.
With regard to the Kaikoura event, the C295 or C27J wouldn't have been much use because the airfield is south of the town and was cutoff from the town for a while and the road to the airfield involves a bridge crossing. It was rotary wing that made the difference. later on light fixed wing aircraft were able to get into the airfield. The C-130s did a low level drop of stores which was more effective than trying to use the airfield. IIRC, the drop zone was in or very close to the town.
The RFI states that Defence are open too multiple platform types for the FAMC so we have to wait and see what they come up with. If the 3rd political party is king / queen maker and it does what it says that it is going to do, then a reasonable number of FAMC platforms is quite possible. Their manifesto states that they will acquire fast jets. However early voting starts this morning with the actual election day just 12 days away - that's a long time in politics.
At the moment the C130H(NZ) will be replaced during 2020 - 2023/4 period. The strategic lift will most likely be 2 different platforms; an A400M / C-2 type and a twin jet pax aircraft. Acquiring the C295 or C27J would be most likely a waste of scarce defence funds because they won't meet policy requirements. Domestic airlift requirements have been met by the C130 and B200 for the last 20 years. Now they have 3 platforms that can undertake the domestic airlift role;C130, B200 and NH90. The tyranny of distance has a very fundamental role in what platforms are viable for NZ. The Andovers could not cross the Tasman with half decent load. IIRC they used to island hop across the Tasman. Then there is the distance to the Pacific Islands; again a long distance across water.
With regard to the Kaikoura event, the C295 or C27J wouldn't have been much use because the airfield is south of the town and was cutoff from the town for a while and the road to the airfield involves a bridge crossing. It was rotary wing that made the difference. later on light fixed wing aircraft were able to get into the airfield. The C-130s did a low level drop of stores which was more effective than trying to use the airfield. IIRC, the drop zone was in or very close to the town.
The RFI states that Defence are open too multiple platform types for the FAMC so we have to wait and see what they come up with. If the 3rd political party is king / queen maker and it does what it says that it is going to do, then a reasonable number of FAMC platforms is quite possible. Their manifesto states that they will acquire fast jets. However early voting starts this morning with the actual election day just 12 days away - that's a long time in politics.