Potential RNZAF Transports?

[corokid66]

I thought it might be a good chance to discuss the options for the eventual RNZAF C-130H replacement for 40Sqd. I have taken the liberty to select three likely finalists.

Kawasaki C-2
Airbus A400M
Lockheed C-130J-30

Of course the Super Hercules is the tried and true favourite, and the A-400M will no doubt considered, however I have thrown in the new Kawasaki C-2 as a dark horse. It is highly likely to be available for export as a “civilian aircraft” and even if fitted with military spec it is likely not to contravene Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution as it is for “humanitarian” purposes and is not lethally armed. The Japs are very keen to trade their way out of their current fiscal problems and are now having to look to their military sector to help to do this. The A-400M has this aura of failure about it. It is probably typical of the european stuff, designed by committee, too fusy, possibly trying to do too many things, and far too expensive. The Embraer KC-390, the C-295M, the C-27J and the standard short C-130J did not make the cut - too small for the future and the aircraft will likely supercede the stratlift capability of the B757.

Dimensions
C-2: 39.3 m long x 44.4m wide x 14.2m tall
A400M: 45.1 m long x 42.4m wide x 14.7m tall
C-130J-30: 34.7m long x 39.7m wide x 11.9 m tall

Empty Weight
C-2: 60,800 kg
A400M: 70,000 kg
C-130J-30: 34,275 kg

Payload:
C-2: 37,600 kg
A400M: 37,000 kg
C-130J-30: 21,200kg

Cargo Box:
C-2: 16m long x 4m wide x 4m high
A400M: 17.71m long x 4m wide x 3.85 m high
C-130J-30: 16.9m long x 3.12m wide x 2.75m high

Cruise Speed:
C-2: 890 km/h
A400M: 780 km/h
C-130J-30: 640 km/h

Range w/30 ton payload:
C-2: 6,500 km
A400M: 4,540 km
C-130J-30: 3150 km (16,300 kg)

Tactical takeoff distance:
C-2: 900m
A400M: 980m
C-130J-30: 953m

Per unit cost:
C-2: $105,000,000* USD estimated
A400M: $226,000,000* USD (U.K., 2010)
C-130J-30: $86,000,000 USD (CAN, 2008)

Your chance to play Wayne Mapp. What would you do?

[kiwirico]

Interesting subject; I think that a mix of C-130J/C-130J-30 would be the best option. The RNZAF has a very long and good experience with the Hercules, and could that be for many more years when they choose such aircraft like the J model. Otherwise, a mixed fleet of C-130J-30 and EADS C-295 could be good as well (5 C-130J-30, four C-295 transport and two C-295MPA ;D ). The A-400 is a huge plane, but also very expensive... many future buyers already cancelled orders for this aircraft, like Germany recently announced to bring back the number of aircraft, which will not be good for the selling price. The Japanese Kawasaki C-2 is not the right aircraft, and I doubt if the Japanese law will allow the sale of aircraft abroad ( I think they forbid selling military hardware, right?).

For me; the C-130J-30 is the best option....

Cheers all, and good luck to all there in Christchurch... hope everybody is doing well. My thoughts are with you people.

[Calum]

despite it's problems I think the C-130J-30 is the only choice.

A smaller tactical transport to replace the Andover capabilty would be nice as well.

Unfortunately there isn't a standout in this catagory.

[htbrst]

Hard to say - it the defence whitepaper will be interesting to see where it nudges things.

I think i'd like to see a purchase of guaranteed share of flight time/hours etc from the Aussies for their shiny C-17's perhaps on a similar arangement to how some of the NATO countries + a few others have purchased a pool of C-17's to share amongst themselves

Ideally this would be to a level of 1 - 2 aircraft which go into an "Australasian pool" of aircraft which would hopefully see RNZAF roundels on some of them :-)

Should such a purchase be made, the Hercs will be available for other tasks reducing the need for a smaller transport. A few extra NH90's to also cover some of the smaller taskings wouldnt go amiss.

[kiwiscanfly]

Sept 6, 2010 15:00:49 GMT 12 Calum said:

despite it's problems I think the C-130J-30 is the only choice.

A smaller tactical transport to replace the Andover capabilty would be nice as well.

Unfortunately there isn't a standout in this catagory.

I think there is a good market for light tactical transports. Look at the C-27J, the C-295, and the C-235 and i'm sure many more designs based on commercial aircraft. the C-235 and C-295's were talked about on the "RNZAF to get Q300's or C-235" thread.

[Naki]

Early days yet, but I wonder whether the KC-390 should be looked at more seriously as the range payload estimates of The KC-390 have gone up and compares favourably with the C-130J at a price I believe is suppose to be half of a C-130J. Here's the latest specs:

www.embraerdefensesystems.com/english/content/download/pdf/Spec_KC390_junho_10_EN.pdf

A number of countries have also commited to the KC-390 including Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Portugal and the Czech Republic, with Argentina, UAE and South Africa also considering it. Interesting to note that 3 of those countries were ex A400 customers

[luke6745]

Sept 24, 2010 11:25:28 GMT 12 Naki said:

Early days yet, but I wonder whether the KC-390 should be looked at more seriously as the range payload estimates of The KC-390 have gone up and compares favourably with the C-130J at a the price I believe is suppose to be half of a C-130J. Here's the latest specs:

www.embraerdefensesystems.com/english/content/download/pdf/Spec_KC390_junho_10_EN.pdf

A number of countries have also commited to the KC-390 including Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Portugal and the Czech Republic, with Argentina, UAE and South Africa also considering it. Interesting to note that 3 of those countries were ex A400 customers

Portugal is the only first world country on that list.

[Bruce]

Brazil and Chile arent exactly backward!

[Naki]

Nor is the Czech Republic who is a NATO member along with Portugal..its very early days and there will be more customers but its pretty impressive having that many before it flys.

[kiwiscanfly]

But then again the NZ GOV would be hesitant in purchasing a brand new untested product compared to a new proven system such as the C-130J. Also with the introduction of a new airframe like that there could be expensive issues to start off with and I don't think the Ministry of Defense wants any difficult projects on their hands, would there be a higher operating cost as well possibly C-130J against KC-390?? But having said that it does look like a promising project and so far looks like a good capability that fills both the tactical and strategic airlift capability.

[conman]

I think this would be a very good option, the C-130J is still a 1950's airframe design albeit with modern engines and avionics, our C130's will last another ten years after the upgrade by that time the KC390 could well be established with some other customers already operating. The NH90 was not an established in service aircraft when it was ordered

[Calum]

Sept 25, 2010 8:07:42 GMT 12 conman said:

I think this would be a very good option, the C-130J is still a 1950's airframe design albeit with modern engines and avionics,

But it's basic design is so proven, it's capabilities are so well understood and virtually the whole western airlift community operates a C-130 in some form or other

Sept 25, 2010 8:07:42 GMT 12 conman said:

our C130's will last another ten years after the upgrade

Assuming they sort out the problems. Plus that'll make the frames over 55 ys old

Sept 25, 2010 8:07:42 GMT 12 conman said:

by that time the KC390 could well be established with some other customers already operating.

I'll concede it would be worth a look, but I wonder what is costs to operate and support compared to a C-130

Sept 25, 2010 8:07:42 GMT 12 conman said:

The NH90 was not an established in service aircraft when it was ordered

And it's still not...... Lets see how well this turns out

[tazjet]

Sept 6, 2010 0:53:31 GMT 12 corokid66 said:

I thought it might be a good chance to discuss the options for the eventual RNZAF C-130H replacement for 40Sqd. I have taken the liberty to select three likely finalists.

It's shameful that you've omitted the Antonov An-70 about to go into production for the Russian and Ukranian air forces. Antonov is coming up with a support package for Western operators. In the 1990s Western support for pro western politicians in the Ukraine became a hot potato, but that situation has since eased.

www.cthomas.de/an_70.htm
www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/an70.asp

Albeit that the An-70 probably needs western avionics it is more than a rival for the A400M and leaves the C-130J for dust. It can fly 7400km at MCTOW from Invercargill with 20,000kg payload, therefore can probably nominate it's departure airport as diversion airport from McMurdo and can certainly cope easily with the French Antarctic runway.

Short field on video:

video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-5353906462603205349#

230 are about to go into production for Russia and the Ukraine. It's about time NZ showed it can think outside the square.

www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/323365,russia-renews-an-70-military-transport-plane-funding-to-ukraine.html

Empty Weight
C-2: 60,800 kg
A400M: 70,000 kg
An-70: 66,500kg
C-130J-30: 34,275 kg

Payload:
C-2: 37,600 kg
A400M: 37,000 kg
An-70: 47,000kg
C-130J-30: 21,200kg

Cargo Box:
C-2: 16m long x 4m wide x 4m high
A400M: 17.71m long x 4m wide x 3.85 m high
An-70: 18.6m long x 4m wide x 4.1m high*
C-130J-30: 16.9m long x 3.12m wide x 2.75m high

*able to accommodate AH-64 Apache/NH-90 x2 etc, or LACV x2 + Steyr x1

Cruise Speed:
C-2: 890 km/h
A400M: 780 km/h
An-70: 741 km/h*
C-130J-30: 640 km/h

*(800km/h -432kt max cruise)

Range w/30 ton payload:
C-2: 6,500 km
A400M: 4,540 km
An-70: 5,000km (from 900m strip)*
C-130J-30: 3150 km (16,300 kg)

*An-70 from 2,100m paved strip 20,000kg payload 7,400km

Tactical takeoff distance:
C-2: 900m
A400M: 980m
An-70: 600m (dirt strip with 20,000kg)
C-130J-30: 953m

Per unit cost:
C-2: $105,000,000* USD estimated
A400M: $226,000,000* USD (U.K., 2010)
An-70: $70,000,000 USD (2010)
C-130J-30: $86,000,000 USD (CAN, 2008)

Your chance to play Wayne Mapp. What would you do?

...Buy the An-70.

[corokid66]

Have you considered the commercial legal implications of buying a Ukrainian aircraft? I have and would not go there. I would say it would be a heck of a lot more difficult for us to get commercial legal redress if the aircraft was not of merchantible quality or fit for purpose. That is even before we move into known ssues surrounding Ukraine-Russian after sales service of defence equipment or the fact that it is manufactured in a country that does not have long standing diplomatic, industrial, defence and trade ties.

[kiwiscanfly]

I think that the principles of Russian aircraft designs are good. Cheap, strong, durable and do the job. But i think that the NZDF would rather stay with conventional western designs.

[yogi]

There is something disconcerting about the wing droop on those antonovs when they are stationary....

[tazjet]

Oct 3, 2010 21:21:16 GMT 12 kiwiscanfly said:

I think that the principles of Russian aircraft designs are good. Cheap, strong, durable and do the job. But i think that the NZDF would rather stay with conventional western designs.

Yep conventional boring western designs that cost three times the price and do the job half as well.

Of course Mapp will buy western. Heck it's only taxpayers dollars. Not his money is it?

As for legal redress corokid66 in case you haven't read the newspapers in the last decade or so, the most prolific heavy lift commercial aircraft in Western skies is the Antonov An-124. Which aircraft was used to fly Americas Cup contenders to Auckland in 2000?

Don't you think in over a decade of commercial contract haulage the Antonov Company hasn't complied with western legal obligations? That's really a cheap shot.

Incase you don't read newspapers the Cold War finished in 1989, the Evil Empire ended with a whimper, not a bang. Ukraine is pro democracy and west leaning and best of all Russia & Ukraine still kissed and made up to put together a joint order for 230 aircraft.

Please get over you Xenophobia everybody and take another look at the best plane on the lot.

corokid66 if you really want a plane that performs half as well and costs three times as much then please will you pay two thirds of my taxes?

[corokid66]

Oct 4, 2010 1:31:25 GMT 12 tazjet said:

Oct 3, 2010 21:21:16 GMT 12 kiwiscanfly said:

I think that the principles of Russian aircraft designs are good. Cheap, strong, durable and do the job. But i think that the NZDF would rather stay with conventional western designs.

Yep conventional boring western designs that cost three times the price and do the job half as well.

Of course Mapp will buy western. Heck it's only taxpayers dollars. Not his money is it?

As for legal redress corokid66 in case you haven't read the newspapers in the last decade or so, the most prolific heavy lift commercial aircraft in Western skies is the Antonov An-124. Which aircraft was used to fly Americas Cup contenders to Auckland in 2000?

Don't you think in over a decade of commercial contract haulage the Antonov Company hasn't complied with western legal obligations? That's really a cheap shot.

Incase you don't read newspapers the Cold War finished in 1989, the Evil Empire ended with a whimper, not a bang. Ukraine is pro democracy and west leaning and best of all Russia & Ukraine still kissed and made up to put together a joint order for 230 aircraft.

Please get over you Xenophobia everybody and take another look at the best plane on the lot.

corokid66 if you really want a plane that performs half as well and costs three times as much then please will you pay two thirds of my taxes?

Tazman. I gave some reasons why the An-70 was unsuitable in my opinion, but you have got the wrong end of the stick.

I am not xenophobic and my comments had nothing to do with the merits of the plane itself, which is probably very good. I was just pointing out that politically it would not be a goer for the reasons I outlined and that legally I would not advise it when there are less risky options.

Dr Mapp as a former Associate Prof of International Commercial Law is likely to be generally aware of the differences between the Ukrainian Commercial Code and their application to the Internatiomal Court of Arbitration. You see the Ukrainians read their local law and the laws governing contractual disputes through the ICA concurrently. How a Ukrainian ruling not to enforce any foreign claim of redress that has had prior success in the ICA can then be overturned by a provision in the Ukrainian Constitution. This trumping stunt is technically called a ultima ratio in legal parlance. It actually get worse as the highest court in the Ukraine can consider refusal pleadings to recognise a case that may have started under UNCITRAL rules. The US Bar Association Journal recently has commented critically on this bulwark to achieving remedies in problematic commercial contracts between the Ukrainian entities and foreign entities. I am aware that the An-124 is widely used and is popular. I am also aware that one was seized in 2004 in Sweden on behalf of a Canadian company after Ukrainian officials applied ultima ratio after a commercial contract went sour. Antonov were not directly involved, but it illustrates the untenable risks that may eventuate. Defence contracts especially New Zealand ones have a history of going pear shaped. Thankfully when protector went belly up and ended up in mediation under UNCITRAL rules. It was helpful that we were dealing with parties who recognised juristdictional parity and frameworks. A rule of thumb for me is I dont care how wonderful the product maybe is but if contractual and juristdictional risks exist that have not been satisfied then my considered opinion is not to go ahead with it. I am sorry if that upsets you Taz but the C-130 replacement has to have no fishooks.

[SEAN]

Ahhh heck, lets just get some C17's and be done with it, who cares about cost, just put them on "the plastic" and pay it back when we can afford it...


RNZAF OFFICIAL

[tazjet]

I take it back then Coro666kid that you clearly do read the newspapers, however Russia and Ukraine have not had a particularly friendly relationship in recent years and for the sake of their joint order for the aircraft they have had to build a relationship of trust to ensure when they get delivery of their copies that they don't fall down a deep hole.

During the 1990s NATO seriously considered equipping with the An-70 and did not back off for the reasons which you cite, But rather because Russia felt threatened by the encroachment of NATO on it's borders.

Supply regularity and contract fidelity can be overcome by taking the $156,000,000 USD savings per copy over the A400M and applying some of it to having lawyers construct a bullet proof contract. Purchase one aircraft at a time and Jurisdiction to be in a mutually agreed perhaps EU nation?

You talk as if the A400M has none of the same snags?
You can't give any unequivocal guarantee that the A400M will not suffer performance and delivery issues similar to those you fear from the An-70:

www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A9db70382-57d1-4a4f-ac00-8a4655c30936&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

www.defenseindustrydaily.com/airbus-a400m-program-delayed-6-12-months-04032/

The A400M is still trying to overcome design and production issues with their new engine/propeller for the A400M whereas the Russians have vast experience with their powerplant gearbox and engines which confer huge confidence.

I can't help but feel your objections are more spurious than real since the advantages of purchasing the Antonov so far outweigh the competition that one gets a wiff of other commercial and political agendas.

It is not me who will be upset. Rather taxpayers when they understand for a six aircraft A400M order, that the Government spent a billion dollars more than they need havefor an aircraft half as capable.

For each aircraft purchased there will be a saving of $156,000,000 or enough to buy a C-130J per plane as a back-up with loose change.

Antonovs like their former Soviet forbears are built tough with the expectation of extended operation with minimal technical support.

The lack of even discussion about this aircraft is testimony to the fact that there are likely sme fat commission cheques floating around in the shadows to ensure the Antonov An-70 never gets picked.

I sincerely hope that the corruption behind any eventual choice gets exposed, because Kiwi taxpayers work hard for their tax dollars and deserve the best plane. Not the deal with the biggest commission kick-backs.