|
Post by snafu on Mar 2, 2019 10:06:33 GMT 12
Why not A330 MRTT? This would be a force multiplier insofar as it would provide AAR for P8 and A400M (should we opt for these) has commonality with allies like UK and Oz and would be a useful asset for working alongside coalition partners I think with with only buying 4 x P8 it is almost essential to have AAR capability to enable P8 to stay on station longer and expand search area without the need to come back to base to refuel. It would double up as troop and VIP transport My recommendation would be 2 x MRTT 3 x A400M (minimum of 3 so always 2 available for tasking) 3 x C295W for lighter work (maybe double up as MPA) Hopefully Airbus could cut us a good deal 😉 Just my POV Agree on MRTT that provide for VIP troop and cargo, but utilisation would really have to be managed with the extra capbilty of AAR, I imagine it will be in demand.
3x A400 with 2 avalible at all times is unachievable, not enough redundancy built into it for 2 avalible at all time would require a fleet of 5 aircraft at a minimum
I'm in 2 minds on C295 I can see utility in it, but the C27J has a larger cargo area to stuff smaller vehicle in it, I remember reading a RAAF presentation slide between C295 and C27J volume and commonality between platforms was a major consideration in selecting C27J. things like not having to further breakdown pallets to fit from a C130/C17 and and the SASR Nary (Supercat family of vehicles)remember NZ also selected the super cat as the next gen SOV
www.defence.govt.nz/what-we-do/delivering-defence-capability/defence-capability-projects/special-operations-vehicles-sov/
i'd be more inclined to go with CH47F as you in theatre heavy operational lift, but at the same time I cant see NZ going A400 either with their teething problems, im not saying the A400 is a bad aircraft just a little to green for NZ
i'm also under the impression that the King Airs will fill the additional MPA requirement.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Mar 2, 2019 11:26:10 GMT 12
From My end of the bar leaner I will toss in the following.
Smaller than C-130. From reading DID (Defence Industry Daily) the USAF is hurting for smaller infield supply. Using Hercs to deliver one pallet of medical supplies or CH-47's to go to small airfields (expensive things to operate). Army wanted C-295, USAF wanted C-27J. Differences in floor loading specs, Fleet compatibility, operating costs meant the two would never agree. The C-27J was selected and then politics took over. We historically lived with Freighters and then Andovers (which I once heard out STOL'd Caribous in an exercise in Australia). With the demise of the Andover (for whatever reason) we learnt to do everything with the Herc. (ref the USAF mention at the start). Now in these stringent financial times have we any hope of getting this capability back? For NZ and its Pacific community it makes sense and if a maritime version of the same platform could be included then the fleet of four P-8's might work (note there will be no more P-8's because Boeing can't wait to close the line and make a more profitable aircraft). The pick is there will not be a smaller cargo aircraft.
Same as C-130. The easy one. Must be the C-130J, just how many.
Bigger than C-130. What this thread is all about. As pointed out by other posts the need to airlift a LAV or 190 is a bit of a red herring. It depends on whether the sea lift time scale is acceptable, please note I do not consider leasing an An-124 or similar to be workable as it has got to be available when you need it. The real (current and obvious) needs are strategic heavy airlift. To anywhere in the world (includes Antartica). I consider our strategic air lift is not delivered to a paddock or a beech, In fact the requirement is to replace the 757 when you look at it. Also, if we had (say) three A400M's how serious would it have to get that we would dare to fly one into a real tactical situation? So all we would require is a tail loading 757 that could if required carry the LAV or 190. Now it is simple. So I put the A400M and the C-2 on the table. The C-2 has pedigree, It is designed to do all that the C-1 was thought to not need to do. The A400M a product of the 1990's with expensive technology. One of them can cruise the airlines at M 0.8, no other tail loader can (even the C-17 can get bumped to a lower height because a passenger jet is breathing down its back). Oh, and one of them is certified for tactical ops. I bet the Japanese are beginning to question the wisdom of designing the C-2 with high flotation landing gear and then deciding it will never need to go there so saving money by not doing the certification. Or, do they know it is not capable? So to comply with the name of this thread I pick some A400M's in the mix. After all nobody listened to reason on the P-3 replacement. I also wonder if the VIP passenger requirement is a decision driver or distractor.
Time for a beer.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Mar 2, 2019 12:14:25 GMT 12
Hehe...joey05 walks out the bar rolling eyes.....! Sorry mate, I understand. I can’t have these conversations with wifey though... I'm with joey05 on this one, but yes it is difficult to get wifey excited by this stuff! I remember excitedly telling her about the Wildcat that wasn't far off a hover at low-level over our place a few weeks back (RN frigate in town) and she just did not get it...sheesh! I steadfastly refuse to suggest fleet lists... but there are key project parameters that need to be met, and when you stand back & look at them they quickly start to dictate what will best meet our needs: (1) we have 7 transports to replace and we can all assume the replacements will number about the same (even though on paper need to do much more); (2) we need to look at as few different types as possible to ensure the cost (upfront & in sustainment, plus facilities spend) are minimised; (3) they need to be well proven in service as capable of doing what NZ needs to do with them; (4) they need to be well proven in service as having a reliable spares & support train (discounting anything too 'green'); (5) inter-operability will be a key factor. I think point #2 is getting lost in the discussion... but hey I'd love to be proven wrong. Roll on the DCP, but just remember that is a policy planning document, not a shopping list.
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Mar 2, 2019 12:48:11 GMT 12
nothing wrong with having a chat over a bourbon or 12 about it... yes been all discussed before, But it can be fun... I have watched on another forum members change their minds 2 or 3 times... and give valid reasons why ... and then seen valid reasons why not. No matter what NZDF and the MoD decide it won't be enough airframes, and some armchair critic will say was the dumbest thing should have gone with XYZ... The C-2 is a pretty new player that is now in service with the JSDF and A400M has matured a bit KC-390 is still in development. The Super-Herc whilst bigger, better, stronger, faster...(wait isn't that the 6 million dollar man lol) doesn't really meet all our needs strategically but does tactically. heck I would care if someone recommended the Antov as long as if they had a good argument as to why... it just a fun read... that's the way I think of it anyway
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Mar 2, 2019 17:38:00 GMT 12
Interesting comparing the supporting government / OEM structures for the A400 and C2, both are likely to suffer from loss of face issues regarding admitting issues with program(appears a big part of NH90 issues), the Chain of "responsibility" is much shorter (none of this multi national government crap) for the C2 and response is motivated by two lots of scary nutters just across the sea who are much more of a treat than the Russians. Throw in being the lead export customer rather than being just another pain the ass small fleet operate with the A400. There would be a bigger learning curve with the C2 but issues with it might actually be solved quicker than the A400.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Mar 2, 2019 20:43:45 GMT 12
I had a really interesting conversation with someone today. Obviously I can't say who but I now have a very clear idea on what the future transport fleet will look like. No surprises really, but Treasury are going to determine what we end up ordering. They have put the brakes on what NZDF wants to do over the next few years (DCP) and essentially we can have 2 A400s or 2 KC-390s or 5 C-130Js... and whatever we get has to be delivered in 2022 (when the current Herc's structure is expected to turn into confetti). A 2 airframe fleet isn't going to work so that leaves just one contender... expect an announcement shortly.
|
|
|
Post by machina on Mar 2, 2019 21:11:07 GMT 12
I had a really interesting conversation with someone today. Obviously I can't say who but I now have a very clear idea on what the future transport fleet will look like. No surprises really, but Treasury are going to determine what we end up ordering. They have put the brakes on what NZDF wants to do over the next few years (DCP) and essentially we can have 2 A400s or 2 KC-390s or 5 C-130Js... and whatever we get has to be delivered in 2022 (when the current Herc's structure is expected to turn into confetti). A 2 airframe fleet isn't going to work so that leaves just one contender... expect an announcement shortly. If this is true, then it is thoroughly disappointing and yet not at all surprising.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Mar 2, 2019 22:14:45 GMT 12
I had a really interesting conversation with someone today. Obviously I can't say who but I now have a very clear idea on what the future transport fleet will look like. No surprises really, but Treasury are going to determine what we end up ordering. They have put the brakes on what NZDF wants to do over the next few years (DCP) and essentially we can have 2 A400s or 2 KC-390s or 5 C-130Js... and whatever we get has to be delivered in 2022 (when the current Herc's structure is expected to turn into confetti). A 2 airframe fleet isn't going to work so that leaves just one contender... expect an announcement shortly. If this is true, then it is thoroughly disappointing and yet not at all surprising. Yes, somewhat disappointing and certainly not at all surprising... it's always going to be about the money & AIUI Treasury are having kittens over the P8 cost! If we suppose the theoretical $20B is available (which we know was never actually set aside) then they should use it to equip the RNZAF properly. It must be damned demoralising for the MOD & RNZAF to spend so much time & energy to study, in good faith, the FAMC requirements only to be told you'll get a new version of what you already have! Assuming we do order 5 C130J then at the very least hopefully they'll be -30 'stretchies'). Now having made that bleat, to me the real opportunity with the FAMC project has always been in the strategic capability. I'd like to think the strategic fleet will stretch to 3 aircraft, with one a 'bus' on lease to handle personnel & VIP taskings. Wonder if the DCP will be 'reworked' to puff it out as C130 the only suitable option. ...and as to putting the brakes on ' what NZDF wants to do over the next few years' , hopefully that won't stop additional aircraft for the complimentary MPA capability, but then that is always going to be more about 2023+ when the P3 departs.
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Mar 2, 2019 23:48:37 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by machina on Mar 3, 2019 6:30:33 GMT 12
The thing that always gets me going is the claim that there isn't any money. This is a lie. There is enough money (see the 'no uni fees' farce), there's just no political desire to do anything more that pay lip service to the NZDF with horribly empty cliches about 'our brave men and women in uniform.'
|
|
jjt
Sergeant
Posts: 19
|
Post by jjt on Mar 3, 2019 7:51:07 GMT 12
The thing that always gets me going is the claim that there isn't any money. This is a lie. There is enough money (see the 'no uni fees' farce), there's just no political desire to do anything more that pay lip service to the NZDF with horribly empty cliches about 'our brave men and women in uniform.' Right on. It was only four months ago the government was announcing a significant cash surplus.
|
|
|
Post by joey05 on Mar 3, 2019 8:46:52 GMT 12
Hehe...joey05 walks out the bar rolling eyes.....! Sorry mate, I understand. I can’t have these conversations with wifey though... Oh don’t get me wrong, I have a big Wishlist!
|
|
|
Post by foxcover on Mar 3, 2019 10:12:55 GMT 12
Please don't. A fleet of any one platform less than 3 is ridiculous, and commonality is often less than you would expect across similar platforms. You mean a fleet less than 3, such as the 2 B757’s?? Been reported that the government are interested in 2, yes 2 A400. Not that ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by kiwiredley on Mar 3, 2019 14:48:52 GMT 12
On the topic of the C27J a scary thing is that since the Aussies ordered their 10 aircraft Leonardo have only sold something like 3 more aircraft so the fleet size I think is 86. The 295 order book is 208 with 169 currently built.Out of the 208, 16 are going to the Indian Airfoce who are going to build 40 more under licence by Tata. As well as that 40 the Indian Navy are looking at Tata building some MPA versions. So although the C27 is a great performer its a bit of an orphan. The 295 also has a greater floor area, takes 5 pallets to the C27 3 pallets so when moving pax etc a 295 carries more but the C27 can carry larger vehicles. Operating costs are C27 2200 to 2800 lb per hour depending on mission profile where the 295 carrying more pax burns 600kg per hour. Its a little slower so I think on fuel it burns about 60% of what a C27 does for the same trip.
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Mar 3, 2019 15:04:29 GMT 12
On the topic of the C27J a scary thing is that since the Aussies ordered their 10 aircraft Leonardo have only sold something like 3 more aircraft so the fleet size I think is 86. The 295 order book is 208 with 169 currently built.Out of the 208, 16 are going to the Indian Airfoce who are going to build 40 more under licence by Tata. As well as that 40 the Indian Navy are looking at Tata building some MPA versions. ... When it comes to Indian procurement, it pays to wait for them to actually be accepted into service before counting them!
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Mar 3, 2019 16:21:39 GMT 12
Please don't. A fleet of any one platform less than 3 is ridiculous, and commonality is often less than you would expect across similar platforms. You mean a fleet less than 3, such as the 2 B757’s?? Been reported that the government are interested in 2, yes 2 A400. Not that ridiculous. The only reason the B757 work now is the extra investment into them, and at times have not had any availablitiy. So that is where a min 3 platform fleet comes in. Even anything new would struggle to be viable with a fleet of 2. And its not a good look, like a governmental 2 finger!
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Mar 3, 2019 16:25:48 GMT 12
On the topic of the C27J a scary thing is that since the Aussies ordered their 10 aircraft Leonardo have only sold something like 3 more aircraft so the fleet size I think is 86. The 295 order book is 208 with 169 currently built.Out of the 208, 16 are going to the Indian Airfoce who are going to build 40 more under licence by Tata. As well as that 40 the Indian Navy are looking at Tata building some MPA versions. So although the C27 is a great performer its a bit of an orphan. The 295 also has a greater floor area, takes 5 pallets to the C27 3 pallets so when moving pax etc a 295 carries more but the C27 can carry larger vehicles. Operating costs are C27 2200 to 2800 lb per hour depending on mission profile where the 295 carrying more pax burns 600kg per hour. Its a little slower so I think on fuel it burns about 60% of what a C27 does for the same trip. I think you might be getting misled by the pallets. A C-130(C-27) airdrop pallet is about the size of 4 NATO(1100mm X 1200mm)pallets. I am sure the 295 can't even fit a C-130 pallet through the door.
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Mar 3, 2019 17:23:36 GMT 12
The marketing campaign is in full swing
|
|
|
Post by kiwiredley on Mar 3, 2019 18:33:26 GMT 12
From the Airbus C295 website, longest cabin in class, 41ft 8 ins and takes 5 88x108 inch standard HCU-6E Pallets
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Mar 4, 2019 6:52:20 GMT 12
Please don't. A fleet of any one platform less than 3 is ridiculous, and commonality is often less than you would expect across similar platforms. You mean a fleet less than 3, such as the 2 B757’s?? Been reported that the government are interested in 2, yes 2 A400. Not that ridiculous. moral of the story is redundancy, budget is what it is and what you get and what the boffins will allow
|
|