|
Post by Calum on Nov 5, 2010 8:37:46 GMT 12
What's the current C130H hourly operating cost (and for comparison, C130J-30 - presumably A400 is unknown at the moment)? From the figures I've seen the C-130(H and J) is about 1/2 that of a C-17.
|
|
|
Post by nige on Nov 5, 2010 8:52:07 GMT 12
What's the current C130H hourly operating cost (and for comparison, C130J-30 - presumably A400 is unknown at the moment)? From the figures I've seen the C-130(H and J) is about 1/2 that of a C-17. That then suggests the C17 operating costs in comparison is actually attractive .... well, depending on the weight of the load being carried (eg if it were carrying 5t it wouldn't be effiecient - might as well use a C130 etc). So, clearly NZ's problem is that flying a C17 (or A400) probably won't be suitable for smaller loads - it may still need C130J or CN235/295 etc. Must be causing headaches for defence planners evaluating different scenarios. Perhaps it hinges on the success and operating costs of the A400? Esp. if C17 maintainance costs are higher due to complexity?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 5, 2010 10:30:35 GMT 12
The answer is obvious. PAC needs to design a large, four engined version of the Cresco by 2020.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Nov 5, 2010 11:10:53 GMT 12
From the figures I've seen the C-130(H and J) is about 1/2 that of a C-17. That then suggests the C17 operating costs in comparison is actually attractive .... well, depending on the weight of the load being carried (eg if it were carrying 5t it wouldn't be effiecient - might as well use a C130 etc). So, clearly NZ's problem is that flying a C17 (or A400) probably won't be suitable for smaller loads - it may still need C130J or CN235/295 etc. Must be causing headaches for defence planners evaluating different scenarios. Perhaps it hinges on the success and operating costs of the A400? Esp. if C17 maintainance costs are higher due to complexity? The costs I've seen (if I understand them correctly) taken everything into account. However they are only a few scenarios where you need a C-17 over a C-130.
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Nov 5, 2010 11:21:22 GMT 12
The reality I think is that NZ cannot justify operating an aircraft the size of the C-17 for the kind of operations the RNZAF would be generally be called to embark on.
Yes, it would be a wonderful piece of kit to have, but then again, so would the twenty B-1Bs I was hoping the RNZAF might get in my ultimate RNZAF scenario! ;D
Even the A400 might be a bit of overkill as well, so I still think the future transport fleet will be a mix of C-130Js and some sort of jet, maybe something like secondhand A330s?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 5, 2010 11:44:57 GMT 12
If the RNZAF ends up with a decent fleet of CASA 295 transports, then perhaps just a few more Boeings is all we will need. Forget big transports, and forget Hercules. Perhaps?
I know the current 757's were second hand but how old are they actually?
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Nov 5, 2010 16:22:39 GMT 12
The CASA 295 does look a little small IMHO.
I don't think there is a better transport aircraft, now or in the foreseeable future for the RNZAF than something from the C-130 family.
|
|
|
Post by luke6745 on Nov 5, 2010 17:45:56 GMT 12
How about 787s to replace the 757s. Similar size to the 767 and A330. Would cost about $350million USD.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Nov 5, 2010 17:49:11 GMT 12
If I were a betting man I'd put money on a joint ANZAC owned/operated C17.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Nov 5, 2010 20:36:27 GMT 12
If I were a betting man I'd put money on a joint ANZAC owned/operated C17. Rumours are the RAAF would like a 5th. Maybe the RNZAF could kick a couple dollars in ;D ;D (can't see it though) We had one here yesterday, swallowed up 2 S-70B2's and spat them out 4 hrs later in WA. Much better than the 3 day transit it would have been if they'd self deployed
|
|
|
Post by corokid66 on Nov 5, 2010 23:36:18 GMT 12
Although I think the C-17 even though a couple of them would be nice and perfect for some roles, it is going to fall flat when the Op costs and the through life costs are stacked up. From what I have read today from various sites is that it is one thing buying the airframe, but it is another thing buying into the Global C-17 support contract. I read. and this sounds out of this world but one of the Gulf states ended up having to pay US$600m for the the C-17 + the buy in into the full support and servicing package. I think that the C-17 only works if you buy in for 4 or more like the RAAF. So we pitch in another C-17 with the Aussies will it be base here or there? If we own half of it it would be there - how will it be decided we get to use it? It might be all semi sweetness and light now between us, but what if we have another change of Govt and the Greens hold the balance of power, with little admiration or in fact dislike of the OZ attitude for defence, even ours as it stands?
That aside the other thing I picked up around the internet was that the A400M can comfortably take a NH-90. It was designed from the get go to be able to do it. That makes it the front runner in my view. If as people say it is yet an unknown quantity, it is such a big deal for the EU, that eventually when it starts full production and has had all the issues sorted, by the time we are after a few later in the decade it will be (I hope) be the answer. In some ways the NZDF may have out grown the capability of the C-130J size wise what with LAV's, NH-90s and other bulkier equipment coming online through the White Paper next decade. One thing according to the official A400M.com website is that the aircraft can carry two Apaches, Tigers, Lynx helicopters, thus it is possible to deploy two A-109's or an NH-90. Imagine the ability to quickly send up to the islands a couple of A-109LUH's within hours of some sort of emergency.
The document which posted the per hourly costs was a tabled report to the UK Parliament and it stated that the C-130J cost GBP12,000 per hour, thats roughly 30000 Kiwi. It is a more economical aircraft than the H model, which according to a post on one of the aviation sites said the H model costs 20% more an hour to operate than the J. So according to official reports to the UK Parliament from information provided from the RAF the C130J is no where near half the operating cost per hour of a C-17. More like a third.
As for a large transport plane to replace the 757 in my view why bother if we have a reasonably fast airlifter. The A400M hums along a 780kph at 30K. If we need to send the PM, MFAT officials plus media anywhere why not a long range version of the Embraer or Bombardier 50 seater Jets far cheaper to buy and operate and it could come direct from the DPMC budget and only the only RNZAF connection to be RNZAF pilots and aircrew. If there is a annual trip to Casino or Anzac Commerations then a Charter would suffice. If it is just troops to cross the Tasman / Soth Pacific use a A400M instead. A couple of large passenger planes is a luxury I dont think we need. Put the money into something else.
Buying the Airbus MRTT is also a waste of money. Can it land on a dodgy Pacific Island Atoll?Do we need a 230+ seater that only can carry pallets and needs ground loading eqipment at the other end? We dont have jets, at least jets that are going into harms way, so do we need its tanker capability. Again if we did need that - looking at the specs of the A400M it has Air to Air Capability anyway - if it was decided fast jets should be back.
The solution is simple. Six A400M plus around eight CN-295's with palletized systems so they can quick change from Coastal Patrol to Light-Medium Transports when needed. The Govt can buy the PM a 50 Seater Bombardier with extended range like the Global Express and not with Defence funds, but use the RNZAF to crew it. Base it at Wellington Airport anyway.
|
|
Hoffy
Pilot Officer
Posts: 48
|
Post by Hoffy on Nov 6, 2010 12:06:25 GMT 12
. So we pitch in another C-17 with the Aussies will it be base here or there? If we own half of it it would be there - how will it be decided we get to use it? It might be all semi sweetness and light now between us, but what if we have another change of Govt and the Greens hold the balance of power, with little admiration or in fact dislike of the OZ attitude for defence, even ours as it stands? Exactly correct. This is why it is living in fantasy land if anyone thinks a "shared" C17 purchase will ever happen. Completely out of the question I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by adzze on Nov 6, 2010 12:14:53 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Nov 6, 2010 12:19:28 GMT 12
. So we pitch in another C-17 with the Aussies will it be base here or there? If we own half of it it would be there - how will it be decided we get to use it? It might be all semi sweetness and light now between us, but what if we have another change of Govt and the Greens hold the balance of power, with little admiration or in fact dislike of the OZ attitude for defence, even ours as it stands? Exactly correct. This is why it is living in fantasy land if anyone thinks a "shared" C17 purchase will ever happen. Completely out of the question I'm afraid. A Family Court battle over custody of a C-17 between Daddy Australia and Mummy New Zealand! ;D New Zealand could have weekend access?
|
|
|
Post by yak2 on Nov 6, 2010 13:09:00 GMT 12
Exactly correct. This is why it is living in fantasy land if anyone thinks a "shared" C17 purchase will ever happen. Completely out of the question I'm afraid. A Family Court battle over custody of a C-17 between Daddy Australia and Mummy New Zealand! ;D New Zealand could have weekend access? Just as long as it doesn't have frilly curtains and scented candles when we get it back ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 6, 2010 13:14:47 GMT 12
Do you think the Poms will have the same issues now that they have signed up to borrow French aircraft carriers to put their jets on, after scrapping their own carrier?
|
|
Hoffy
Pilot Officer
Posts: 48
|
Post by Hoffy on Nov 6, 2010 13:21:35 GMT 12
IIRC I think this was like a lease arrangement with agreed hours and calendar access. Obviously for the French to agree to this they must feel comfortable with current excess naval capacity. Not sure that the RAAF is in quite the same position of luxury of choice with current assets.
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Nov 6, 2010 14:55:34 GMT 12
Yak, those days have long gone - there's a man at the head of the table again. ;D
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Nov 6, 2010 18:54:34 GMT 12
There was an interesting piece of commentary from John Armstrong in today's NZ Herald. I couldn't resist inserting the piss-taking cartoon (also published in today's NZ Herald) into the article. Military cuts robbing Peter to pay PeterJohn Armstrong on PoliticsThe New Zealand Herald | 5:30AM - Saturday, November 06, 2010THE JOKE DOING THE ROUNDS of the military has it that there seems to be no spare cash for anything other than hiring expensive consultants to squeeze more money out of the Defence Force's budget to hire even more expensive consultants ...
Those personnel finding that funny will find nothing to laugh about in National's long-awaited white paper on defence.
The consultants have been busy — very busy. The most staggering feature of the defence review is the plan to extract $400 million in ongoing annual savings from the Defence Force's budget by 2013.
That sum was the product of a "value for money" review of the Defence Force, conducted by former State Services Commission boss and Telecom chief Rod Deane, and Pacific Road Corporate Finance, which specialises in "maximising shareholder value".
The consultants' estimates amount to a budget reduction of between 14 and 17 per cent, depending on whether capital spending is included in the reckoning. This is a case of robbing Peter to pay Peter, however.
The Defence Force will retain the money to pay for the neverending list of increasingly-pricey items needed to re-equip the three services to the required standard.
This "incentive" will not mean the Defence Force will have to become completely self-funding in meeting the cost of priority items identified by the white paper, such as the purchase of short-range maritime patrol aircraft and the upgrading of the air-defence missile systems on the two Anzac frigates.
Even if the savings target is met, the Government still expects to have to come to the party and put much the same amount of new money into defence as it has done historically.
It has little choice. The frigate upgrade alone could top $400 million.
National is keen to proceed with that project because it wants to fulfil the white paper's pledge that New Zealand work more closely with traditional allies like the United States.
The two frigates are a critical element in demonstrating such commitment because they can be easily slotted into a multi-national force, be it to patrol the Gulf or deal with Somali pirates, thus making a "valued contribution to coalition operations".
The big question is whether the savings mooted by Deane are really "deliverable" — as the jargon goes.
As much a disciplined public servant as a disciplined military officer, Lieutenant General Jerry Mateparae, the head of the country's armed forces, duly "welcomed" the release of the Government's blueprint.
He also described the cost-cutting prescription as "challenging" — a word public servants use when they privately think an idea is halfway to la-la land.
Mateparae, however, is understood to have suggested that it was better to set a high target for savings and risk falling a bit short than aiming low and not getting much at all.
Senior defence staff have done their own analysis of Deane's figures and believe they are achievable. There is said to be strong affirmation in the Defence Force hierarchy that there must be change as advocated by the white paper.
Finding the $400 million is not going to be Mateparae's problem. He is stepping down as Chief of the Defence Force and about to take charge of the Government Communications Security Bureau.
Under Mateparae's tenure, however, the Defence Force was already keeping one step ahead of Treasury-instigated razor gangs. Since 2007, the Defence Force has been running a programme charged with finding "efficiencies" to save cash.
It came up with savings of up to $100 million.
That was not large enough to satisfy the National Cabinet, however. Initiating the "value for money" exercise, ministers made it an explicit requirement that the person leading the review not be a current or recent member of the armed forces.
Enter Dr Deane — who was dubbed "Dr Death" during the public service cutbacks of the 1980s. His report identified a further $250 million to $300 million in savings outside the front line of the Defence Force.
Some of these will be achieved by closing bases and concentrating operations in a "hub" around the Ohakea Air Force base in Manawatu.
Many jobs held down by military staff will be "civilianised". The possibility of leasing arrangements and the contracting out of services to the private sector will be explored, as will public-private partnerships. Even the services' brass bands will not be exempt from scrutiny.
To keep the foot on the cost-cutting accelerator, the reforms will be driven by a new civilian chief operating officer, working directly under the aegis of the Chief of Defence Force.
It is noteworthy that the Government is not demanding that Deane's prescription be followed to the letter. The Defence Force's senior management is being given flexibility to decide how it will go about cutting costs.
A side-effect of all this is to shift some of the onus of responsibility for the state of the armed services away from the politicians and into the laps of unelected bureaucrats.
If something goes wrong, the Government will claim it is the Defence Force's fault.
This shake-up, however, seems to have somewhat different motivation than simply National's ideologically driven onslaught on a public service it believes to be bloated with too many staff doing too little.
Other parties might only give passing attention to defence policy. For all its faults, National's white paper — nearly two years in the writing — is evidence of how seriously the party treats defence matters.www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10685687
|
|
|
Post by corokid66 on Nov 6, 2010 19:17:00 GMT 12
More Seasprites, so the rumour goes. Is there any mention on what they intend to do with the Skyhawks and maachis, considering they have ruled out a return to air combat? This article would tend to support the rumour regarding the seasprites. www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/kamn_sh-2g-super-seasprites-aircraft-for-sale-at-a-discount-711064.htmlA couple of interesting points in it. Firstly, that the "improved" Aussie version is now the SH-2G(I) and that us Kiwi's are sales targets. Secondly is the price with the Seasprites heavily discounted. The quote of about US$8m to US$15m and that Kaman have lost US$100m on the Aussie project, is interesting. Seems to me that with a good negotiation strategy a buyer could pick up all 11 SH-2G(I) aircraft as a job lot for US$100-120m. If Kaman can break even and walk away from this with some Mana intact after the RAN debacle, they might very well be attracted to a clean hands offer. That said I also think that they may be willing to wait to find a "job lot" buyer, that is have all 11 aircraft go to the one buyer. Where and how would this play into NZ? Well, have 6Sqd increased in size to 8 SH-2(G)'s and store the other 8 ( 11 + 5 = 16) for future needs, attrition and spare parts. Taking all 11 would be about the same price as a couple of navalised NHF-90's in all reality. With the new Endeavor and the Littorial Support Vessel possibly to have or should have aviation facilities, plus two Anzacs and two OPV's, it may be prudent in expanding the 6Sqd fleet from 6 to 8 or so. To do that with the NHF is going to be very very expensive. A Billion dollars maybe? Or basically new SH-2(G)'s that we already have for a fraction of that.
|
|