|
Post by macnz on Dec 12, 2018 14:20:02 GMT 12
Come on, I'd like to think NZ SIGINT has evolved.
Sure these B200s accompanied with the latest tech 1900s - Sponsored by: Kodak ____________ 2000s - Sponsored by: Huawei
|
|
|
3rd OPV
Dec 8, 2018 18:34:52 GMT 12
Post by macnz on Dec 8, 2018 18:34:52 GMT 12
point noted frankly. The CMS may not be the complexity that is driving up the cost of these vessels. It seems there was already some questions over the inflated project design costs associated with this class, given the vessels are a derivative of the Norwegian Coast Guard: NoCGV Svalbard hull which were built for NOK$500m (>USD$100m) back in 2002. www.cbc.ca/news/politics/shipbuilding-contract-holds-250m-mystery-1.1300816To be PC4 or better, I agree the vessel, NZ acquires, will have to at least be 100+ meters in length and at least 6,000 tonnage to meet the classification and mission. Did the ministry mention the delivery window? Curious, because talking a new build is likely to be 3-4 years from announcement, that implies the imperative and raison d'être for the '3rd OPV' has changed from 2016/17 - when it was originally conceived to be needed by 2020 for sustainment. POI: New build custom-built ice breaker - RSV Nyuina, has a displacement of 23,800 tonnes is 156 metres and being built in Romania. Announced in 2015, construction started June 1 2017, is said to have cost Australia AUD$1b (AUD$500m construction, $500m service lifetime maintenance contract). The RSV Nyuina replaces the Aurora Australis. The icebreaker is to be operational in 2020, home-ported in Hobart for 30-year operational lifespan. Source: www.antarctica.gov.au/icebreaker
|
|
|
3rd OPV
Dec 7, 2018 18:18:24 GMT 12
Post by macnz on Dec 7, 2018 18:18:24 GMT 12
Here's an interesting read on modifying/building OPVs for ice class rating. Explains design trade-offs; weight penalties, propulsion performance, electrical output, etc. Harry DeWolf class looks to cost the same as a frigate (CA$5.8b for 6) so doubt we will have funds to commission a new build in that size category. Makes sense to look for a polar platform for multi-agency use. Probably have to be an ex arctic oil and gas vessel conversion, like the Canadian Coastguard procured from Viking Supply/Davie shipyards as stopgap measure while awaiting Harry DeWolf class
Oh well ...either OPV will be a secret santa announcement or we will wait to hear in 2019.
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Dec 7, 2018 17:45:07 GMT 12
|
|
|
3rd OPV
Dec 1, 2018 19:44:30 GMT 12
Post by macnz on Dec 1, 2018 19:44:30 GMT 12
Yes Tnos, shame, well back to the drawing board. Report i 'read' was in portugese (Google translate didn,t work on it) but seemed to confirm Brazil expecting to be adding Clyde in 2019.
Only 1 cabinet meeting left this year...
|
|
|
3rd OPV
Nov 27, 2018 13:48:34 GMT 12
Post by macnz on Nov 27, 2018 13:48:34 GMT 12
all good observations but I really wonder if the navy still have funding to commission 1 new PC6 rated OPV. Back in 2007 each OPV was costed at about $110m, then the PC6 modification cost another $86m so thats $150m per vessel conservatively. The navy had to scale back its spending ambitions for HMNZS Manawanui (getting MV Edda Fonna for a bargain $103m) because of the $148m Frigate upgrade blowout so if they are still shopping for a 3rd OPV to add within the next 2 years - one assumes it will be on a shoe string and second-hand. For a new ice capable mil-spec OPV NZ would need to be looking at Denmark, or Sweden. Forget about Canada or US, or Russia which is under sanction. A new build Australian OPV would need ice modification, as would British, Netherlands, French, Korean or Chinese built OPVs. All these options translate to 3 year delivery with est.$130m starting sticker price. So given that the next capital funding priority for NZDF is the Herc replacements, the navy maybe struggling to scratch up $100m to capital spend on a 3rd OPV from 2019/2020 budgets. With BREXIT costs looming over the UK, NZ might be able to orchestrate a firesale deal on HMS Clyde, like Oz did with RFA Largs Bay, and Brazil did with HMS Ocean. The Brits may also want to keep us sweet for their Type 31e export too. Sure, Clyde doesn't have a hangar (surprisingly neither do the Batch 2s) and maybe not PC rated, but it was modified with additional propulsion, sensors and armament (Log and Echo sounder, SCANTER 4100 air & surface surveillance radar, AIS, 30mm on DS30B mount, 2 miniguns). Given the funding reality, if the 3rd OPV is needed fairly immediately to relieve the availability of the other 2, then Clyde might be the affordable compromise that predominantly serves for fisheries/custom interdiction and SAR - providing it still has 10-15 years sea worthiness. Its current spec means it could patrol the majority of NZ maritime zones incl. SAR, with exception of the southern-most boundary which maybe could be left to Otago and Wellington?
|
|
|
3rd OPV
Nov 26, 2018 15:57:02 GMT 12
Post by macnz on Nov 26, 2018 15:57:02 GMT 12
Any news on the 3rd OPV?
Will RNZN commission a new build of the same Otago class (expensive) or are we looking for a second hand bargin?
If the latter - is the soon to be decommissioned HMS Clyde worth consideration?
Why Ask? RN announce retaining 3 of their batch 1 River class OPVs. www.savetheroyalnavy.org/amongst-a-series-of-good-news-stories-royal-navy-ship-numbers-to-be-increased/The fate of the enhanced fourth in class -HMS Clyde, that was modified to be based and operate from the Falklands - was not mentioned. Many of the modifications made to HMS Clyde were included in the new Batch 2 design. Could NZ look to pick this vessel up "on the cheap" as a stop-gap, given it was especially designed for the Southern hemisphere conditions?
Displacement: 1850-2,000 tonnes Length: 81.5 m Beam: 13.5 m Propulsion: 2x Ruston 12RK 270 engines developing 4,125 kW (5,532 hp) at 1,000 rpm, Controllable pitch propellers, 280kW Bow thruster, 185kW Stern thruster Speed: 21 kn (39 km/h) Range: 5,500 nmi (10,200 km) Endurance: 21 days Boats: 1 × Pacific 22 RIB 1 × Rigid Raider Troops: 20 Crew: 36 Armament: 1 × 30 mm DS30B gun 2 × Mk 44 miniguns 5 × 12.7mm General purpose machine guns Aviation facilities: Merlin AW101-capable flight deck
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Nov 24, 2018 12:42:57 GMT 12
Not surprising - RAAF experience and why they had to add airframes. Flight mission availability rate of C-17 in USAF was 60% thats why they needed 200+ in the AMC fleet. C-5 was worse(40%) until their modernisation program lifted it to 65%. The C-17 is a versatile aircraft but expensive to maintain/sustain availability. Mission availability is key to procurement affordability - second only to having the people to operate them. i.e. Navy's IPVs - good procurement but let down by resource planning. Maintenance and sustainment services will always be the risk whether Boeing, Airbus or other. Wonder if NZDF could 'lease to buy' the A400s like the RAAF initially did for their first C-17s. Maybe it would give NZDF additional leverage on support servicing until FOC. Would be interesting to learn what rate the RAF and RMAF are experiencing with their A400s.
Update: C-17 mission available rate 2017 said now to be 83%, and C-5M is 67%.
Footnote: a 2016 Rand report estimated for US DOD "C-17A restart case would have at least $2.1 billion in nonrecurring costs" to restart build on 150 C-17A aircraft. This excluded retooling and site. To retain all C-17A production-only tools ($860m worth) would have cost DOD $70m. Boeing now selling Long beach- even if tools were retained - kills likelihood anymore will be produced - sorry C-17 fans, any refurbished airframes expect will be destined for USAF given that there is no replacement program in funding submissions (up to FY2025) to Congress.
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Nov 23, 2018 20:58:16 GMT 12
Isc, to your question, only old reference I have to share was an analysis written on thinkdefence - www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/09/the-airbus-a400m-atlas-part-2-what-is-so-good-about-it-anyway/ - that cited: "The specification of the A400M Atlas requires it to match or improve upon the short field performance of the equipment it is replacing, namely the C160 Transal and C130 Hercules. If it does not do this it will have failed against one of the key design metrics so Airbus have aimed for a significant improvement. If one looks at the undercarriage arrangement, the nose wheel and main wheels it is obvious that they are big, have a large footprint and designed to spread the load out across a larger area, thus reducing ground pressure." "The A400M has been designed not just to land and take off from rough and soft surfaces but to do so repeatedly. On a CBR 6 surface it can land, unload and take off 40 times before the runway is unusable without improvement with a mixed fuel/payload load of 30 tonnes. On a CBR 8 surface this raises to 225 missions. It can land 27 tonnes onto an 830m soft strip" afraid I am not as current these days on a400m specs/performance literature ...just a casual reader
hope that's a start at least...
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Nov 23, 2018 18:59:45 GMT 12
another operation case study... Here's an interesting piece, commentaries incl from ex-C130J operators- on the A400M’s operational debut in the UK's humanitarian relief effort in the Caribbean - Operation Ruman - after the Cat 5 typhoon in September last year. Used C-17, C130J, and 2x A400 for the fixed wing airlift. Read Here: www.aerosociety.com/news/atlas-shoulders-the-load/Wing Commander Burdett: “It could take three times as much as a C-130 into a tight, small strip without taking any military risk in its performance. Whereas the C-130 was taking in five tonnes, the A400 would be taking in 15.” Footnote: RAF have 20 (of 22) A400Ms now in service. They have sold off their 10 regular C130Js and retaining 14 stretched C130Js for Spec Ops. They also have fleet of 8 C-17s.
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Nov 23, 2018 14:00:59 GMT 12
thats how we fast track funding! - what do you think the 1 million extra trees we are planting are for?
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Nov 23, 2018 10:16:07 GMT 12
Perhaps RMAF response for Earthquake/Tsunami hit Palu,Indonesia is good case study between the two.
The RMAF undertook humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions to the stricken city of Palu in central Sulewasi, Indonesia. The week-long operation from October 4-10 involved a single A400M and three C-130 aircraft. Flying from its base in Subang, Kuala Lumpur, the No 22 Skuadron A400M landed at Jakarta’s Halim Air Base on October 4, from where it commenced the first of two flights to Mutiara SIS Al-Jufrie Airport in Palu. The aircraft’s short-field capability and ability to transport heavy, outsize cargo proved especially useful in delivering a variety of loads which included an excavator, fuel trucks as well as items like food, drinks and medical supplies. Also involved in the relief efforts were two C-130s from No 14 Skuadron in Labuan, off Sabah, Borneo, and another from No 20 Skuadron, based at Subang. These aircraft staged out of Balik Papan in Kalimantan from where they ferried Indonesian police personnel to Palu and evacuated tsunami victims from Palu to Balikpapan, in addition to delivering essential relief supplies and equipment. source: airforcesmonthly.keypublishing.com/2018/10/19/royal-malaysian-air-force-relief-efforts-to-palu/
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Aug 23, 2018 18:51:46 GMT 12
The ROV / survey vessel Edda Fonn - overall length of 84.7m, a breadth of 18m and a 9.1m moulded depth. It has a registered tonnage of 4,505gt and registers a deadweight of 2,354t. It has a deck area of 700m², a 41m cargo deck length and a capacity of 800t. The vessel has sufficient storage for 1,113m³ of marine oil, 428.1m³ of fresh water and 1,883.1m³ of ballast water. The accommodation includes 41 cabins with 66 beds. DECK EQUIPMENT The deck equipment includes two Effer 17tm cranes that can carry out a 1.62t lift at 10.29m and a Heila 15tm provision crane that can lift 1.1t at 14.76m. It has a 10t Karmøy tugger winch and a Hydramarine 1.1t 2,500m wire transponder winch. There are two anchor windlass/mooring winches forward and two Karmøy capstans aft. In order to maintain stability there are three anti-rolling tanks and an automatic / manual active heel system with a capacity of 2,000m³/h. The main propulsion is by a diesel electric propulsion plant. There are four 1,820kW diesel powered generator sets giving an output of 7,680kW / 10,445bhp. It provides 690V at 60Hz at a rotary speed of 1,800rpm. There is also a 388kW harbour generator with a 690V / 60Hz output at a rotary speed of 1,800rpm and a 99kW emergency generator producing 690V / 60Hz at 1,800rpm. The Edda Fonn is driven by two AC asynchronous water-cooled motors each rating 2,200kW (2,992bhp) at 1,192.5rpm. The vessel is equipped with two diesel-electric driven Steerprop ST-35 azimuth propellers. The propellers have a diameter of 3m. There are also two electrically-driven tunnel thrusters located in the bow with an output of approx. 1,150kW each. In addition, there is a super-silent type and a retractable thruster with an output of 1,350kW. This gives a maximum speed of 15.5 knots at 30t/day or, for economy, 13 knots at 14t/day. It uses 6t/day for DP-operations (dependent on weather). More detail on vessel: www.ship-technology.com/projects/edda/
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Feb 22, 2018 1:09:54 GMT 12
Came across this interesting backstory about Airbus exploring 320neo military derivatives where they mention: "Speaking at the Singapore air show, Fernando Alonso, head of military aircraft at Airbus Defence & Space, said that the new platform could undertake missions such as VIP transport, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and maritime patrol [...] Airbus is in talks with a number of operators, including the armed forces of Asia-Pacific nations such as Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, alongside European stalwarts France, Germany and the Netherlands."Source: www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/singapore-airbus-explores-a320neo-military-derivati-445670/Comment: Airbus already successfully delivered A330 MRTT effectively to likes of; Singapore, Australia, UK, France, UAE, Saudi Arabia. So successful now Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and Norway awaiting 8 for MMF, South Korea ordered 4 last year. Meanwhile Airbus have developed MPA configuration experience on A319s and C295s so successfully deploying to offer on A330neo platform should come with a strong confidence. So what if NZ invested in 7x A330neo platform plus option for further 3? For the initial 7 ordered; 3 be configured for primary MPA mission (2 active, 1 standby/training), while 3 for troop and cargo transport - with 1 of these also having secondary mission profile of MPA back-up/training. The 7th would act as fleet reserve replacement during scheduled maintenance. 4 or 5x C295s be ordered for interchangeable SAR support or tactical airlift around NZ to complement the A330 'core' fleet. Govt then would have (a little) more time to study the procurement decision on which platform for strategic airlift (A400M or newly developed C2s) to commit to - based on product maturity and logistical support. (My preference remains A400Ms) The 3 options on a further A330neos would be to future proof fleet growth into the first two mission sets or potentially extend RNZAF capability to also include aerial refueling or SIGINT missions! Too Much?
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Jun 18, 2017 18:16:48 GMT 12
Cant see the harm in optimizing whatever will be our transport investment though an AirTanker like model arrangement. The crews are mix of active military, military reservist/civilian registered. The European Air Transport Command (EATC) is a consortium of 7 European countries sharing aerial refueling capabilities and military transport/logistics among the EU with a fleet of 220 aircraft. The Netherlands put an order in for 2 MRTT tankers, with Poland and Norway looking to join the dutch with an order for 2 more just to join this arrangement. I am sure the GDP of just these 3 countries is far higher than NZ. My point is that even well 'capitalised' armed forces in countries are looking at different ways to optimize the utilization of their military assets outside of the conventional procurement path and use by their native forces alone. For an under-capitalised defence force like NZ, I would think a public-private partnership (PPP) model ensures the asset capability when the NZDF need them but during down-times permits commercial utilization (whether that is passenger or freight) to help offset/justify them (to the tax payer) would be prefable. Look at Australia they leased the Aurora Australis to ferry infrastructure, equipment, supplies and personnel to and from the stations in Australia’s Antarctic Territory. They are now wondering if a replacement Antarctic ice-breaking vessel will provide value to the public or another PPP model would be better. www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/replacement-antarctic-vessel
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Jun 16, 2017 16:46:05 GMT 12
MTOW: 777F = 347,815kg , 757 = 115,660kg , C130J = 70,305kg, A400M = 141,000kg Take-off distance: 777F = 2,830m, 757 = 2,103m, C-130J =953m, A-400M = 980m
re: airlift to Antarctica contract? Agree. We could do what the UK Ministry of Defence and other EU countries are doing >> Sign a deal to lease A330 MRTT aircraft under a private finance initiative arrangement with EADS-AirTanker consortium or maybe NZ Govt could set something up similar with Air NZ or Qantas? Basically optimise utilisation and time-share our logistics needs, without the tax-payer having to wear the disposal or replacement of equipment risks. When NZDF not using, the consortium offers the (downtime) freight/passenger capacity to commercial airlines. Bonus would be if we did use A330 MRTT, NZDF could also have an air refueling capability too. Believe UK use this model effectively to airlift personnel and cargo to Africa and Falklands regularly.
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Jun 16, 2017 14:49:50 GMT 12
Pus the engine parts for the Swordfish are nearly impossible to get, that is why the RNHF only flies one of their three examples... “You’re going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.”
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Jun 16, 2017 14:37:47 GMT 12
Maybe we just have normal sized loads, Beagle? I looked up the definition of 'outsize'and there are some classic words in there! They included colossal, massive, mammoth, vast, immense, tremendous, monumental, prodigious, mountainous, monstrous, elephantine, king-sized, gargantuan, Herculean, and my favourite new word, Brobdingnagian. Surely a C-130J Hercules can take a Herculean load, so maybe that is all we need? Dont forget "Yuuge" !
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Jun 14, 2017 19:29:29 GMT 12
Just came across this article in Janes Boeing has dropped both their Bombardier Challenger 605 business jet-based Maritime Surveillance Aircraft (MSA) and Reconfigurable Airborne Multi-Intelligence System (RAMIS) from their portfolio, after failing to secure sales for either platform. The MSA was intended to be Boeing's SAR/ MPA-Lite product offering This leaves Boeing "P-8 Poseidon maritime multimission aircraft (MMA), the Insitu ScanEagle/Integrator unmanned aerial vehicle, and the Echo Voyager unmanned undersea vehicle (UUV)" for MPA/ISR solutions. You can read more: www.janes.com/article/71358/boeing-drops-msa-and-ramis-platforms-from-portfolio
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Jun 14, 2017 19:16:00 GMT 12
Latest marketing update from Saab Swordfish/Bombardier's Global 6000 aircraft. "Recent product development milestones at Saab and Bombardier have validated a significant increase in the available payload carried on Swordfish’s four, NATO-compatible hard points. Swordfish can now be armed with up to six lightweight-torpedoes for the [anti-submarine warfare] role. Swordfish can also carry the Saab next generation RBS15 anti-ship missile or a mix of missiles and torpedoes to assure total sea control in every aspect. The Swordfish can equally carry a load of four search-and-rescue pods underlining its true multi-mission capability across the maritime domain. Swordfish also carries a magnetic anomaly detector and around 200 A-, F- and G-size sonobuoys." Source: Saab beefs up Swordfish patrol plane By: Michael Peck, June 12, 2017 www.c4isrnet.comre: fleet size For training, tasking and servicing rotation: 3-4 (P-8) units vs 5-6 (6000s or P-1s) units? The numbers are pretty hard to ignore no matter what technology sophistication you want to offset this by...unless the proven readiness and sustainability measures of the P-8s are that incontestable. re: C-130J Has Lockheed secured any orders for the SC-130J Sea Hercules variant? I've found no news/articles beyond they were still developing the variant in 2016.
|
|