|
Post by frankly on Feb 18, 2015 22:07:37 GMT 12
There's always plenty of people quick to point out that the C-17 is too large an aircraft to operate out of small strips. I haven't heard much discussion about how small the strips that need to be used for routine tasks are. Suai had a 1,000m strip. Vung Tau had one a similar size. The Solomons and Tonga had commercial airports. One of the criteria for selecting a main operating base area for any national elements is the ability to get suppliers in and out, and for ANZAC operations it seems that a runway of around 1,000m is pretty high on the list of requirements.
If we look back in the mists of time and imagine the RNZAF had C-17s in 1999, would the length of runway required made any practical difference?
|
|
chis73
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 86
|
Post by chis73 on Feb 18, 2015 22:50:13 GMT 12
Good question. I'm reminded of a news story about a C-17 that landed at a wrong airport in Florida back in 2012. There was a thread about it ( here), and video ( here). The strip was 3500ft or 1000m. Judging from the effort to get it out again, my guess at an answer: Possible - Yes, Advisable - No.
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Feb 18, 2015 23:25:40 GMT 12
Mention of Vung Tau had me thinking. I couldn't recall the airfield but apparently there is a 1600 metre strip there. The largest tactical transport I saw at Lochichokio during the Sudan aid work would have been a C130. I would have thought any tranport aircraft that had a reasonable load on or was heading long distance would be using an International type airfield. With the foreign aid investment in the Pacific there are many longer runways about these days, compared to say 30 years ago.
This clip of Vung Tau, back in the day, could prove a bit of a talking piece...
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Feb 19, 2015 6:45:34 GMT 12
The strip was 3500ft or 1000m. Judging from the effort to get it out again, my guess at an answer: Possible - Yes, Advisable - No. I guess we don't know what the weight was when it landed. The other option is to use greater use of LAPES or parachute. A few more air movements pers and some packaging is a lot cheaper than anther aircraft type.
|
|
furd
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 71
|
Post by furd on Feb 19, 2015 7:02:20 GMT 12
Mention of Vung Tau had me thinking. I couldn't recall the airfield but apparently there is a 1600 metre strip there. The largest tactical transport I saw at Lochichokio during the Sudan aid work would have been a C130. I would have thought any tranport aircraft that had a reasonable load on or was heading long distance would be using an International type airfield. With the foreign aid investment in the Pacific there are many longer runways about these days, compared to say 30 years ago. This clip of Vung Tau, back in the day, could prove a bit of a talking piece... My memory of operating the C130 in and out of Vung Tau was the short and narrow marsden matting strip lined with helicopters on both sides.
|
|
|
Post by flyinkiwi on Feb 19, 2015 9:29:19 GMT 12
Lets hope so Beagle. And if Bell/Boeing or AgustaWestland are monitoring ...a V-22 Osprey or AgustaWestland AW609 Tiltrotor NZ stopover would also be warmly welcomed. FYI - Apparently the Italian Army is eyeing developments of the planned AgustaWestland AW609 tiltrotor rather than the Boeing Osprey. Italian firm AgustaWestland is now going alone in the development of its commercial AW609 after ending a partnership with Bell. The firm is also discussing a military version to their Army ...probably cheaper and with less red tape than the US one. While I'm sure V-22 would be quite useful in our part of the world, I'm also fairly certain NZ cannot afford to buy it. Considering we've just spent a large sum on procuring A109s and NH90s its doubtful we could should acquire a system which significantly overlaps the NH90s capability.
|
|
|
Post by ZacYates on Feb 19, 2015 11:06:49 GMT 12
The A400M is due to visit Wellington and Whenuapai early March post the Avalon show. There is speculation it may do a run from Christchurch to Pegasus and back also..... we shall wait and see!! Blenheim is between Wellington and Christchurch...and Easter's close to March....
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Feb 20, 2015 9:41:47 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Feb 20, 2015 11:37:26 GMT 12
It's a bit harsh that only the C-17 and C-130J are mentioned. With a timeframe of 2020 or so, I would have thought that the A400M would be a better fit timing-wise. Indeed, now would seem to be a good time to sign on with A400M (subject to confirmation of performance), while the C-17 is viable competition.
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Feb 20, 2015 13:05:27 GMT 12
The A400 is about where the J model Hercules was when we didn't exercise the purchase option. Most of the tactical systems haven't been signed off yet, and some environmental conditions haven't been tested for (extreme cold being one of them).
The principal advantage the Globemaster has over the A400 is that it's a mature product, and all the techniques and procedures we would need to use its full range of capabilities have already been developed (everything from antarctic operations to air rigging just about every bit of kit we own). If we purchase through the FMS system, I strongly suspect we could literally dispatch aircrew and maintainers to the USA for training immediately, have the full range of capabilities released a lot faster than for an A400 purchase.
Managing the procurement would also be easier. It's not like we have an enormous procurement establishment at the MoD, and during the period when we'd need to be acquiring the A400, they will potentially be at capacity with P-3 replacements and 2 or three major naval vessels.
I also suspect that the capital expenditure would budget would benefit from moving at least part of the airlift project earlier.
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Feb 20, 2015 13:34:39 GMT 12
Oops, they shoe-horned in the A400M in the 2nd-to-last sentence (I wonder if it got added after fact-check, the para before compares two options).
I agree with your points frankly, just wish the editorial had a wider focus. A400M + one of the twin-engined jobs is also possible. Our main problem is that we have at least 3 categories of jobs we want doing, and don't want to use more than two airframes to do them.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Feb 20, 2015 14:14:14 GMT 12
Just finished reading most of the comments there. God, there are some people out there who would not have a clue what they are talking about. Originally I was a A400 fan but now with the knowing what sort of budget we have and all the options, why the hell not. Get 2 C17's now. No use getting something that later on you find out is too small.
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Feb 22, 2015 8:21:37 GMT 12
Another dimension that is rarely discussed with people talking about fantasy fleets is the impact the number of available crews have on sorties generation rates.
The last public statement I heard about crew levels was that there are six crews for 5 Hercs (effectively 4 flying) and and four crews for the two Boeings. I'm not familiar with what the maximum allowed flying hours are.
During a situation like the Bouganville or Timor Deployments, I'd venture to guess that outside of the first week or two of an operation adding, additional crews would produce a greater benefit than adding additional aircraft.
I'd suggest that if we go down the path of C-17s, we'd want at least a 3:1 ratio of crews to aircraft. Currently the Boeings are doing around 1500 hours per annum (approx 375 hours per full crew). That would suggest we'd need to be doing around 2,250 hours per annum to keep the same ratios - or roughly what 4 Hercs are delivering currently.
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Feb 22, 2015 13:38:14 GMT 12
The NZ Herald editorial cited "..$250 million price attached to the giant aircraft." Has the NZD appreciated that much against the USD or are Boeing fire-selling their white tails (hard to believe)? Lets hope we dont have some bureaucrat proposing the Chinese Y-20 is a cheaper option. I would even settle for the C130J or C130X if that was the case. This blog has some nice tarmac shots of C-17 & Y-20 together (sorry could not copy photos over here) globalmilitaryreview.blogspot.com.tr/2014/11/modern-day-face-off-chinese-y-20.html
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Feb 22, 2015 15:17:02 GMT 12
I dug out some figures for C-130J sales and converted them to $NZ.
Total $NZ Units Unit Cost Country $6,700,000,000 25 $268,000,000 Saudi $588,000,000 2 $294,000,000 Libya $500,000,000.00 4 $125,000,000 South Korea $864,000,000 6 $144,000,000 India $520,000,000 4 $130,000,000 Norway $300,000,000 2 $150,000,000 Norway $1,400,000,000 17 $82,352,941 Canada $107,000,000 1 $107,000,000 Norway $1,500,000,000 6 $250,000,000 Iraq $1,300,000,000 12 $108,333,333 UAE $393,600,000 4 $98,400,000 Qatar $245,000,000 3 $81,666,667 Kuweit $412,000,000 2 $206,000,000 Mexico $14,829,600,000 88 $2,044,752,941
The only sale that didn't include spares and support is the single unit to Norway (replacing an aircraft lost in a crash).
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Feb 22, 2015 15:20:51 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Feb 22, 2015 16:44:51 GMT 12
Interesting side note: Both the C-27 and the C-295 can haul six tonnes of cargo from Ohakea to Honiara. Obviously this compare very favourably to the old Andover.
Really makes me think we should be buying the 4 whitetail C-17s available, thrash the last bit of life out of the Hercs and buy a small quantity of twin engine transports to do the tactical stuff at end of Herc life. List price for a C-295 is $28M. From what the MoD has published around budget estimates for air transport, four C-17s and six C-295s would just fit within the capital allocation.
|
|
|
Post by No longer identifiable on Feb 22, 2015 17:40:03 GMT 12
The similarity between the aircraft is uncanny. A case of independently converging design philosophies or good old industrial espionage on the part of (you guess)?
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Feb 22, 2015 19:07:34 GMT 12
The similarity between the aircraft is uncanny. A case of independently converging design philosophies or good old industrial espionage on the part of (you guess)? Well the Herc lacks the T-tail, but is otherwise the same general configuration. An-10/12, C-141, Il-76. I would have thought that more useful would have been nicking the engine tech, the prototype has low-bypass turbofans.
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Feb 22, 2015 19:24:18 GMT 12
Well if you were to follow that proposition, you would get the C27 instead of the C295s, as the C27 shares commonality with the Hercs spares and you could leverage sustainability with the Aussies MRO. Also has a nice Spartan package that would no doubt be an attractive CAS asset for our Army. Jury still out on the KC-390 but if we follow the naysayers on the A400 then the KC-390 has an even more 'experimental' risk profile. Agree with ErrolC, think the A400 should stay in contention and by 2018 would not be so immature a product with a number of Air-Forces having them in their inventory for 3yrs and built up a knowledge base.
Already reported that options under consideration for the P-3 replacement probably be; Airbus C-295, Embraer EMB-145 MP, Saab 2000 MPA, and the Saab 340 MSA. To that category you could probably also include; Bombardier/Raytheon Sentinel R1, Bombardier Global 5000 ELI-3360 or Piaggio P.1HH HammerHead . It will be no surprise if the competition looks for a small platform to perform multi-role patrol purposes than just maritime i.e. ISTAR
|
|