|
|
Post by frankly on May 10, 2018 22:38:32 GMT 12
Leased?? What are they thinking. Not as silly as you might think Dave. It's only a fixed term contract. If they own the aircraft themselves, then the sale at the end of the contract back into the commercial world is very very hard. RNZAF aren't a Part 135 operation, which makes sale of commercial aircraft back into the market challenging at best. SaveSave |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 10, 2018 23:35:19 GMT 12
But if the RNZAF purchased aircraft they will not be looking to re-sell them, they'd probably do 40+ years service.
|
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on May 11, 2018 0:43:15 GMT 12
am I right in thinking of the 5-eyes partners NZ is the only one to own their fleet in the T6 / PC21 capability 'space'?. Nope, the RAAF own their PC-21/7s and the USAF/N own their T-6s Ah yes of course, brain-fart on my part, was thinking of maintenance & who instructs... not straight forward in these days of accountants running the show!  |
|
|
|
Post by delticman on May 11, 2018 0:47:15 GMT 12
But if the RNZAF purchased aircraft they will not be looking to re-sell them, they'd probably do 40+ years service. Probably run out of spar life long before that. |
|
|
|
Post by Naki on May 11, 2018 7:15:35 GMT 12
Nope, the RAAF own their PC-21/7s and the USAF/N own their T-6s Ah yes of course, brain-fart on my part, was thinking of maintenance & who instructs... not straight forward in these days of accountants running the show! Of course the RAAF has PC-9s not 7s. |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on May 11, 2018 8:50:33 GMT 12
only for a few more years
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on May 11, 2018 8:52:12 GMT 12
Leased?? What are they thinking. Not as silly as you might think Dave. It's only a fixed term contract. If they own the aircraft themselves, then the sale at the end of the contract back into the commercial world is very very hard. RNZAF aren't a Part 135 operation, which makes sale of commercial aircraft back into the market challenging at best. SaveSaveHas the analysis of the options been released? If not, OIA request? 40 year old aircraft require a lot of maintenance effort. If the type is no longer in common commercial use then you pretty much have to maintain it in-house. I'm sure there are spreadsheets looking at all this, if we have them we can start picking apart the assumptions, otherwise we're just making stuff up. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 11, 2018 11:35:06 GMT 12
40 years was off the top of my head, based on other types in service... The Super King Air is a military spec aircraft and first flew in 1972, and the type is still in service. The type is still in production. If we were to purchase new or near new ones they'd do many years of service and the parts and support will still be available.
|
|
|
|
Post by camtech on May 11, 2018 13:00:53 GMT 12
Now just need to confirm the serial range. Is it trainer, maritime or transport?
|
|
chis73
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 87
|
Post by chis73 on May 11, 2018 14:50:19 GMT 12
To be honest, this news is slightly better than I expected. I thought we would be purchasing some of the current RAAF aircraft (in service since 2003), which the RAAF have decided to have a rationalisation of, and are currently considering combining all aircraft (32 sqn @ East Sale & 38 sqn @ Townsville) at East Sale in Victoria for greater efficiency. As I understand it, we are getting near-new circa 2015 models. I wasn't expecting any maritime patrol role either. I wonder if that actually means they will be fitted with a surface search radar? Sad that they are only leased though.
|
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on May 11, 2018 17:21:23 GMT 12
To be honest, this news is slightly better than I expected. I thought we would be purchasing some of the current RAAF aircraft (in service since 2003), which the RAAF have decided to have a rationalisation of, and are currently considering combining all aircraft (32 sqn @ East Sale & 38 sqn @ Townsville) at East Sale in Victoria for greater efficiency. As I understand it, we are getting near-new circa 2015 models. I wasn't expecting any maritime patrol role either. I wonder if that actually means they will be fitted with a surface search radar? Sad that they are only leased though. They are apparently all fairly low houred - one has reportedly only got 8 hours on the clock. I suspect they'll be very busy with only 4, although leasing an extra a/c or so might be fairly straight forward should it prove prudent at a later date. One assumes that with simulation tools etc and judicious planning / juggling / combining of training schedules (MEPT vs ACTC - the latter including light MPA/SAR) plus a little heat on Hawker Pacific to keep availability rates up, that they'll cope. Lease till 2025 (previous B200 leases have all been extended a year or so until replacements come on stream) allows a revisiting of light MPA requirements once the P3K2 replacement is expected to be entering service thus giving flexibility to either retain the KA350 or replace with something else. The parliamentary debate included a reference to "... Marops, an award-winning and rapidly growing Auckland-based software company, which is working alongside of Hawker Pacific to integrate the training mission systems with the aircraft and the sensor suite". So yes sensors, but no detail as to what that includes. Definitely good news, only wish the fleet was expanded to 5 or 6, but as above, leasing could simplify expansion as happened with the very 1st B200 lease. |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on May 11, 2018 17:27:24 GMT 12
2 are being fitted out for close in MPA and have heard that FLIR turrets would be fitted, not sure on a radar, maybe.
|
|
awol
Flight Sergeant
Posts: 21
|
Post by awol on May 11, 2018 23:12:43 GMT 12
Now just need to confirm the serial range. Is it trainer, maritime or transport? It's the 2000 series. |
|
|
|
Post by madmac on May 12, 2018 8:47:00 GMT 12
By the end of a seven year lease those airframes will likely be a long way through their airframe practical life (Just because there mightn't be paper life limit on the number of landings they do, doesn't mean there isn't) . They are simply not built for the high number of landings that they will see in pilot training, nor low level marine work, they should come with role specific maintenance program and some form of accelerated life consumption adjustments to the airframe life limits. A number of oversea leasors have been burnt tendering for military training contracts (the good old the cheapest tender is often the one that missed something).
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 12, 2018 9:46:57 GMT 12
Are you saying these particular aircraft are not built to military specification?
|
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on May 12, 2018 11:03:10 GMT 12
Are you saying these particular aircraft are not built to military specification? This link shows the 4 a/c understood to be destined for 42Sqn - it gives their Aussie VH rego's. airsoc.com/articles/view/id/5ab68c463d2d2e9e5b8b4567/rnzaf-takes-delivery-of-first-beech-king-air-350iPlug the VH into the search at this link to see basic details of each a/c: www.casa.gov.au/aircraft-registerThey're all ex-civvy machines from what can be determined so I'd say no not MilSpec. They'll be shagged at the end of their lease I dare say, but that then becomes more an issue for Hawker Pacific than RNZAF - the latter can just whinge to HP that the a/c are becoming increasingly unserviceable & demand action - one benefit of leasing (in theory at least). |
|
|
|
Post by camtech on May 12, 2018 13:35:39 GMT 12
Now just need to confirm the serial range. Is it trainer, maritime or transport? It's the 2000 series. That narrows it down to 22, 26, 28 or 29. |
|
|
|
Post by frankly on May 12, 2018 14:43:06 GMT 12
By the end of a seven year lease those airframes will likely be a long way through their airframe practical life (Just because there mightn't be paper life limit on the number of landings they do, doesn't mean there isn't) . They are simply not built for the high number of landings that they will see in pilot training, nor low level marine work, they should come with role specific maintenance program and some form of accelerated life consumption adjustments to the airframe life limits. A number of oversea leasors have been burnt tendering for military training contracts (the good old the cheapest tender is often the one that missed something). I suspect they'll be due for expensive engine overhauls before the airframe becomes an issue. These machines aren't going to be used the same way the B200s were (which were doing pilot training duties to pick up the capability gap before the Texans). This is strictly multi engine conversion and AWO training. SaveSave |
|
|
|
Post by frankly on May 12, 2018 14:45:46 GMT 12
But if the RNZAF purchased aircraft they will not be looking to re-sell them, they'd probably do 40+ years service. We probably look at this totally different ways Dave, but my two cents is the longevity in service isn't a blessing, it's a curse. NZDF needs to be much more agile and raising and disposing of capabilities. Technology lifecycles are getting shorter and shorter, and taking several years to release full capability and then keeping assets for decades is a legacy we'd best move on from. SaveSave |
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on May 12, 2018 15:30:01 GMT 12
By the end of a seven year lease those airframes will likely be a long way through their airframe practical life (Just because there mightn't be paper life limit on the number of landings they do, doesn't mean there isn't) . They are simply not built for the high number of landings that they will see in pilot training, nor low level marine work, they should come with role specific maintenance program and some form of accelerated life consumption adjustments to the airframe life limits. A number of oversea leasors have been burnt tendering for military training contracts (the good old the cheapest tender is often the one that missed something). I suspect they'll be due for expensive engine overhauls before the airframe becomes an issue. These machines aren't going to be used the same way the B200s were (which were doing pilot training duties to pick up the capability gap before the Texans). This is strictly multi engine conversion and AWO training. Can anyone detail what MEPT & ACTC syllabus contain? I guess MEPT is takeoff & landing drills with asymmetric engine drills etc - possibly a little hard on engines over time. ACTC - low/hi level longer distance Nav flights (which probably include the light MPA taskings). Probably a lot harder than what a civvy B350 would normally do. IIRC RNZAF also sent some pilots to Norway (or somewhere up that way) for B200 simulator training, does anyone know if that a regular occurrence? If so then that does take a little of the initial 'heat' of the actual a/c & engines. |
|
