Almost $100 million spent on repairing Defence Force aircraf

[nighthawknz]

The price the New Zealand Defence Force pays to provide the likes of humanitarian relief, strategic airlift and VIP transport is continuing to balloon.

Documents obtained by Newshub show since 2016, $97.7 million has been spent on maintenance and repair costs for the C-130 Hercules and Boeing 757 fleets.

The Defence Force says a decline in Boeing 757 expenditure in 2018/19 is "the result of the comparatively low cost of an engine overhaul and a change in maintenance scheduling".

Defence Minister Ron Mark admits it's frustrating and pointed the finger at the former National Government.

"There was plenty of opportunity to take positive steps forward for their replacement. If they'd been ordered back then, we'd be receiving them now. That didn't happen and just like many other Governments before, these cans were kicked down the road, decisions not made and we are where we are".

Five Hercules C-130 aircraft are available to the Defence Force and have been since 1965. They provide strategic airlift and tactical airlift as well as participating in international training exercises. Chief of Defence Force Kevin Short told Newshub earlier in 2019 they struggle to have two available at any one time.

In June, the entire fleet was grounded.

A Defence Force spokesperson told Newshub currently two Hercules aircraft are serviceable. Of the other three, one is undergoing fuel tank repair, one is undergoing structural repair and one is on 35-day servicing.

The Government plans to replace the archaic aircraft with new C-130J-30 Super Hercules in 2023. It was picked as the high priority project within the Government's 2019 defence spending plan.

Mark says it's a perfect replacement and a decision will be made before the 2020 election.

"We're getting a final price so I can put a Cabinet paper together and take it to Cabinet for the 2020 Budget and then we'll get a decision and announce that. Make no mistake, this Government will make that decision" he said.

"We're not going to let this bow wave of delayed decision making to continue."

National Party defence spokesperson Mark Mitchell told Newshub a contingency plan around the current fleet should be looked into.

"What I'd like to see is, through the ministry, we look at a leasing option or something like that being put in place, if we need an interim measure before those Super Hercules are brought online."

He says despite the flailing fleet, reputational damage isn't a problem.

"If you actually had a look at our operational deployments, we operate in terms of availability at a much higher level than most of coalition partners because our people are so good at maintaining and keeping our equipment going".

The two 757s carry personnel and equipment, but also provide VIP transport. There have been a number of high profile problems since the acquisitions in 2003. Currently one Boeing 757 is available. The other is on a scheduled servicing.

"People made the decision to buy a commercial airliner for use as a strategic airlift platform for the Defence Force but it's the wrong aircraft," Mark told Newshub.

The Defence Capability Plan forecasts the two aircraft be replaced post 2028.

"Hopefully that decision will be more around an aircraft that is fit for military purposes. Is able to handle the conditions expected in Antarctica in that time given climate change. And an aircraft that will be versatile enough to fulfil the VIP role."

But Mark also thought the idea of splitting up the roles of the 757 - one for VIP transport, one for strategic airlift - could be looked at in the future.

Australia has acquired four jets, modified Gulfstream G550 aircraft, to "strengthen electronic warfare support to naval, air and land forces for operations in complex electromagnetic environments".

Mark says a Gulfstream aircraft for VIP purposes could be a sensible consideration - but it's a decision that is for the Government of the day.

"I'm also conscious that in order to maintain capability we need social licence. There is a widely held view amongst New Zealanders where they become sceptical of what they might consider extravagant expenditure and I fully get that."

Mitchell was the previous Minister of Defence and says he wanted to pursue dual use aircraft.

"Get rid of the 757s, and have one platform that could perform all of the functions and perhaps have a taylor made pod that can be inserted into the aircraft to converts its use into VIP transport or troop transport or cargo."

"I wouldn't like to see a dedicated aircraft for VIP travel. I think we're a small Defence Force and we have to be able to have multiple capability with whatever we're purchasing," he said.

A week of breakdowns involving Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in July made clear the aircraft are reaching the end of their lifespan.

In June, a second plane had to be sent to pick up Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters when one of them broke down in Vanuatu.

In 2016, former Prime Minister John Key had to be rescued when a 757 broke down twice, stranding him and a delegation of nearly 100 in Townsville, Australia en route to India.

Despite their VIP transport capability, the Defence Minister says they aren't fit for military purposes.

Continuing the blame game... and yet we still have to wait a few more years to replace ment... and wait a few years to even hear that they were being replaced


nighthawk.nz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1137:almost-100-million-spent-on-repairing-defence-force-aircraft-since-2016&catid=11&Itemid=111

[tbf25o4]

"Get rid of the 757s, and have one platform that could perform all of the functions and perhaps have a taylor made pod that can be inserted into the aircraft to converts its use into VIP transport or troop transport or cargo."

Get real Mark Mitchell!!!, way back in the 1960s when the Hercules were being considered, that VIP capsule idea was floated, but as the experts agreed, it would only result in some comfortable seating in the cargo hold of a military transport aircraft and would not achieve the desired result. The same approach to having a maritime pod inserted in the Hercules for that role also met the same conclusion. Horses for courses!!

[kiwiruna]

Sorry to a little political here but I'd be more concerned with 'conditions expected in Antarctica in that time given climate change' comment from seemingly educated people. What does he think all the ice will melt in about 8 years I'm sorry but some people need their heads read, and National had more than enough time during its last stint in power to replace everything and did very little..... So pissed off now. Here endith the rant. Apologises again

[saratoga]

OK,adjusting for the fictional climate change sea level rises, back to my favourite.

Flying boats, they'll be able to land in all the inundated areas,ie central Auckland, Shelly bay housing area, etc. Also takes the noise problem away from Whenuapai so that can be turned into a trailer park(tiny homes). Handy for Antarctica tropical paradise. Only downside, might struggle to find a seaborne windmill free area, as we'll need all that extra generation capacity to power those second hand Nissan Leaf's. You say I'm crazy?, just wait to see what the CoL comes up with next!...

[senob]

I think that they stuffed up not getting two of the C-17 white tails back in 2014 / 15; too scared to spend political capital on defence, and too stingy to invest money in the capability. For example, we could've taken over a fair bit of the heavy lifting for Deep Freeze and been paid by the US for it. We would've found plenty of work for the aircraft - you just have to look at other air forces who fly them and how much utilisation they get. But that door has well and truly closed now. My view is that an airliner / C130J combo isn't going to be of any benefit to NZDF because it will be no real improvement / increase in capability - basically replacing a 1996 Mazda with a 1996 Mazda; and history has shown that it hasn't been an optimal solution for NZDF air mobility requirements. My suggestion would be a strategic airlifter such as 2 - 3 KHI C-2 or A400M and 2 x A321 same as Air NZ have for VIP, PAX movements and MEDEVAC etc. Fit the A321 with extra fuel tanks in the cargo hold to increase range.

What needs to change is the political mindset that like for like will do because its worked before. However, what was good 20 or even 10 years go, is not what is good now or in 30 years time when these platforms will still be in service with the RNZAF, and times along with geopolitical, geostrategic and operating environments will most certainly have changed. But I am not holding my breath about that mindset changing because I have no faith in NZ politicians, especially when it comes to defence.

[machina]

Oct 2, 2019 20:58:34 GMT 12 senob said:

I think that they stuffed up not getting two of the C-17 white tails back in 2014 / 15; too scared to spend political capital on defence, and too stingy to invest money in the capability. For example, we could've taken over a fair bit of the heavy lifting for Deep Freeze and been paid by the US for it. We would've found plenty of work for the aircraft - you just have to look at other air forces who fly them and how much utilisation they get. But that door has well and truly closed now.

Agree. I know we would never do it, especially with who's currently in charge here, but would a couple of second hand ones from the Americans be an option?

I agree with your comments on like-for-like as well.

[madmac]

If we can use a 757 to fly pollies why not a couple of 737-800ERX* with cargo doors. dam sight more cheaper than a Gulfstream G550.


*737-800ERX is a P8 before it gets the electronics (not sure about the bomb bay).

[foxcover]

Oct 2, 2019 20:58:34 GMT 12 senob said:

I think that they stuffed up not getting two of the C-17 white tails back in 2014 / 15; too scared to spend political capital on defence, and too stingy to invest money in the capability. For example, we could've taken over a fair bit of the heavy lifting for Deep Freeze and been paid by the US for it. We would've found plenty of work for the aircraft - you just have to look at other air forces who fly them and how much utilisation they get. But that door has well and truly closed now. My view is that an airliner / C130J combo isn't going to be of any benefit to NZDF because it will be no real improvement / increase in capability - basically replacing a 1996 Mazda with a 1996 Mazda; and history has shown that it hasn't been an optimal solution for NZDF air mobility requirements. My suggestion would be a strategic airlifter such as 2 - 3 KHI C-2 or A400M and 2 x A321 same as Air NZ have for VIP, PAX movements and MEDEVAC etc. Fit the A321 with extra fuel tanks in the cargo hold to increase range.

What needs to change is the political mindset that like for like will do because its worked before. However, what was good 20 or even 10 years go, is not what is good now or in 30 years time when these platforms will still be in service with the RNZAF, and times along with geopolitical, geostrategic and operating environments will most certainly have changed. But I am not holding my breath about that mindset changing because I have no faith in NZ politicians, especially when it comes to defence.

Most sensible post I have read on here in ages.

[30sqnatc]

I guess we can't put the pollies in the bomb bay. 'Bombarder to Pilot - left - left - OK - Pollies gone'

[Dave Homewood]

"Documents obtained by Newshub show since 2016, $97.7 million has been spent on maintenance and repair costs for the C-130 Hercules and Boeing 757 fleets."

If the RNZAF was operating five new C-130's and two new Boeings, rather that old aeroplanes, what would the ballpark figure expected be for those three years? Is it significantly less?

That figure is $32,566,666.67 per year. Divide that by seven across the fleet it is an average of $4,652,380.95 per aircraft. Is that a huge amount? Is it above average? Just wondering.

To can put things into perspective when it comes to MP's moaning about rising expenses. Earlier this year it was reported MP's spent over $1.5 million on travel and accommodation in just a three month period, which the taxpayers footed the bill for. This is up from $1.1 million for the entire 12 month period last year.

That means if they keep up that rate of spending it'll be $6 million for the full year, and therefore $18 million in three years, the period quoted for the aeroplanes.

They would undoubtedly consider this huge rise in their expenditure as very necessary. Well the RNZAF is also a vital and necessary part of government expenditure, probably moreso, so they should simply pay the bill and shut up. Goodness knows they're taking a lot more taxes these days and can bloody well afford it.

[senob]

Oct 2, 2019 21:45:06 GMT 12 machina said:

Oct 2, 2019 20:58:34 GMT 12 senob said:

I think that they stuffed up not getting two of the C-17 white tails back in 2014 / 15; too scared to spend political capital on defence, and too stingy to invest money in the capability. For example, we could've taken over a fair bit of the heavy lifting for Deep Freeze and been paid by the US for it. We would've found plenty of work for the aircraft - you just have to look at other air forces who fly them and how much utilisation they get. But that door has well and truly closed now.

Agree. I know we would never do it, especially with who's currently in charge here, but would a couple of second hand ones from the Americans be an option?

I agree with your comments on like-for-like as well.

A couple of years ago the USAF disbanded two C-17 Sqns (16 aircraft in total) placing the aircraft in reserve, so it's possible that the USAF and the US Govt may be agreeable to us acquiring 2 of them. Undoubtedly we'd have to undertake a MLU on them.

Oct 2, 2019 23:34:08 GMT 13 madmac said:
If we can use a 757 to fly pollies why not a couple of 737-800ERX* with cargo doors. dam sight more cheaper than a Gulfstream G550.


*737-800ERX is a P8 before it gets the electronics (not sure about the bomb bay).

Yes that is an option and would give reasonable commonality with the P-8, meaning one less type in the fleet. The reason I suggested the A321 was that it is flown and serviced by Air NZ, plus it would be able to operate at McMurdo, whereas I have my doubts about a 737 type because of the slower slung engines relative to those on other twin engine jets.

Oct 3, 2019 0:06:16 GMT 13 foxcover said:


Most sensible post I have read on here in ages.

Thank you

Oct 3, 2019 0:12:26 GMT 13 30sqnatc said:
I guess we can't put the pollies in the bomb bay. 'Bombarder to Pilot - left - left - OK - Pollies gone'

That'd work and probably highly desirable, but think of the monumental amount of paperwork afterwards for the poor sod who'd have to fill out the environmental impact statements.

Oct 3, 2019 0:51:47 GMT 13 Dave Homewood said:
"Documents obtained by Newshub show since 2016, $97.7 million has been spent on maintenance and repair costs for the C-130 Hercules and Boeing 757 fleets."

If the RNZAF was operating five new C-130's and two new Boeings, rather that old aeroplanes, what would the ballpark figure expected be for those three years? Is it significantly less?

That figure is $32,566,666.67 per year. Divide that by seven across the fleet it is an average of $4,652,380.95 per aircraft. Is that a huge amount? Is it above average? Just wondering.

To can put things into perspective when it comes to MP's moaning about rising expenses. Earlier this year it was reported MP's spent over $1.5 million on travel and accommodation in just a three month period, which the taxpayers footed the bill for. This is up from $1.1 million for the entire 12 month period last year.

That means if they keep up that rate of spending it'll be $6 million for the full year, and therefore $18 million in three years, the period quoted for the aeroplanes.

They would undoubtedly consider this huge rise in their expenditure as very necessary. Well the RNZAF is also a vital and necessary part of government expenditure, probably moreso, so they should simply pay the bill and shut up. Goodness knows they're taking a lot more taxes these days and can bloody well afford it.

The old hoary that NZ can't afford an ACF, or spending 2% GDP on defence has always been political expediency and a lie since 1991.  We've always been able to afford it, even when the country was bust from 1980 to 1984. They were still spending 2% GDP and higher from 1984 to 1991. There has been a back room deal between the 2 major political parties not to campaign on defence because it suits their political agendas. The basis of the deal is for ideological reasons; on one side because they are anti defence and on the other because they don't want to spend money on it because it costs money, and they believe that it doesn't provide a monetary return. Go figure.

[madmac]

Oct 3, 2019 13:26:02 GMT 12 senob said:

Yes that is an option and would give reasonable commonality with the P-8, meaning one less type in the fleet. The reason I suggested the A321 was that it is flown and serviced by Air NZ, plus it would be able to operate at McMurdo, whereas I have my doubts about a 737 type because of the slower slung engines relative to those on other twin engine jets.

737 to the ice has been done before, although no commentary on them doing it again (although would a 737 sucking ice off the runway actually have any impact on perform, just a form of water injection).
www.aircontact.com/boeing-737-landed-in-antarctica.5200173-109016.html

[nighthawknz]

With the new tanker HMNZS Aotearoa coming online next year, and one of her duties is to summer runs to McMurdo... how many trips would the any of our aircraft "need" to make per year (outside of emergencies etc) I mean the tanker can take 12 20 foot containers full of cargo (plus room for other cargo that can be stowed. It is easy enough to find storage spots etc) She has 20-30 extra bunks to take scientists there.

So other than emergencies and MP tourist flights...

[Dave Homewood]

Don't forget new Navy ships always spend a couple of years in port getting repaired, redesigned, refitted, tested, and retested, before they go anywhere. Some of them don't even get to NZ before that is needed....

[30sqnatc]

Oct 3, 2019 18:43:38 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

Don't forget new Navy ships always spend a couple of years in port getting repaired, redesigned, refitted, tested, and retested, before they go anywhere. Some of them don't even get to NZ before that is needed....

Careful, slinging the grey paint. We've had NH90 for 8 years and still not fully operational

[senob]

Oct 3, 2019 18:11:24 GMT 12 nighthawknz said:

With the new tanker HMNZS Aotearoa coming online next year, and one of her duties is to summer runs to McMurdo... how many trips would the any of our aircraft "need" to make per year (outside of emergencies etc) I mean the tanker can take 12 20 foot containers full of cargo (plus room for other cargo that can be stowed. It is easy enough to find storage spots etc) She has 20-30 extra bunks to take scientists there.

So other than emergencies and MP tourist flights...

Aotearoa is only planned to undertake trips to McMurdo every second year, plus the air bridge operates very regularly carry pax and tonnage that is time sensitive. Although it is weather dependant, there can be flights every day especially during the start and end of the season. The ship component is dependant upon the availability of a USCG icebreaker and that's why it's only done once per year. At the moment the USCG only has one heavy icebreaker in service.

Oct 3, 2019 19:43:38 GMT 13 Dave Homewood said:
Don't forget new Navy ships always spend a couple of years in port getting repaired, redesigned, refitted, tested, and retested, before they go anywhere. Some of them don't even get to NZ before that is needed....

People in glass houses etc., because the RNZAF hasn't exactly covered itself in glory, has it? Somehow it managed to lose its combat force, whereas the RNZN still has its combat force, just. Whilst the ACF demise was politically driven, some mid level army officers had a hand in it (see Timing is Everything by Peter Greener), and the RNZAF appeared to be less politically active than the other two services. At that time and since 1991, with the significant defence cuts, 26% on 1990 budget levels, it was basically divide and rule by the politicians and Treasury. Each service had to fight for every cent and some were more politically adroit than others. It didn't help that Bolger and Richardson were so stingy that they still had their grandparents tooth fairy money. They took the neoliberal economic theory of government austerity to far. Then in 1998, it who shall not be named was made PM and axed the F-16 deal and the rest is history.

Yes there have been some stuff ups such as Project Protector, which was a stuff up from start to finish, or the Charles Upham which even Monty Python would have trouble bettering. Protector was a program poorly thought out and done on the cheap with very poor oversight by the Ministry during the build phase, whilst Charles Upham was well, an acquisition decision beyond stupid. Both those programs were politically driven with service input given lip service by the politicians and Treasury.  Instead of blaming and slagging off the services for such acquisition stuff ups, blame the politicians and Treasury because that is where the fault truly lies and where the blame surely should be shafted home.

[Dave Homewood]

I never said it was exclusively a Navy thing, did I?

[senob]

Oct 3, 2019 19:56:46 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

I never said it was exclusively a Navy thing, did I?

Maybe I read it wrong or misread implications, so my apologies.

However since the mid 2000s, the three services have finally grasped the concept that they all have to sing off the same song sheet in order to survive and to try and improve capabilities. At present they are struggling just to retain capabilities.

For example if / when the RNZAF puts forward its case for reestablishing the ACF, it will require the full support of both the Navy and the Army, with both services providing strong cases why they require RNZAF strike support. To us it is probably self explanatory, but to politicians and Treasury, it has to be explained with many pictures and words of one syllable or less.

This is why it I regard as most important that a united front is presented to the politicians, Treasury, media and the public because it was the divide and rule which contributed to the disbandment of the ACF in the first place. Interservice banter in fun is great, so let's just keep it in the fun category please.

[machina]

Oct 3, 2019 13:26:02 GMT 12 senob said:

A couple of years ago the USAF disbanded two C-17 Sqns (16 aircraft in total) placing the aircraft in reserve, so it's possible that the USAF and the US Govt may be agreeable to us acquiring 2 of them. Undoubtedly we'd have to undertake a MLU on them.

I suspected as much. Wouldn't it be nice if the government were sensible enough to make an approach to the U.S. and actually be proactive about it.

[saratoga]

I suspected as much. Wouldn't it be nice if the government were sensible enough to make an approach to the U.S. and actually be proactive about it.[/quote]

Those days are well in the past, no chance of sensible politicians now.