I have not seen this news item elsewhere in the forum.
I would have thought P-8 and A400M are shoo-in for these roles.

http://asia.nikkei.com/Japan-Update/Jap ... e-aircraft

Japan in talks with New Zealand for defense aircraft
TOKYO -- Japan is in negotiations with New Zealand to export the Self-Defense Forces' patrol and transport aircraft, in hopes of beating out U.S. and European competition to score its first large-scale arms contract.

The deal will also involve the maintenance of the planes, and is potentially worth billions of dollars. Tokyo in September provided unclassified information on the P-1 maritime patrol plane and C-2 transporter, both developed by Kawasaki Heavy Industries, in response to Wellington's requests.

Representatives from Japan's defense ministry and Kawasaki Heavy are in New Zealand for negotiations. Japan could come up with a proposal in the first half of 2017 concerning the price, production process and maintenance of the planes. It will also consider jointly producing certain parts with New Zealand.....

interesting. I thought Japan didn't export military crafts?

Dutchy wrote:

interesting. I thought Japan didn't export military crafts?

In the past.
They have decided to now drink from that watering hole like everybody else.
( couple of years in the future they will also go for
participating in armed conflict like Germany already does.)


"Building submarines for Australia" is another gust of change.
.. but if that goes the same way the last generation of Aida cruise ships went....
http://www.seatrade-cruise.com/news/new ... ships.html
this too might be dropped in Germany's lap somewhen in the future.

Interesting. Germany has been building a lot of military hardware in the past, so indeed no problem there. And I believe they have send their military to UN missions in the past. A few years back, they have sold tanks to Indonesia,which was blocked by the Dutch parlement due to humanitarian reasons.

Does Japan send its military to UN missions, other then some supporting tasks?

brianK73 wrote:

I have not seen this news item elsewhere in the forum.
I would have thought P-8 and A400M are shoo-in for these roles.

http://asia.nikkei.com/Japan-Update/Jap ... e-aircraft

Japan in talks with New Zealand for defense aircraft
TOKYO -- Japan is in negotiations with New Zealand to export the Self-Defense Forces' patrol and transport aircraft, in hopes of beating out U.S. and European competition to score its first large-scale arms contract.

The deal will also involve the maintenance of the planes, and is potentially worth billions of dollars. Tokyo in September provided unclassified information on the P-1 maritime patrol plane and C-2 transporter, both developed by Kawasaki Heavy Industries, in response to Wellington's requests.

Representatives from Japan's defense ministry and Kawasaki Heavy are in New Zealand for negotiations. Japan could come up with a proposal in the first half of 2017 concerning the price, production process and maintenance of the planes. It will also consider jointly producing certain parts with New Zealand.....

The problem with P8 is the time frame, Boeing will have finished building all the currently ordered P8's before the NZ govt is ready for them.

A400 might be too much aircraft for NZ, whereas C2 is bigger than a Herc but smaller and apparently cheaper to operate than A400.

With both aircraft coming from the same vendor and the Japanese keen to start selling military hardware there will probably be some pretty good incentives heading NZ's way if they order the pair.

Dutchy wrote:

Interesting.

Germany is afaik the third largest exporter of mil hardware. OK, that is "toploaded" via submarine (expensive) sales.

Formerly German Armed Services activity abroad was centered around MASH like setups. This was beneficial to all.
"Hot" activity ( like in Afghanistan) abroad is imho wrong. it is a defence force. ( on paper just like Japan.)

Too many ( and still rising ) idiotic clowns with guns around.

WIederling wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Interesting.

Germany is afaik the third largest exporter of mil hardware. OK, that is "toploaded" via submarine (expensive) sales.

Formerly German Armed Services activity abroad was centered around MASH like setups. This was beneficial to all.
"Hot" activity ( like in Afghanistan) abroad is imho wrong. it is a defence force. ( on paper just like Japan.)

Too many ( and still rising ) idiotic clowns with guns around.

Apparently not. It changed in 1994, new interpretation of the word defense by the constitutional court. The Bundeswehr is actively supporting operation abroad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr#Mission

Kiwirob wrote:

The problem with P8 is the time frame, Boeing will have finished building all the currently ordered P8's before the NZ govt is ready for them.

That is really a shame if that is the only excuse. If NZ can't get the P-8A they loose all the benefits of functionality/commonality with the US and RAAF.

Excuses asides, my bet is NZ will work something out and get their hands on some P-8's. The production line is expected to last for about another 5 years if NZ they can get their finance (or creative financing) in order.

bt

I can't comment on the merits of the Kawasaki P-1 as a competitor to the Boeing P-8; but I can say that the P-1 could finally be a viable successor to the P-3 Hurricane Hunter used by NOAA.

NOAA has kept the P-3 as its main platform not only because it's such an amazing aircraft, but because there hasn't been anything else on the market that could be a direct replacement. NOAA's requirements are four engines, an airframe that is suitable for multiple radar emplacements (including below the fuselage), and dropsonde capability. The C-130's low stance rules out the belly radar, and nothing else in this size category has four engines anymore. (Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong about any of this.)

To that end, the Kawasaki P-1 seems like the perfect aircraft for the job. Too bad NOAA/Department of Commerce probably do not have $140 million in loose change to buy one.

LAXPAX wrote:

but I can say that the P-1 could finally be a viable successor to the P-3 Hurricane Hunter used by NOAA.

But do they need to replace the hurricane hunting planes? With all these Navy P-3's being surplussed, there would be plenty of spare parts to keep these research planes flying for some time. Heck, with the quantities of P-1 planned to be built, you'll have an easier time finding P-3 parts.

bt

LAXPAX wrote:

The C-130's low stance rules out the belly radar, and nothing else in this size category has four engines anymore. (Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong about any of this.)

I am pretty sure they could find a solution to that. One solution could be to fit two radars ahead of and slightly below the wheel fairings in the positions where weapons have been placed here:



Or sling it under the nose-cone like this (But on a C-130 obviously):



Or make it retractable, but that might be even more expensive.

bikerthai wrote:

LAXPAX wrote:

but I can say that the P-1 could finally be a viable successor to the P-3 Hurricane Hunter used by NOAA.

But do they need to replace the hurricane hunting planes? With all these Navy P-3's being surplussed, there would be plenty of spare parts to keep these research planes flying for some time. Heck, with the quantities of P-1 planned to be built, you'll have an easier time finding P-3 parts.

bt

I don't think they are looking to replace in the short term, and you are right that spares should not be a problem. But every P-3 airframe has a LOT of cycles, and NOAA flies some of the most mechanically stressful missions possible -- I'm sure at some point they will prefer something either new-build or at least more lightly used.

VSMUT wrote:

I am pretty sure they could find a solution to that. One solution could be to fit two radars ahead of and slightly below the wheel fairings in the positions where weapons have been placed here

VSMUT wrote:

Or sling it under the nose-cone like this (But on a C-130 obviously)

A C-130 solution would probably be ideal -- not only because of the sheer ubiquity of the type, but because the USAF Reserve 53d Weather Reconnaissance Squadron already flies the WC-130J in the same harsh conditions as NOAA's P-3, so it certainly fits the mission.

I've read on another forum that the P1 and C2 have a common type rating, I can't find anything official to prove or disprove this, does anyone know. If this is correct that's another tick in Kawasaki box.

Kiwirob wrote:

I've read on another forum that the P1 and C2 have a common type rating, I can't find anything official to prove or disprove this, does anyone know. If this is correct that's another tick in Kawasaki box.

Not a big factor IMO. The skill set between maritime patrol and transport are different enough that the pilots won't role between both without conducting an operational conversion. Most of the time spent on OPCONs is not learning to fly the jet, its learning to fly the jet operationally.

bikerthai wrote:

That is really a shame if that is the only excuse. If NZ can't get the P-8A they loose all the benefits of functionality/commonality with the US and RAAF.

Excuses asides, my bet is NZ will work something out and get their hands on some P-8's. The production line is expected to last for about another 5 years if NZ they can get their finance (or creative financing) in order.

bt

With the definite possibility of future orders coming down the pipeline the line will probably last longer than currently projected.

LMP737 wrote:

With the definite possibility of future orders coming down the pipeline the line will probably last longer than currently projected.

Unless the US steps in and places those orders, I don't see that happening. Only two western-aligned countries recently operated significant fleets of ASW planes, the US and Japan, and Japan went for their own jet. The rest will only place a smattering of orders here and there.

Kiwirob wrote:

The problem with P8 is the time frame, Boeing will have finished building all the currently ordered P8's before the NZ govt is ready for them.

That can't be too much of a problem, it is based on the 737, I am sure that they could do a P8 based on a 737MAX, almost all the cost should be absorbed into the P8 program anyway.

LMP737 wrote:

With the definite possibility of future orders coming down the pipeline the line will probably last longer than currently projected.

The P-8A line is dictated by the willingness for BCA to maintain the 737NG configuration. Once the MAX is in full swing, they will shut down the NG line, including the P-8A variant. That's going to happen in about 5 years, more P-8A orders not withstanding.

Dutchy wrote:

That can't be too much of a problem, it is based on the 737, I am sure that they could do a P8 based on a 737MAX, almost all the cost should be absorbed into the P8 program anyway.

Who's going to put out the non-recurring money for all the new Engineering changes? Sure the design concept is done, but new Engineering would be needed because the basic dash number to which the major structural assemblies are created from has changed. The Navy have their design and is not going to put out new money for a MAX version of the P-8.

If one is to be forward thinking, then the option with the least up-front cost would be to pre-build a few more air frames at the end of the NG line. You can store the frames a while before the system can be installed. At a rate of one a month you'll probably can extend the line for 6-12 months max before the cost be too prohibited.

So if the NG line shut, NZ can order their 3 frames. Store it and have Boeing send them 3 Mission System Kits to be installed latter (in NZ if necessary if the P-8A line closes) once all the money is approved. You will need to pay for those 3 frames up front though.

Going forward, I heard that the MAX variant will be used for the JSTAR configuration. If some how you can adapt the JSTAR configuration for MMA duties, then you may have a chance. Note that the JSTAR 737 will not have a bomb bay, may not have wing hard point and sonobouy launchers. Also, the JSTAR configuration will not be in-line production, so the cost will go up significantly.

Oddly enough, I was under the impression that there was no separate MAX line. I thought that they were just going to interleave production on the same line.

US Govt approves sale of 4 P-8s to NZ

New Zealand – P-8A Aircraft and Associated Suppor
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/ne ... ed-support

=

LAXintl wrote:

US Govt approves sale of 4 P-8s to NZ

New Zealand – P-8A Aircraft and Associated Suppor
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/ne ... ed-support

=

Local media are picking up on that, but saying it's not firm. Wouldn't be surprised if it goes ahead, given the RAAF has P-8s. But with only four, a smaller type would be useful for the shorter flights, something to handle training and short-range, low-alt SAR and coastguard flights. Something with a rear ramp like the C295 or C-27J could work and would make a good Andover replacement, freeing up the Hercs (and their replacement) a bit too.

So now P-8's will apprently be in the fleet of these countries sooner or later:

USA
India
UK
Norway
Australia
New Zealand


Correct ?

Kiwirob wrote:

I've read on another forum that the P1 and C2 have a common type rating, I can't find anything official to prove or disprove this, does anyone know. If this is correct that's another tick in Kawasaki box.

Have to admit I'm a bit of fan of the P-1. Neat looking airplane, like a cross between a P-3 and DC-8.

Mortyman wrote:

So now P-8's will apprently be in the fleet of these countries sooner or later:

USA
India
UK
Norway
Australia
New Zealand

A decision for Korea is expected later this year (I believe). With all the sable rattling on the peninsular, I will not be surprised that they will pony up the money.


bt

LAXintl wrote:

US Govt approves sale of 4 P-8s to NZ

New Zealand – P-8A Aircraft and Associated Suppor
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/ne ... ed-support

=

While the P-8 is more capable than the P-3 replacing 6 frames with 4 is not going to work.
New Zealand has the largest SAR area to cover in the world and one of the largest EEZ.
5x P-8 would be enough. Remember at any one time you likely will have 1 frame out for maintenance, 1 deployed overseas (exercises or patrol), that leaves only 2 frames (one outbound, one inbound means no spare capacity in case one goes inop or if something else comes up). You will need 5 to provide the coverage (due to faster transit speeds the P-8 can do more than the P-3).
Apparently they are considering getting drones to assist (more for surveillance) however overall we should be increasing our ability (we've added 30% to our population since we got the P-3s and our EEZ has grown) so 5x P-8s PLUS drones would do this.

Kiwirob wrote:

I've read on another forum that the P1 and C2 have a common type rating, I can't find anything official to prove or disprove this, does anyone know. If this is correct that's another tick in Kawasaki box.

A conventional tail low wing aircraft and a high wing t-tail aircraft sharing a type rating....?

Has that ever been done before? I would have thought that the handling characteristics were too different...

Just stumbled upon this news item reporting a talk between UAE and Japan on the possibility of sale of Kawasaki C-2s to UAE.
Japan in talks to export defense aircraft to UAE

TOKYO -- Japan could be on the verge of exporting its first piece of finished defense equipment.

The government is considering sales of the Air Self-Defense Force's latest transport aircraft, the C-2, to the United Arab Emirates, The Nikkei learned on Saturday.

Government ministries are already providing specifications and other related information about the vehicle to the UAE. Now the two countries have to conclude a treaty regarding the transfer of defense equipment and technology -- an essential step before the C-2 can be sent to the UAE.

Does UAE have actual needs for long-haul strategic cargo transport?

brianK73 wrote:

Just stumbled upon this news item reporting a talk between UAE and Japan on the possibility of sale of Kawasaki C-2s to UAE.
Japan in talks to export defense aircraft to UAE

TOKYO -- Japan could be on the verge of exporting its first piece of finished defense equipment.

The government is considering sales of the Air Self-Defense Force's latest transport aircraft, the C-2, to the United Arab Emirates, The Nikkei learned on Saturday.

Government ministries are already providing specifications and other related information about the vehicle to the UAE. Now the two countries have to conclude a treaty regarding the transfer of defense equipment and technology -- an essential step before the C-2 can be sent to the UAE.

Does UAE have actual needs for long-haul strategic cargo transport?

Yep, they do have 8 C-17's, and their C-130's are getting up there in age. They also have a lot of hardware that is built and maintained overseas, so they need the ability to move it to and from the UAE. Not to mention the UAE's humanitarian missions overseas.

brianK73 wrote:

Just stumbled upon this news item reporting a talk between UAE and Japan on the possibility of sale of Kawasaki C-2s to UAE.
Japan in talks to export defense aircraft to UAE

TOKYO -- Japan could be on the verge of exporting its first piece of finished defense equipment.

The government is considering sales of the Air Self-Defense Force's latest transport aircraft, the C-2, to the United Arab Emirates, The Nikkei learned on Saturday.

Government ministries are already providing specifications and other related information about the vehicle to the UAE. Now the two countries have to conclude a treaty regarding the transfer of defense equipment and technology -- an essential step before the C-2 can be sent to the UAE.

Does UAE have actual needs for long-haul strategic cargo transport?

If this happens that is a big indicator of trouble for future exports of the A400M. The C-2 is as close to a competitor in the size/payload range while lacking the rough field capability, which few nations actually need. If the UAE does go for the C-2 it will provide the Japanese with the export success they need to market more aggressively and given the C-2 is cheaper than the A400M it may become a very competitive option.

Kawasaki C-2 is more of a long-distance, medium lift, peacetime transport that happens to be capable of hauling some military equipment to intact airports in low-threat environments.
As such, I do not see the C-2 as a direct competitor to the A400M that is meant to be a robust military transport to unimproved airfields in low-to-medium threat environments.

The C-2 has better hot/high performance than any military or civilian aircraft short of fighters, so that might be of interest to UAE. The thrust to weight ratio is better than the Citation X and only behind the Learjet 31. The thing is a rocket.

brianK73 wrote:

Kawasaki C-2 is more of a long-distance, medium lift, peacetime transport that happens to be capable of hauling some military equipment to intact airports in low-threat environments.
As such, I do not see the C-2 as a direct competitor to the A400M that is meant to be a robust military transport to unimproved airfields in low-to-medium threat environments.

Which is why I indicated that it doesn't have the rough field capability of the A400M. From the A400M thread it appears that few nations require that rough field capability, and the increased price tags that comes with it, hence why the C-2 may become very attractive on the export market.

Thanks for the great points.

If a potential customer does not need a rough field performance nor high-threat operational capability, a simpler cargo jet equipped with a pair of ubiquitous CF6 engines may be easier to maintain and support, with a hot-and-high performance as a bonus.

I get it now.

Looks like NZ is picking the P-8A.

https://australianaviation.com.au/2018/ ... ion-nears/

Also, Korea . . .

https://in.reuters.com/article/southkor ... NL4N1TR3IO

bt

So the air forces that has or is about to get P-8's are so far the following:

* USA (122)
* UK (9)
* Australia (12-15)
* Norway (5)
* New Zealand (4)
* South Korea (na)
* India (12)

bikerthai wrote:

Looks like NZ is picking the P-8A.

https://australianaviation.com.au/2018/ ... ion-nears/

Also, Korea . . .

https://in.reuters.com/article/southkor ... NL4N1TR3IO

bt

So along the theme of the thread, how do people see the chances for the C-2 now with NZ. There won't be any commonality savings from an NZ P-1 ASW aircraft so does that make the case for the C-2 weaker or no different?

Ozair wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Looks like NZ is picking the P-8A.

https://australianaviation.com.au/2018/ ... ion-nears/

Also, Korea . . .

https://in.reuters.com/article/southkor ... NL4N1TR3IO

bt

So along the theme of the thread, how do people see the chances for the C-2 now with NZ. There won't be any commonality savings from an NZ P-1 ASW aircraft so does that make the case for the C-2 weaker or no different?

Most likely will be the A400

Ozair wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Looks like NZ is picking the P-8A.

https://australianaviation.com.au/2018/ ... ion-nears/

Also, Korea . . .

https://in.reuters.com/article/southkor ... NL4N1TR3IO

bt

So along the theme of the thread, how do people see the chances for the C-2 now with NZ. There won't be any commonality savings from an NZ P-1 ASW aircraft so does that make the case for the C-2 weaker or no different?

I think this firmly puts the KC-390 in the lead now. The big decider will be if non stop round trip capability to Antarctica will be required or not.

Zkpilot wrote:

Most likely will be the A400

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

I think this firmly puts the KC-390 in the lead now.

LOL, that is the reason I asked the question. I feel like the competition is now wide open. KC-390 makes sense as a direct one for one replacement of the C-130, the A400M provides less frames but more capability while the C-2 sits in the middle of the two on cost and capability with a higher sustainment risk. Probably shouldn't forget the C-130J either...

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

The big decider will be if non stop round trip capability to Antarctica will be required or not.

The distance between Christchurch and McMurdo Station/Scott Base is approx 3900km. The capabilities of the respective aircraft for that range are the following,

KC-390 - 5000km range with 14 ton payload. http://www.embraerds.com/kc-390.html
A400M - 4500km range with 30 ton and 6500km range with 20 ton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A4 ... _paris.svg
C-2 - 5700km with 30 ton and 4600km range with 36 ton. http://www.mod.go.jp/atla/en/research/C-2.html
C-130J - 5250km range with 18 ton. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -specs.htm

They all appear capable of flying with meaningful payload to Antarctica. The point of no return would differ for each but I suspect that perhaps only the C-2 and A400M would have no point of no return depending on payload. Visually a lot of the pallet cargo goes either by ship or C-17 so I don't see the payloads going out there via NZDF air transport being overly heavy (probably primarily passengers), especially given they fly the C-130H there today.

Interestingly found this quote from an article last year about NZ C-130H replacement.

Antarctic operations are crucial to New Zealand and the new model "Super Hercules" has the ability to get to the McMurdo Sound, for crew to assess landing conditions while overhead and if they are too bad return safely to Christchurch. The older model planes' point of safe return was much earlier in flight.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=11932974

So it appears possible for the C-130J to fly with no point of no return as well (of course payload dependant) and by extension perhaps the KC-390 as well.

If we look at potential fleet size I would suggest the following,
KC-390 – 5
C-130J – 5
C-2 – 4
A400M – 3

Ozair,

I understand that the factor that could justify larger aircraft like the A400 and C2 would be the need to carry exceptionally heavy or bulky loads. Otherwise, much cheaper airplanes with better operational availability factor like the C-130J or KC-390 would naturally be the most competitive.

As for maximum range a pair of KC-390s that take off together towards Antarctica could realize the supply at 2000 km from the origin base and to make possible that one of them arrived in the frozen continent plenty of autonomy.

Ozair wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Most likely will be the A400

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

I think this firmly puts the KC-390 in the lead now.

LOL, that is the reason I asked the question. I feel like the competition is now wide open. KC-390 makes sense as a direct one for one replacement of the C-130, the A400M provides less frames but more capability while the C-2 sits in the middle of the two on cost and capability with a higher sustainment risk. Probably shouldn't forget the C-130J either...

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

The big decider will be if non stop round trip capability to Antarctica will be required or not.

The distance between Christchurch and McMurdo Station/Scott Base is approx 3900km. The capabilities of the respective aircraft for that range are the following,

KC-390 - 5000km range with 14 ton payload. http://www.embraerds.com/kc-390.html
A400M - 4500km range with 30 ton and 6500km range with 20 ton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A4 ... _paris.svg
C-2 - 5700km with 30 ton and 4600km range with 36 ton. http://www.mod.go.jp/atla/en/research/C-2.html
C-130J - 5250km range with 18 ton. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -specs.htm

They all appear capable of flying with meaningful payload to Antarctica. The point of no return would differ for each but I suspect that perhaps only the C-2 and A400M would have no point of no return depending on payload. Visually a lot of the pallet cargo goes either by ship or C-17 so I don't see the payloads going out there via NZDF air transport being overly heavy (probably primarily passengers), especially given they fly the C-130H there today.

Interestingly found this quote from an article last year about NZ C-130H replacement.

Antarctic operations are crucial to New Zealand and the new model "Super Hercules" has the ability to get to the McMurdo Sound, for crew to assess landing conditions while overhead and if they are too bad return safely to Christchurch. The older model planes' point of safe return was much earlier in flight.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=11932974

So it appears possible for the C-130J to fly with no point of no return as well (of course payload dependant) and by extension perhaps the KC-390 as well.

If we look at potential fleet size I would suggest the following,
KC-390 – 5
C-130J – 5
C-2 – 4
A400M – 3

Minimum fleet size is 4. You need to be able to have 1 deployed, 1 in use around NZ, 1 ready to go, 1 in maintenance.
Should be able to get a really good deal on the A400M since it isn’t selling like hot cakes. Buy 3 get 1 free lol.

Zkpilot wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Most likely will be the A400

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

I think this firmly puts the KC-390 in the lead now.

LOL, that is the reason I asked the question. I feel like the competition is now wide open. KC-390 makes sense as a direct one for one replacement of the C-130, the A400M provides less frames but more capability while the C-2 sits in the middle of the two on cost and capability with a higher sustainment risk. Probably shouldn't forget the C-130J either...

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

The big decider will be if non stop round trip capability to Antarctica will be required or not.

The distance between Christchurch and McMurdo Station/Scott Base is approx 3900km. The capabilities of the respective aircraft for that range are the following,

KC-390 - 5000km range with 14 ton payload. http://www.embraerds.com/kc-390.html
A400M - 4500km range with 30 ton and 6500km range with 20 ton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A4 ... _paris.svg
C-2 - 5700km with 30 ton and 4600km range with 36 ton. http://www.mod.go.jp/atla/en/research/C-2.html
C-130J - 5250km range with 18 ton. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -specs.htm

They all appear capable of flying with meaningful payload to Antarctica. The point of no return would differ for each but I suspect that perhaps only the C-2 and A400M would have no point of no return depending on payload. Visually a lot of the pallet cargo goes either by ship or C-17 so I don't see the payloads going out there via NZDF air transport being overly heavy (probably primarily passengers), especially given they fly the C-130H there today.

Interestingly found this quote from an article last year about NZ C-130H replacement.

Antarctic operations are crucial to New Zealand and the new model "Super Hercules" has the ability to get to the McMurdo Sound, for crew to assess landing conditions while overhead and if they are too bad return safely to Christchurch. The older model planes' point of safe return was much earlier in flight.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=11932974

So it appears possible for the C-130J to fly with no point of no return as well (of course payload dependant) and by extension perhaps the KC-390 as well.

If we look at potential fleet size I would suggest the following,
KC-390 – 5
C-130J – 5
C-2 – 4
A400M – 3

Minimum fleet size is 4. You need to be able to have 1 deployed, 1 in use around NZ, 1 ready to go, 1 in maintenance.
Should be able to get a really good deal on the A400M since it isn’t selling like hot cakes. Buy 3 get 1 free lol.

I think the A400M has a good chance. They're expensive, but Airbus could sweeten the deal with with some C-295MPAs which can also handle smaller cargo loads and compliment the P-8s.

Zkpilot wrote:

Minimum fleet size is 4. You need to be able to have 1 deployed, 1 in use around NZ, 1 ready to go, 1 in maintenance.
Should be able to get a really good deal on the A400M since it isn’t selling like hot cakes. Buy 3 get 1 free lol.

Well nearly new German airframes are a possibility but I would suggest NZ will be hesitant about taking early build A400Ms to ensure they don't burden themselves with non-standard or airframe unique maintenance going forward. They might also benefit from having Malaysia and Indonesia, if they ever sign, as other regional operators.

Either way, the A400M is not a comparatively cheap aircraft and mission flexibility may therefore impact the purchase. You have to hope NZ will have a sufficiently robust tender process that will take all of this into consideration.

Nean1 wrote:

Ozair,

I understand that the factor that could justify larger aircraft like the A400 and C2 would be the need to carry exceptionally heavy or bulky loads. Otherwise, much cheaper airplanes with better operational availability factor like the C-130J or KC-390 would naturally be the most competitive.

A smaller airframe certainly provides more flexibility and NZ doesn’t have a requirement to carry heavy vehicles long distances (the requirement was removed when NZ went to LAVs and only eleven vehicles have been deployed since) so a smaller aircraft probably fits the bill better.

Nean1 wrote:

As for maximum range a pair of KC-390s that take off together towards Antarctica could realize the supply at 2000 km from the origin base and to make possible that one of them arrived in the frozen continent plenty of autonomy.

We’ve had this discussion before. I don’t think A2A refuelling is an operational concept NZ will want to use to gain that no point of no return for Antarctic. It introduces additional risk into an operation that already carries a significant level of risk flying into an incredibly inhospitable environment. It is also a capability that only the KC-390 will have in the entire NZ Air Force fleet and that entails an additional training burden for a very small subset.

If the Antarctic runs are as important to NZ as reporting and members here indicate then the KC-390 will have to demonstrate, in light of other candidate capabilities, a viable payload range that provides no point of no return.

Ozair wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Minimum fleet size is 4. You need to be able to have 1 deployed, 1 in use around NZ, 1 ready to go, 1 in maintenance.
Should be able to get a really good deal on the A400M since it isn’t selling like hot cakes. Buy 3 get 1 free lol.

Well nearly new German airframes are a possibility but I would suggest NZ will be hesitant about taking early build A400Ms to ensure they don't burden themselves with non-standard or airframe unique maintenance going forward. They might also benefit from having Malaysia and Indonesia, if they ever sign, as other regional operators.

Either way, the A400M is not a comparatively cheap aircraft and mission flexibility may therefore impact the purchase. You have to hope NZ will have a sufficiently robust tender process that will take all of this into consideration.

Nean1 wrote:

Ozair,

I understand that the factor that could justify larger aircraft like the A400 and C2 would be the need to carry exceptionally heavy or bulky loads. Otherwise, much cheaper airplanes with better operational availability factor like the C-130J or KC-390 would naturally be the most competitive.

A smaller airframe certainly provides more flexibility and NZ doesn’t have a requirement to carry heavy vehicles long distances (the requirement was removed when NZ went to LAVs and only eleven vehicles have been deployed since) so a smaller aircraft probably fits the bill better.

Nean1 wrote:

As for maximum range a pair of KC-390s that take off together towards Antarctica could realize the supply at 2000 km from the origin base and to make possible that one of them arrived in the frozen continent plenty of autonomy.

We’ve had this discussion before. I don’t think A2A refuelling is an operational concept NZ will want to use to gain that no point of no return for Antarctic. It introduces additional risk into an operation that already carries a significant level of risk flying into an incredibly inhospitable environment. It is also a capability that only the KC-390 will have in the entire NZ Air Force fleet and that entails an additional training burden for a very small subset.

If the Antarctic runs are as important to NZ as reporting and members here indicate then the KC-390 will have to demonstrate, in light of other candidate capabilities, a viable payload range that provides no point of no return.

I do not know in what sense you understand the concept of point of no return. What I propose is absolutely simple. If fuel transfer at about 2000 km is not possible then both aircraft would return safely to the airport of origin.

Nean1 wrote:

I do not know in what sense you understand the concept of point of no return.

From below

The phrase "point of no return" originated as a technical term in air navigation to refer to the point on a flight at which a plane is no longer capable of returning to the airfield from which it took off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_no_return
The point is not about returning to NZ if fuel cannot be transferred, it is about getting to McMurdo and not being able to land and have to fly back. I’m not saying it isn’t possible, I’m saying it introduces additional risk to a risk adverse Air Force flying civilians to and from a destination.

Nean1 wrote:

What I propose is absolutely simple. If fuel transfer at about 2000 km is not possible then both aircraft would return safely to the airport of origin.

Issues include NZ require two aircraft for every single Antarctic mission and aircrews to be certified for A2A refuel, something they have never done before, and one KC-390 refuelling another is the only use case NZ would have for the capability. That is an additional training burden for one use case. A2A refuel is not a risk free process, accidents happen, baskets get shredded and hoses disconnect. Why introduce additional risk into the transport process if you don’t need to?

Ozair,

A KC-390 aircraft costs something like 1/3 of the A400, so it is natural that they are bought in larger quantities.

As for the difficulty of AAR, it should be remembered that the KC-390 is a full FBY aircraft and since this task is present from the beginning of the project, makes this procedure much simpler.

see also:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-442825/

"...At that point, Menini selected the flight controls to air refuelling mode. Like many aircraft, the KC-390’s default FCL are not optimum for air refuelling. In AAR mode, pitch and roll axis FCL were tweaked for the fine tracking task of air refuelling. As we again advanced toward the basket I did not perceive any differences in the pitch axis, but it was an almost opposite feeling for lateral tracking.

While I was certainly no “Ace of the Base”, with AAR mode engaged I could approach and make controlled stabs at the basket. After a few solo attempts Menini joined me on the controls. While DUAL INPUT sounded intermittently, I could feel his stick inputs as we closed and made several solid contacts. Having been an instructor pilot, Menini’s ability to feel my control inputs greatly enhanced his ability to teach me how to air refuel the KC-390. With the air refuelling exercise complete, we rounded out the simulator session with visual approaches to normal landings."

Honestly I trust the NZDF, RNZAF, and MoD to do a through examination of the options and purchase the appropriate option. If anything between the KC-390, C-2, and C-130J they're almost spoilt for choice.

To me the likely requirements will be carrying an LAV in a combat configuration or close to. Antarctica range with no point of no return. And carrying a good payload to austere airstrips in the rest of the Pacific Islands.

The AAR stuff for the KC-390 could be put down as a nice to have as we will be do stuff with the Australians and with the MRTTs having the AAR capability would give some nice to haves.

Ozair wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

The big decider will be if non stop round trip capability to Antarctica will be required or not.

The distance between Christchurch and McMurdo Station/Scott Base is approx 3900km. The capabilities of the respective aircraft for that range are the following,

KC-390 - 5000km range with 14 ton payload. http://www.embraerds.com/kc-390.html
A400M - 4500km range with 30 ton and 6500km range with 20 ton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A4 ... _paris.svg
C-2 - 5700km with 30 ton and 4600km range with 36 ton. http://www.mod.go.jp/atla/en/research/C-2.html
C-130J - 5250km range with 18 ton. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -specs.htm

They all appear capable of flying with meaningful payload to Antarctica. The point of no return would differ for each but I suspect that perhaps only the C-2 and A400M would have no point of no return depending on payload. Visually a lot of the pallet cargo goes either by ship or C-17 so I don't see the payloads going out there via NZDF air transport being overly heavy (probably primarily passengers), especially given they fly the C-130H there today.

Interestingly found this quote from an article last year about NZ C-130H replacement.

Antarctic operations are crucial to New Zealand and the new model "Super Hercules" has the ability to get to the McMurdo Sound, for crew to assess landing conditions while overhead and if they are too bad return safely to Christchurch. The older model planes' point of safe return was much earlier in flight.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=11932974

So it appears possible for the C-130J to fly with no point of no return as well (of course payload dependant) and by extension perhaps the KC-390 as well.

Roundtrip NZ-Antarctica-NZ would be around 8000 km.
Maximum ferry range
A400M: 8900 km http://www.airbus.com/defence/a400m.html
C-130J: 5078 km https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/c-130j-hercules/
or ~ 6600 km http://www.c-130.net/c-130-news-article42.html
or 6852 km https://www.airforce.gov.au/technology/ ... j-hercules
or >7400 km http://www.airforce.mil.nz/about-us/wha ... rcules.htm (since the J reportedly has more range than the H)
C-2: ~10000 km http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/kawasaki_c2.htm
KC-390: 6130 km (standard) - 8500 km (fuselage tanks) http://www.embraerds.com/kc-390.html

Going by this, without refueling only the A400M and the C-2 can fly there, find out that the weather is too bad, and return home safely, with the C-2 having a lot more margin and presumably more payload as well. The KC-390 could do it but not with much/any payload and only with additional fuel. Not sure about the C-130J.

The A400M has better short and rough field characteristics, whereas the C-2 has greater speed and range. Obviously, the C-130 beats both when it comes to price, STOL and overall flexibility, and the KC-390 does everything the C-130 does but in a modern, faster package. So I guess it depends a lot on which capabilities NZ thinks they absolutely need and which they would like to have on top of that (and the price of course).

Personally, I'd go with the C-2 for the heavy long-range stuff & some C-295 for smaller tasks. Or just the A400M, which could do both a little bit.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Honestly I trust the NZDF, RNZAF, and MoD to do a through examination of the options and purchase the appropriate option. If anything between the KC-390, C-2, and C-130J they're almost spoilt for choice.

Indeed.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

To me the likely requirements will be carrying an LAV in a combat configuration or close to. Antarctica range with no point of no return. And carrying a good payload to austere airstrips in the rest of the Pacific Islands.

I’m not convinced LAV transport is necessary. NZ essentially ruled out transporting a LAV via the C-130H given the LAV weight. Since the LAV was acquired only eleven have been deployed overseas and the primary method of transport was leased commercial air or sea transport.

In 2001 the NZ Government published a report that spoke about LAV transport via sea and air. The report recommended upgrade and eventual replacement of the C-130. Given we are now 17 years later and approaching the half life of the LAV fleet nothing has changed and large fleets of LAVs have not been deployed around the world I don’t consider that an essential requirement. It probably ends up being a nice to have feature for future military transport but not a need to have.
https://www.oag.govt.nz/2001/lav-lov/docs/lav-lov.pdf Page 40.

mxaxai wrote:

Roundtrip NZ-Antarctica-NZ would be around 8000 km.
Maximum ferry range
A400M: 8900 km http://www.airbus.com/defence/a400m.html
C-130J: 5078 km https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/c-130j-hercules/
or ~ 6600 km http://www.c-130.net/c-130-news-article42.html
or 6852 km https://www.airforce.gov.au/technology/ ... j-hercules
or >7400 km http://www.airforce.mil.nz/about-us/wha ... rcules.htm (since the J reportedly has more range than the H)
C-2: ~10000 km http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/kawasaki_c2.htm
KC-390: 6130 km (standard) - 8500 km (fuselage tanks) http://www.embraerds.com/kc-390.html

Quoting a ferry range is a useless metric as there is no payload attached to that config.

mxaxai wrote:

Going by this, without refueling only the A400M and the C-2 can fly there, find out that the weather is too bad, and return home safely, with the C-2 having a lot more margin and presumably more payload as well. The KC-390 could do it but not with much/any payload and only with additional fuel. Not sure about the C-130J.

I already stated the above including finding a reference that indicated the C-130J was capable of having no point of no return (although as stated with no indication of payload).

mxaxai wrote:

The A400M has better short and rough field characteristics, whereas the C-2 has greater speed and range. Obviously, the C-130 beats both when it comes to price, STOL and overall flexibility, and the KC-390 does everything the C-130 does but in a modern, faster package. So I guess it depends a lot on which capabilities NZ thinks they absolutely need and which they would like to have on top of that (and the price of course).

Personally, I'd go with the C-2 for the heavy long-range stuff & some C-295 for smaller tasks. Or just the A400M, which could do both a little bit.

I don’t think we will see a dual fleet, it will be winner take all. It will likely come down to budget given as already stated further up the thread NZ will look for a minimum of four aircraft in their fleet and likely prefer a one for one replacement for what they already have.

Nean1 wrote:

Ozair,

A KC-390 aircraft costs something like 1/3 of the A400, so it is natural that they are bought in larger quantities.

NZ doesn’t have an infinite budget. They have five C-130H and two B757s in their transport fleet. It is likely the B757s will be replaced by another commercial jet so that leaves a likely one for one replacement of the C-130H. You AAR plan then ties two of those aircraft down for every Antarctic flight.

Nean1 wrote:

As for the difficulty of AAR, it should be remembered that the KC-390 is a full FBY aircraft and since this task is present from the beginning of the project, makes this procedure much simpler.

The F-18 is a FBW aircraft as well, so are many others that refuel by hose and drogue. It doesn’t mean there haven’t been accidents or that the operation is risk free.

Nean1 wrote:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/flight-test-embraers-kc-390-an-airlift-jet-setter-442825/

"...At that point, Menini selected the flight controls to air refuelling mode. Like many aircraft, the KC-390’s default FCL are not optimum for air refuelling. In AAR mode, pitch and roll axis FCL were tweaked for the fine tracking task of air refuelling. As we again advanced toward the basket I did not perceive any differences in the pitch axis, but it was an almost opposite feeling for lateral tracking.

While I was certainly no “Ace of the Base”, with AAR mode engaged I could approach and make controlled stabs at the basket. After a few solo attempts Menini joined me on the controls. While DUAL INPUT sounded intermittently, I could feel his stick inputs as we closed and made several solid contacts. Having been an instructor pilot, Menini’s ability to feel my control inputs greatly enhanced his ability to teach me how to air refuel the KC-390. With the air refuelling exercise complete, we rounded out the simulator session with visual approaches to normal landings."

You know that was a simulator right?

Ozair,

You have already noticed that the armaments have become heavier and bulky over time. This is not so serious for the reality of the US military which has other rather heavier transport aircraft. For operators where the Hercules is the greatest equipment this can be a rather serious problem.

You also know that the air refueling mission is crucial to US's miltary the doctrine, a mature solution with a perfectly acceptable level of risk, to the point where fully autonomous solutions are discussed (eg, MQ-25).

The KC-390 will be at a level above any other aircraft in discussion since its FBY predicts this as a priority function, hence the great care in the development of models and simulators. It is generally known that the degree of difficulty in aerial refueling increases the less similar the pair of aircraft involved.

Comparison with the F-18's adopting FBY seems particularly out of the question, not worth commenting on, I'm guessing it was a problem with your keyboard.

And finally, if a country defines as a priority the use of aerial transport to support Antarctica operations, the risk is an inherent part of the solution. I am absolutely certain that the weather and on-site operations risks will be vastly greater than that incurred in AAR. If an expensive vector such as the C2 or A400 is chosen, it will be difficult to explain how a single sinister in the icy continent permanently disabled 1/2 or 1/3 of its entire fleet of transport aircraft!

You seem to know little about Embraer. Even in less ambitious projects, the company always offers much more than the initially announced performance. I think you should pay attention when definitive specifications are announced. The company comes very strong and confident against competitors who have serious shortcomings.