Ozair
Posts: 2635
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Kawasaki P-2 and C-2 for New Zealand?

Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:41 am

Nean1 wrote:
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.

This has little to do with the specific use case we are discussing with NZ. NZ does not have a requirement to transport large heavy vehicles, they do that work around the pacific today with sea based assets. NZ does not have a desire to deploy military vehicles globally. In the time they have operated the LAV, which replaced the C-130 air transportable M113, only eleven have left NZ, eleven… Clearly it isn’t a major requirement based on their current and historical use case. That could well change in the future but the likelihood of NZ operating and deploying a larger heavier IFV/AFV is very very low. For those niche requirements, they have allies and contract cargo that can be called up to air transport goods.
Nean1 wrote:
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).

Don’t you think the risk of an unmanned platform refuelling from another unmanned platform would be less than when humans, and their passengers are involved? In the hose and drogue context, the platform just flies straight anyway and waits for the receiver.

That aside, we aren’t talking about the US here, we are talking about the RNZAF who have never operated an AAR platform. The RNZAF has no fighter aircraft, no maritime patrol aircraft (and won’t with the P-8 given it is boom), no helicopters, no transports and no training aircraft that can refuel in the air.

Nean1 wrote:
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 refuelling increases the less similar the pair of aircraft involved.

Nean1, the issue is not about whether the KC-390 will be able to do it, it has never been about that. The issue is the risk. You don’t introduce more risk, and subsequent dependencies, to the process than you need to.

Nean1 wrote:
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.

It is a FBW aircraft that is used both to refuel and be refuelled by the hose and drogue method. The flight software on the F-18 is not static, it is continually modified and updated to not only increase the flight envelope but improve controllability across the flight envelope.

Nean1 wrote:
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!

While the risk of AAR may be less than operating in the Antarctic the risk remains and that solution introduces additional risk and dependency on the AAR process, risk and dependency that isn’t necessary.

Nean1 wrote:
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.

What does Embraer have to do with this? I have no issue with the company or the aircraft. I have issue with your proposal based on its risk profile to a small operator that has no experience with the proposed solution, no other use case that needs that solution. Today they fly C-130H aircraft down to McMurdo and accept a point of no return but they want to move away from that.

Interestingly enough I would go as far to suggest that if the RNZAF ordered the KC-390 they potentially wouldn’t acquire the AAR pods anyway, given the niche use case. Australia won’t care if NZ gets KC-390s with AAR capability or not, they already have their own fleet of tankers, and NZ has little interest in refuelling RAAF fighter jets just because they are neighbours.

Note I haven’t seen one proposal from everyone else here that the RNZAF acquire the C-130J and include a KC-130J variant. It would serve the same function as your proposal but they don’t need it and wouldn’t operate it to the capabilities required. For a small operator they have better things to spend their limited acquisition and operating budgets on.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Kawasaki P-2 and C-2 for New Zealand?

Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:29 am

Ozair wrote:
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.

I was looking for the maximum range available. Yes, there is no payload attached to that but it does make the numbers more comparable imho than just using random payload-range combinations. If a plane can't do it without cargo, it can't do it with cargo either. Thus, the point still stands that the KC-390 has no chance of having no point-of-no-return and I still have my doubts about the C-130J. It would have to be a non-standard model, otherwise all the other operators wouldn't be listing ferry ranges of far less than 8000 km. Maybe with some external fuel tanks.

Overall, I believe that only the C-2 can lift a meaningful payload to antarctica without a PONR. The A400M can probably carry some passengers but not much cargo. But if you're carrying passengers only, something like an A321LR / ACJ / BBJ would serve them much better (could also be used in a government role).

Edit: Forgot to comment on your original question. No, the decision pro P-8 doesn't change much for the new transport aircraft. If they had gotten the P-1, the C-2 would've been obvious. But now any choice is possible, just like before.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2635
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Kawasaki P-2 and C-2 for New Zealand?

Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:53 pm

mxaxai wrote:

Edit: Forgot to comment on your original question. No, the decision pro P-8 doesn't change much for the new transport aircraft. If they had gotten the P-1, the C-2 would've been obvious. But now any choice is possible, just like before.

Agree, it is certainly wide open. Found this commentary on the upcoming selection which talks about the C-2 being a non starter given its lack of austere capability, suggests the KC-390 as a gamble given it is still new and the A400M as perhaps too big for general requirements. He is obviously a fan of the C-130J and despite its age it is the incumbent and in wide use globally so has a known and well understood cost and capability.
As the Defence Capability Plan undergoes review our five Hercules heavy-lift aircraft desperately need replacement with at least that number. One foreign pilot at the 2017 RNZAF Air Tattoo hit the nail on the head; the best replacement for New Zealand's Hercules is the latest Hercules.
Yes, there is Brazil's KC-390 but we learned the hard way about being at the bleeding edge with the NH-90 helicopter. The Airbus A400M is capable and expensive but, instructively for us, the French and German air forces are both buying the latest C-130J Hercules to fill mission gaps. The only other credible alternative, Japan's Kawasaki C-2, can land only on paved runways so is a non-starter.
With the latest Hercules, there is a vast amount of certified equipment that can be slung out of it or carried on wing hardpoints. It can fight forest fires, deliver humanitarian relief and refuel other aircraft, including helicopters. It is even a strike platform.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politi ... -and-orion
 
ZKNCI
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:38 pm

Re: Kawasaki P-2 and C-2 for New Zealand?

Fri Jun 29, 2018 12:14 am

Ozair wrote:
Nean1 wrote:
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.

This has little to do with the specific use case we are discussing with NZ. NZ does not have a requirement to transport large heavy vehicles.....For those niche requirements, they have allies and contract cargo that can be called up to air transport goods.

That's what the Aussies are for :D

Ozair wrote:
Nean1 wrote:
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).

That aside, we aren’t talking about the US here, we are talking about the RNZAF who have never operated an AAR platform. The RNZAF has no fighter aircraft, no maritime patrol aircraft (and won’t with the P-8 given it is boom), no helicopters, no transports and no training aircraft that can refuel in the air.

Correct, US comparisons are irrelevant as NZ simply does not have that capability and would need to build it up for effectively only one op. It would be good for flexibility, but would the costs of maintaining the system and training be justified? Probably not.
As an aside, the RNZAF used to be able to do AAR, but that was mainly dry-taps for showing off! From the "good olde days" of the Squawks and plugged rolls...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AubU5FeUIs
Ozair wrote:
Agree, it is certainly wide open. Found this commentary on the upcoming selection which talks about the C-2 being a non starter given its lack of austere capability, suggests the KC-390 as a gamble given it is still new and the A400M as perhaps too big for general requirements. He is obviously a fan of the C-130J and despite its age it is the incumbent and in wide use globally so has a known and well understood cost and capability.

The J-Herc is undoubtedly going to be the safe option, as it's a known quantity and the old Hs have served NZ well. I could see the KC-390 as well, given it would make trips faster while being similar in size, and the systems would have local support even if the overall aircraft would be unique to the region. A400M is just going to be too big, heavy and expensive for most domestic and regional work. Same problem as the P-8: there's nothing smaller to cover the smaller/shorter and training jobs, so the bigger the replacement, the greater the cost for the majority of work. If NZ could get C27Js like the RAAF, for domestic exercises, shorter regional work and roll-on coastal SAR kit, then the A400M would probably work, but the odds of increasing the number of types in service is practically zero. If the C-2 can't handle rough strips, then it's not suitable for what NZ needs.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2635
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Kawasaki P-2 and C-2 for New Zealand?

Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:28 pm

ZKNCI wrote:
As an aside, the RNZAF used to be able to do AAR, but that was mainly dry-taps for showing off! From the "good olde days" of the Squawks and plugged rolls...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AubU5FeUIs

That is rather crazy!

ZKNCI wrote:
The J-Herc is undoubtedly going to be the safe option, as it's a known quantity and the old Hs have served NZ well. I could see the KC-390 as well, given it would make trips faster while being similar in size, and the systems would have local support even if the overall aircraft would be unique to the region. A400M is just going to be too big, heavy and expensive for most domestic and regional work. Same problem as the P-8: there's nothing smaller to cover the smaller/shorter and training jobs, so the bigger the replacement, the greater the cost for the majority of work. If NZ could get C27Js like the RAAF, for domestic exercises, shorter regional work and roll-on coastal SAR kit, then the A400M would probably work, but the odds of increasing the number of types in service is practically zero. If the C-2 can't handle rough strips, then it's not suitable for what NZ needs.

It will be very interesting to see what the tender says when it is finally released. I doubt we will get many details but there should be some broad discussion of the expected mission types and capability expected, at least in a bit more detail that what we have seen to date. It will also highlight for us if there is scope to offer multiple aircraft to fill a broad transport requirement or more likely a single aircraft type for all expected use cases.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5868
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

Re: Kawasaki P-2 and C-2 for New Zealand?

Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:28 pm

For those who haven't seen, this is now moot as New Zealand has selected the P-8. They specifically cited 5 Eyes/UKUSA as part of their criteria, which makes me wonder what happens with Canada.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newz ... SKBN1JZ07J
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: parapente and 9 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos