Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Military transport aircraft

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DeV View Post

    Indeed our PC12s, AW139s and PC9s are all P&W PT-6 powered (or be it 3 different versions)
    You'll find that the contract is written in such a way that no parts are swapped across engine types without first going cap in hand to the manufacturer for permission, for a cost. Probably all that's immediately able to be swapped across subtypes is oil filters and fuel filters and a few bolts and clamps here or there. Older PT-6s had more transferrable parts. As an example of costs, ringing Airbus to get a solution to a tech problem is EU 5000 before a single part is moved or a page turned.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post

      You'll find that the contract is written in such a way that no parts are swapped across engine types without first going cap in hand to the manufacturer for permission, for a cost. Probably all that's immediately able to be swapped across subtypes is oil filters and fuel filters and a few bolts and clamps here or there. Older PT-6s had more transferrable parts. As an example of costs, ringing Airbus to get a solution to a tech problem is EU 5000 before a single part is moved or a page turned.
      AIds tech type training though surely?

      Comment


      • Yes, of course and some compatibility is better than none at all but generally, airlines and air arms will keep them in separate streams in terms of spare parts, to the point of having physically separate parts shelves and manuals,even though they are nominally the same engine. Engineers and pilots will be trained on the different subtypes relevant to them and will be shown what can be swapped over. Those parts are listed as "alternatives" in the manuals and can usually be used without question.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DeV View Post

          In fairness currently:

          NZ operates 8 different types over 38 aircraft

          AC operates 7 different types (2 being different variants of common aircraft) over 28 aircraft




          commonality is the way to go wherever possible though
          How about this?

          3 PC-12 Spectre (ISTAR)
          2 PC-12 utility
          12 PC-21
          18 (+6) AW 101 TTH and SAR
          4 (+4) AW 101 ASW
          12+2 Gripen C/D leased
          1 (+1) A-321 XLR
          5 C-295 MPA with military wing
          7 C-390

          Don't think you can reduce it much further

          7 types, 5 manufacturers

          Comment


          • only 1 helicopter choice

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Graylion View Post

              How about this?

              3 PC-12 Spectre (ISTAR)
              2 PC-12 utility
              12 PC-21
              18 (+6) AW 101 TTH and SAR
              4 (+4) AW 101 ASW
              12+2 Gripen C/D leased
              1 (+1) A-321 XLR
              5 C-295 MPA with military wing
              7 C-390

              Don't think you can reduce it much further

              7 types, 5 manufacturers
              What do you want the PC21 (a private civvy jet for PC12 civvy customers who want something faster) to do? Why 12 of them? It has no military function.
              The ASW AW101 cannot operate alone. It can only operate as part of an ASW screen, the other element which you have omitted completely, a Maritime Patrol aircraft with ASW capability.
              For now, everything hangs on the CoDF report, still possibly 2 weeks from the Ministers desk.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post

                What do you want the PC21 (a private civvy jet for PC12 civvy customers who want something faster) to do? Why 12 of them? It has no military function.
                The ASW AW101 cannot operate alone. It can only operate as part of an ASW screen, the other element which you have omitted completely, a Maritime Patrol aircraft with ASW capability.
                You're thinking of the PC-24. PC-21 is the successor of the PC-9

                Comment


                • Originally posted by apc View Post
                  only 1 helicopter choice
                  people were complaining about too many types. Personally I'd add AW-159 for carrying around ATGMs and ARW.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Graylion View Post

                    You're thinking of the PC-24. PC-21 is the successor of the PC-9
                    I certainly am. Apologies.
                    Personally I don't see the need for our own LIFT aircraft. BFT/ab initio only, then send the pilots overseas to do proper fast jet training elsewhere, come back here ready to jump into the Gripen D.
                    Indeed, would probably make sense to farm that out to civvy land also. Plenty of flying training academy about. They either have it or they don't. We are too small to operate our own flying training school AND operate frontline aircraft. Basic & Advanced Flying training isn't a good use of aircraft hours in a small fleet..
                    For now, everything hangs on the CoDF report, still possibly 2 weeks from the Ministers desk.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post

                      I certainly am. Apologies.
                      Personally I don't see the need for our own LIFT aircraft. BFT/ab initio only, then send the pilots overseas to do proper fast jet training elsewhere, come back here ready to jump into the Gripen D.
                      Indeed, would probably make sense to farm that out to civvy land also. Plenty of flying training academy about. They either have it or they don't. We are too small to operate our own flying training school AND operate frontline aircraft. Basic & Advanced Flying training isn't a good use of aircraft hours in a small fleet..
                      So you'd have the flying school fly the Grob (certainly cheaper!) and then send them off to Sweden for fast jet training? I could see that, but would not like to privatise.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Graylion View Post

                        So you'd have the flying school fly the Grob (certainly cheaper!) and then send them off to Sweden for fast jet training? I could see that, but would not like to privatise.
                        Send them elsewhere for BFS. Broaden their horizons. Privatisation is the norm in many states for this.
                        For now, everything hangs on the CoDF report, still possibly 2 weeks from the Ministers desk.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post

                          Send them elsewhere for BFS. Broaden their horizons. Privatisation is the norm in many states for this.
                          especially if it is a country outside the Anglosphere

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post

                            Send them elsewhere for BFS. Broaden their horizons. Privatisation is the norm in many states for this.
                            Even the Japanese are going to out source their LIFT course to the Italians.

                            https://theaviationist.com/2021/10/30/japan-joins-ifts/

                            Of course there will be a need to also outsource MEPT as that is also not accounted for on Graylions list. The Basic course outsourced on the Grob makes sense. Plus outsourcing the rotary training as well. Basically all flight training would need to be outsourced - but that is quite efficient. All that would be required at home would be high end augmented reality flight simulators - because increasingly their verisimilitude is outstanding these days.

                            As for Graylions wishlist.

                            "18 (+6) AW 101 TTH and SAR
                            4 (+4) AW 101 ASW"

                            Does that mean 18 for Tactical Airlift and another 6 dedicated for SAR? Does that mean 8 ASW choppers in total? That is 32 helicopters which will require at least 64 crews (Thus 128 pilots plus 64 crewman plus literally hundreds of ground support and administrative personnel) and that is before we get on to QFI's and QWI's and trainees. That fleet of 32 would output around 14500 annual hours at a cost going on the NH90 TTH which has a similar CPFH of around Eur250 million per annum.

                            An ASW helicopter if it actually wants to find subs as opposed to pretending to find subs needs the sensor fit-out of a ASW frigate to assist it, which itself needs a towed array fitted and pretty much a high end ASW aircraft all linked up. It is a system that needs all components.

                            "1 (+1) A-321 XLR and 7 C-390"

                            Does that mean 9 aircraft in total for Air Mobility?

                            What is the role of the A321 and why that aircraft in particular? Just a single airframe as well? SOP is to have two and ideally three to generate a 365/7/24 response capability. And why the KC-390? It did not impress the RNZAF during the recent FAMC Tactical project.

                            Comment


                            • Beech proposed a flying training system in the T6 II that used four aircraft and a syllabus that basically paralleled the American system of training; civvy the whole way until you got to the combat aircraft. That was rejected by the AC. Point is, manufacturers and suppliers of training would love to have the AC follow suit and civilianise virtually all parts of the operation and Im quite sure certain people in the DoD and DF would happily do the same. The fine line is in deciding where the join is, the merging point of civvy and mil operations, as the military side always has to consider the need to go into combat or do things with the equipment that civvies can't or won't do. Consequently, leasing is a hard call to make, at times.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Anzac View Post

                                Even the Japanese are going to out source their LIFT course to the Italians.

                                https://theaviationist.com/2021/10/30/japan-joins-ifts/

                                Of course there will be a need to also outsource MEPT as that is also not accounted for on Graylions list. The Basic course outsourced on the Grob makes sense. Plus outsourcing the rotary training as well. Basically all flight training would need to be outsourced - but that is quite efficient. All that would be required at home would be high end augmented reality flight simulators - because increasingly their verisimilitude is outstanding these days.

                                As for Graylions wishlist.

                                "18 (+6) AW 101 TTH and SAR
                                4 (+4) AW 101 ASW"

                                Does that mean 18 for Tactical Airlift and another 6 dedicated for SAR? Does that mean 8 ASW choppers in total? That is 32 helicopters which will require at least 64 crews (Thus 128 pilots plus 64 crewman plus literally hundreds of ground support and administrative personnel) and that is before we get on to QFI's and QWI's and trainees. That fleet of 32 would output around 14500 annual hours at a cost going on the NH90 TTH which has a similar CPFH of around Eur250 million per annum.

                                An ASW helicopter if it actually wants to find subs as opposed to pretending to find subs needs the sensor fit-out of a ASW frigate to assist it, which itself needs a towed array fitted and pretty much a high end ASW aircraft all linked up. It is a system that needs all components.

                                "1 (+1) A-321 XLR and 7 C-390"

                                Does that mean 9 aircraft in total for Air Mobility?

                                What is the role of the A321 and why that aircraft in particular? Just a single airframe as well? SOP is to have two and ideally three to generate a 365/7/24 response capability. And why the KC-390? It did not impress the RNZAF during the recent FAMC Tactical project.
                                Well, brackets are options. And I am aware of what is needed for ASW, thankyou

                                And frankly the running cost of the NH90 for a much bigger bird is a bargain.

                                A321 XLR - costs the same as a regular A321 at ~145M€ and has the range to reach way down in Africa. A330-200 MRTT costs over 100M€ more a pop. And I'd agree on 2 birds, was probably trying to save money in the wrong way. The bird can move personnel quickly and can double as VIP transport.

                                C-390. What were NZ's reasons to discard it? My reasoning is that we are more likely to need the speed over range to get to distant destinations than the rough field capability.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X