|
Post by atea on Jul 5, 2018 20:06:49 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by isc on Jul 5, 2018 20:51:27 GMT 12
I would tend to think the servicing time blow out is at least partially due to reduced number of ground crew. isc
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jul 5, 2018 21:27:49 GMT 12
Be no announcement on specific replacement types but just what their future plans are. Just wonder if they will give an approx date on when c130 replacement will be announced. P3K2 replacement announced on Monday to which we all know what that will be.
|
|
|
Post by machina on Jul 10, 2018 18:01:28 GMT 12
Hi fellas, have been lurking on this forum for the past year and have been spurred on to finally sign up by the P-8 announcement.
There's been some talk in this thread about the Herc replacement being comprised of two types, and with Ron Marks' announcement of future complimentary capability to the P-8s, I wonder if that increases the chances of an A400/C295 deal, with the C295s taking up some close range MPA work? Also, what does everyone think about the 757s being replaced by something like the KC-46 which as a tanker also gives our 4 P-8s additional range and therefore potentially makes up for a decrease in airframes from the P-3?
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jul 10, 2018 18:04:47 GMT 12
Sure, but Dave will have to start up a Tanker thread then....!
|
|
|
Post by machina on Jul 10, 2018 18:09:34 GMT 12
Sure, but Dave will have to start up a Tanker thread then....! Well, we need something to dream about until the next announcement
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jul 10, 2018 18:15:39 GMT 12
...not sure that Dave would agree...
|
|
|
Post by alanster on Jul 10, 2018 21:14:37 GMT 12
Listening to Ron Mark's comments in various interviews, justifying the P-8, a big factor was interoperability with RAAF/USAF and other allies and a "track record" that he could look upon from other allied airforces. Therefore, I would take it from those comments that the KC390 has next to no chance of replacing the Hercules. Advantage C130J or A400M/C295s or C27 Spartans.
|
|
madmark
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 78
|
Post by madmark on Jul 10, 2018 22:04:03 GMT 12
The complimentary capability will almost definitely be additional King Airs.
|
|
|
Post by isc on Jul 11, 2018 0:12:37 GMT 12
I think I heard mention that the C-130 replacement was supposed to come up in Parliament in November, but Ron Mark was saying that he wanted to bring it foreward if he could. isc
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 13, 2018 10:03:55 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jul 13, 2018 17:23:54 GMT 12
There has been an interesting series of articles in The Seattle Times about the Boeing-Embraer deal and the various airframes involved. Unfortunately, The Seattle Times is one of the most restrictive American newspapers in terms of the number of free articles you can read each month before a paywall goes up. However, I took out a subscription about three months ago after the brilliant political cartoonist David Horsey left the Los Angeles Times and moved to The Seattle Times after he took exception to having one of his columns (with an accompanying cartoon) heavily censored by the Los Angeles Times editorial board following complaints by some thin-skinned readers. I managed to talk a really dirt-cheap subscription rate out of them after I phoned them to see if I could cut a deal. Often, American newspapers are open to that sort of haggling if you live on the opposite side of the world. And since subscribing, I have discovered The Seattle Times to be an excellent newspaper in terms of the aviation-related news stories they publish. They have journalists who actually specialise in reporting on aviation stories and they seem to have more than a few clues too. Very different from some of the boofheads who write aviation-related stories for NZ media.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyfalcon on Jul 13, 2018 20:08:01 GMT 12
"Some"?
|
|
|
Post by machina on Jul 14, 2018 7:50:54 GMT 12
The complimentary capability will almost definitely be additional King Airs. I think that announcement of complimentary capability opens up some political space for acquiring (and the politicians and public accepting) C-295s. Could open that space up more by reminding people of the Andovers we used to have. Mixed transport and some surveillance might mean a return of No. 1 squadron!
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Jul 14, 2018 12:15:03 GMT 12
The complimentary capability will almost definitely be additional King Airs. I think that announcement of complimentary capability opens up some political space for acquiring (and the politicians and public accepting) C-295s. Could open that space up more by reminding people of the Andovers we used to have. Mixed transport and some surveillance might mean a return of No. 1 squadron! Precisely what I had quietly been thinking myself. I woudn't have a problem with this if say 5 airframes were purchased for a dual role of that nature. Conversely it would however most likely kibosh any argument for increasing the size of C130 replacement fleet (assuming it's a similar sized type that goes to 40 Sqn)... so a double edged sword in ways.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 14, 2018 13:20:38 GMT 12
I think when No. 5 Squadron moves to Ohakea and relinquishes its Whenuapai hangar, the RNZAF should move No. 42 Squadron back to Whenuapai, and expand the fleet with four or five C-295's or whatever mid-size military transport, alongside the Super King Airs. That would mean utility transport role, multi engine training for pilots, training for the other aircrew trades and also maritime patrol/SAR within the training role all by the one squadron. Plus it means Whenuapai remains an important hub for the RNZAF with these aircraft alongside the No. 40 Squadron transports and No. 6 Squadron helicopters. This would also free up air space around Ohakea.
|
|
|
Post by machina on Jul 14, 2018 13:25:10 GMT 12
I think that announcement of complimentary capability opens up some political space for acquiring (and the politicians and public accepting) C-295s. Could open that space up more by reminding people of the Andovers we used to have. Mixed transport and some surveillance might mean a return of No. 1 squadron! Precisely what I had quietly been thinking myself. I woudn't have a problem with this if say 5 airframes were purchased for a dual role of that nature. Conversely it would however most likely kibosh any argument for increasing the size of C130 replacement fleet (assuming it's a similar sized type that goes to 40 Sqn)... so a double edged sword in ways. That's definitely a risk, however the C-295s would surely be offered as part of a package with A-400s, so if we get to the point of talking about C-295s then hopefully the A-400s are already a given. An increase in size from the C-130 to the A-400 also represents growth for the future and I don't know why we should think/assume that the current capability is fixed forever. Mildly hopeful I know, however it's not unrealistic and it's really just an idea that needs to be sold to the right people. I believe the potential (palletised?) multirole capability of the C-295s (and the KC-46) makes it easier to sell to the politicians and public as value for money.
|
|
|
Post by machina on Jul 14, 2018 13:28:51 GMT 12
I think when No. 5 Squadron moves to Ohakea and relinquishes its Whenuapai hangar, the RNZAF should move No. 42 Squadron back to Whenuapai, and expand the fleet with four or five C-295's or whatever mid-size military transport, alongside the Super King Airs. That would mean utility transport role, multi engine training for pilots, training for the other aircrew trades and also maritime patrol/SAR within the training role all by the one squadron. Plus it means Whenuapai remains an important hub for the RNZAF with these aircraft alongside the No. 40 Squadron transports and No. 6 Squadron helicopters. This would also free up air space around Ohakea. Hi Dave, I agree about getting the likes of No. 42 to Whenuapai, however is there a particular reason you'd put the C-295s into that squadron rather than re-raising/creating a new one for them? Seems a bit messy having all of those roles crammed into a single squadron.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 14, 2018 13:46:15 GMT 12
Mainly because it prevents the doubling up on roles by having two small independent squadrons. One decent sized squadron only requires one C.O., one Adjutant, one SEngO, etc. And we're still only talking about 10 aircraft total so it would be a regular sized unit. Plus things like hangar space etc.
No. 42 Squadron has worked with a multitude of types on strength at the same time before, just as does No's 3 and 40 Squadrons now. You'd have a Super King Air Flight and a Medium Transport Flight within the squadron but certain trades on the unit would work on both types (Safety and Surface, etc). If you had two small separate units you double their numbers too.
|
|
madmark
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 78
|
Post by madmark on Jul 14, 2018 14:28:08 GMT 12
Whilst I like the idea of a larger frame, I doubt the RNZAF will have the funds to go for something like the maritime variant of the C-235/295 or someting similar, remembering that complimentary capability is to bolster the RNZAF's ISR fleet, not the transport fleet. The RNZAF already operate the King Air, its cheap, reliable, proven and can be fitted with a capable sensor suite.
|
|