|
Post by typerated on Jul 14, 2018 15:09:29 GMT 12
Seems to be a lot of 2+2 = 597 on these 'wish threads'
Tankers, extra transport and maritime patrol types, F-35s and F-16's. Why stop there?
Strategic bombers, Awacs perhaps - How about carrier aviation?
In the real world we will get a replacement for the C-130s - hopefully NOT split between a larger transport type and a medium!!! The fixed cost of each new type makes it much more attractive to buy more of the larger platform.
Purchases are not made to use spare hangar space either!
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Jul 14, 2018 15:10:21 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. Quite possible regarding budgets, however I'm certain at some stage last year (before becoming DefMin) Ron Mark stated we needed something smaller than the Herc for smaller jobs... if that was complimentary to the Hercules then all well & good. It does suggest Mark might look to something in that space, hence the suggestion of such a concept. I hadn't specifically suggested the C295.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jul 14, 2018 21:10:21 GMT 12
I dare say the FAMC and FASC have been talking to each other throughout the past year or 2 so some thought has been discussed on what choices they might have and what the tenderers have offered. No doubt Airbus have been up with the play and also know that the contract with the new KA350's ends in 2025. Would they be offering the A400 but also look at offering the C235 for that contract after 2025, or would that be too big for new pilots on twin engine conversion.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Jul 14, 2018 23:11:10 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. Sorry do not agree with C295, all it will achieve is a reduction in capbilty to the RNZAF overall, NZG will not give RNZAF extra funds for a split buy of A400M/C295, all that will be achieved will be 2x A400M in the strategic role then rely on C295 for all other tasking, A400M will be overworked reducing aircraft time availability when the go in for deep maintenance leaving a capability gap, C295 cannot do the strategic loads tactical distance.
I for one think A400M ticks all the right boxes for RNZAF, but am sceptical that Airbus will deliver as advertised, Airbus do not have a good track record in the living up to the shiny brochure, if I was the Defence Minister I would be going to the US to see if there were any chance of getting 2x used C17's along with an expected order of 6x C-130J 3 KC-130J (plus harvest hawk) and possably 2 extra P8 if not hello Japan
|
|
awol
Flight Sergeant
Posts: 21
|
Post by awol on Jul 14, 2018 23:20:13 GMT 12
The CDF has clearly flagged Whenuapai will close. Therefore no flying squadron will be moving to Whenuapai. We know 5 Sqn moves out of Whenuapai and into Ohakea on or around 2022. We also know there is insufficient capacity at Ohakea to host every flying squadron in the RNZAF, let alone the strategic issues of relying on one runway intersection for the NZDF's air arm to function. So, one or more squadrons will need to find another home, which is not Whenuapai, before 2023. The guessing game is, which squadron(s), and which airfield...
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Jul 15, 2018 1:11:07 GMT 12
The CDF has clearly flagged Whenuapai will close. Therefore no flying squadron will be moving to Whenuapai. We know 5 Sqn moves out of Whenuapai and into Ohakea on or around 2022. We also know there is insufficient capacity at Ohakea to host every flying squadron in the RNZAF, let alone the strategic issues of relying on one runway intersection for the NZDF's air arm to function. So, one or more squadrons will need to find another home, which is not Whenuapai, before 2023. The guessing game is, which squadron(s), and which airfield... There's absolutely no need for any existing Sqns to move by 2023. Check out the link below - it contains the line ' New Defence Force chief Kevin Short said it would be "decades" before Whenuapai becomes redundant'. www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/north-harbour-news/105356821/air-force-squadron-to-move-from-whenuapai-to-ohakea I don't doubt eventually it will be squeezed out by a Govt wanting to be seen to do something about Akl's housing shortage but for now there is no reason anything has to leave Ohakea by 2023 to allow 5 Sqn to arrive. I expect the most likely plan is the old 75 Sqn hangar (no. 3?) is almost certain to be demolished & a new one built in it's place with Simulator etc attached. I tend to think 42 Sqn should stay at Ohakea to allow continuity / stability for trainee pilots - as much in terms of their living arrangements as much as anything else. The talked about 'P8 complimentary capability' may just become part of 5 Sqn - or perhaps it presents an opportunity to operate from Whenuapai, but it's way too early to speculate on the future RNZAF fleet size & distribution at this stage.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jul 15, 2018 9:21:54 GMT 12
Never too early to speculate Gibbo, thats what this forum is all about..
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 15, 2018 9:36:50 GMT 12
No it's not! This forum is all about facts, historical and current facts. The forum is DEFINITELY NOT about these airy fairy pie-in-the-sky what-if fantasy threads full of speculation and mass-debate.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jul 15, 2018 9:40:30 GMT 12
I think that was your intention,though the comments tend to go the way of 'what-if'. How about a 'What-if' thread, for people to play without corrupting the main threads?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 15, 2018 9:56:22 GMT 12
Saratoga, that is what this thread is already, a contained thread for utter pointless blather. And the equally frustrating maritime replacement thread. Don't let it spill out into the rest of the forum!
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jul 15, 2018 10:07:28 GMT 12
I thought if you had a 'What if' thread , you could corral(kick,whip)all the speculating into one spot,clearing the way for the main threads to be pure.Instead of having to lock them.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyfalcon on Jul 15, 2018 11:50:04 GMT 12
Agreed. I don't see the problem in expressing opinion and viewpoint alongside facts. Isn't that what conversation and interaction is about? If I find some stuff tedious or uninteresting I stop reading it and move on. Simple really. It's called choice.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 15, 2018 12:45:57 GMT 12
I pretty much stopped reading these two threads long ago, which is why I don't want to have to continuously check back here to "sort the chaff from the wheat" and move the bullshit into bullshit corner. The endless speculation and data lists and dreaming ("opinion and viewpoint") is quite frankly tedious. It was ok when this thread began seven years ago, but as it is a circular mass-debate that goes round and round and never has any conclusion or even progress in the discussion, and never will till the Government makes a decision later this year, I see no point in why people keep posting the same thoughts over and over and over. However, I have not deleted or moved any of it. I don't think I have disrespected anyone's right to share their opinions.
Out of duty as the Admin here, I check in every now and then to make sure you lot are not all killing each other in these threads, and I may throw in an odd comment, which is usually instantly lost on people anyway if it does not meet their own personal agenda. So I have zero interest in creating another play area for people, you have pretty much free reign here and on that Orion replacement thread as it is (and always have done other than a few blissful weeks when I shut the threads down temporarily - you'll all note that at the moment they are both open again), and if people do not like that, they can go to twitter or Facebook and start their own posts there.
Also I am sure the other moderators all have much better things to do too than wade through these threads constantly sorting out what should and shouldn't be here too.
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Jul 15, 2018 13:00:53 GMT 12
No it's not! This forum is all about facts, historical and current facts. The forum is DEFINITELY NOT about these airy fairy pie-in-the-sky what-if fantasy threads full of speculation and mass-debate. Heck even an official NZDF business case ' recommends an indicative or preferred way forward for further development of the investment proposal, by considering the feasibility of full range options – supported by a limited number of short-listed options for further analysis' See treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2015-04/bbc-indbus-gd.pdfIf we don't allow all the great ideas here where is NZDF going to get them from
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 15, 2018 13:02:15 GMT 12
No-one is not allowing anything. I am just not allowing it to be split off into another thread!!
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jul 16, 2018 14:44:12 GMT 12
Noting the amount of views and replies on both these threads, which are very high compared to all others, clearly many people find them interesting. For me they are, at times the most interesting of threads on the board.
|
|
|
Post by ZKaviation on May 28, 2019 20:21:56 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on May 28, 2019 21:01:04 GMT 12
Says the opposition defence spokesperson. But reasonable assuming budget restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by fishing2day on May 29, 2019 12:01:42 GMT 12
The KC-390 is half the price of the A400M which anyway comes from a European defense industry that is in a crisis where it seems projects are always massively delayed, have huge cost blowouts and often fail to deliver the base line performance promised. It seems the RNZAF are determined to get the smallest airlifter compatible with deploying a LAV - I note on Wikipedia (yes, I know) that the KC-390 entry specifically mentions the Boxer 8 wheeled APC which Australia has decided to buy, hence a new airlifter with a 40-50 year lifespan will be able to carry both the LAV and it's most likely replacement. The KC-390 gives a significant performance edge over the C-130J and as far as the politics go - Boeing is the partner for Embraer, and they have been out of the airlifter game for a while. Given the replacements required for C-130s I'll guess they'll be quite keen to give Lockheed-Martin a nose tweak and get a slice of that market, so maybe that will cause Embraer to sharpen the pencil for a "western" air force's order.
|
|
|
Post by machina on May 29, 2019 13:42:05 GMT 12
The KC-390 is half the price of the A400M which anyway comes from a European defense industry that is in a crisis where it seems projects are always massively delayed, have huge cost blowouts and often fail to deliver the base line performance promised. Well, it is half the aircraft... And for all those problems, the A-400 is also operational in multiple airforces and has been for a number of years now. Has the first KC-390 been delivered yet? Wiki (I know) says the first were due to be delivered last year. It could turn out to be an amazing piece of kit but can NZ afford that risk?
|
|