|
Post by macnz on Dec 22, 2014 23:22:56 GMT 12
Dec 18, 2014 atea wrote: " We seem to want to play with the Military 'big boys' again so I guess there is an expectation on their part that we put some extra money into defense and are able to deploy forces readily and improved airfift capacity seems to me to be a necessary part of this" Agree. The latest data from the International Institute for Strategic Studies said the U.S. spent $US600 billion (3.7% of U.S. gross domestic product ) in 2013, China's $US112 billion (1.24% of China's GDP). Australia and Indonesia are increasing their military spending by more than most. Australia's boosted real spending by 6% for 2014 to 2015 (1.8% of GDP). Their commitment is to reach 2%. Indonesia raised their real spending by 10% for 2015 (0.8% of GDP). So I guess NZ spending just over a 1 billion on 2 C-17s would represent a 35% increase in real spending on our defense budget and allow us to claim to have skin in the arms game? There is an interesting graphic on 2013 defense spending to be found at: asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20141218-MORE-MONEY-MORE-GUNS/Cover-Story/Asias-military-budgets-surge-as-armies-go-high-tech
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Dec 23, 2014 5:51:20 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 23, 2014 9:16:42 GMT 12
Considering the array of roles that a large military transport can play for the nation that owns it, and the history of our nearly 50 year old Hercules fleet can certainly attest to it, I think there's very good reason for NZ to make this massive investment and to put aside a few other projects for a while in order to pay for them. I don't know exactly what should be put on hold but there must be a few big projects that can wait a couple more years. The transport fleet is not just purely about military operations but also has large elements consisting of the humanitarian side, relief and recovery, community projects, conservation and much more to it.
|
|
|
Post by suthg on Dec 23, 2014 10:19:19 GMT 12
I assume the C-17 can swallow an NH90 or two? But yes all those humanitarian support functions it can provide over a far greater distance than a C-130 is able to!
Perhaps the navy and Maritime projects may get put on hold?
|
|
|
Post by 11SQNLDR on Dec 23, 2014 10:25:26 GMT 12
I assume the C-17 can swallow an NH90 or two? But yes all those humanitarian support functions it can provide over a far greater distance than a C-130 is able to! Perhaps the navy and Maritime projects may get put on hold? I believe it can swallow two 'good to go' with just rotors off & four partially disassembled. It must be true... I read it on t'internet
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Dec 23, 2014 15:42:30 GMT 12
The RNZAF Hercs have delivered a distinguished service, advancing our airlift capability is well overdue.
3 Questions:
Qu1: For a $NZD1 billion is it better to invest in 2x C-17s or 4x A400Ms (€152.4m FY2013 >> $NZD240m)?
Qu2: Can NZ afford to shell out $1b FY2015-16? As Boeing is in the process of building its final white tails, presume any condition of sale to interested buyers will be expected to pay and get delivered in 2015 or 2016 ...least they pay storage costs to Boeing
Qu3: From a maintenance perspective is AU an MRO for C-17s? Only other non-european operator for A400M is Malaysia (4) I am not sure if they brokered themselves to be MRO in the region for the type?
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Dec 23, 2014 16:14:39 GMT 12
If it turns out we do buy the C-17 will the livery be black or white? ; )
|
|
|
Post by htbrst on Dec 23, 2014 17:12:56 GMT 12
Qu1: For a $NZD1 billion is it better to invest in 2x C-17s or 4x A400Ms (€152.4m FY2013 >> $NZD240m)? If you use similar figures for the C-17 you would get 3 C-17's for the $NZD1 billion (Wiki has US$218 million FY2007 which = $248 million FY2013 via an inflation calculator >> 320 million NZD) Even at two C-17's vs four A400's, i'd still go with the C-17 - more useful in our context and much lower risk. Qu2: Can NZ afford to shell out $1b FY2015-16? If we leased them (as per the United Kingdoms did on their first 4) we could avoid the direct up-front capital costs (just a thought Qu3: From a maintenance perspective is AU an MRO for C-17s? Only other non-european operator for A400M is Malaysia (4) I am not sure if they brokered themselves to be MRO in the region for the type? RAAF C-17's currently go to the US for MRO. Not sure if India is setup for MRO too which may be marginally closer/cheaper
|
|
|
Post by isc on Dec 23, 2014 22:04:30 GMT 12
Would it perhaps be better that we took some of the RAAF C-130J-30s and let the Ausies get extra C-17, it would help them cover the 5 yearly major maintainance scedual. When we had the Boy Entrant School reunion earlier in the year, I mentioned the possibility of replacement of the C-130Hs the engineer who guided use on a tour of the overhaul of 03, 04, and 05, and he shrugged his shoulders and said next thing we'll hear after the last one rolls out, " 5 C-130 H for sale" or words to that extent, probably with one careful owner, low hours since overhaul. Our Herc's have actually got more hours up than any others. isc
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 24, 2014 1:13:21 GMT 12
All this speculation... Brownlee only merely asked for the price. he's probably already said f*** that for a joke.
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Dec 24, 2014 6:25:45 GMT 12
All this speculation... Brownlee only merely asked for the price. he's probably already said f*** that for a joke. I've been wondering about this. He asked for a formal, enforceable quote. I don't know if this is to confirm earlier discussions/negotiations (like we 'invite' a foreign warship after talking about it first, or the UN 'asks for' forces that have been worked out in advance), or if the US Government insist on only doing things like this through the formal channels.
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on Dec 28, 2014 11:19:09 GMT 12
I hope everyone has had a relaxing Christmas....I am going to make a prediction that the Government will purchase at least 2 but more likely 3 C-17's with delivery made in 2015. I base this on the following- this Country as in its Government,Emergency Services,Defence Force ,Civil Defence have learnt a lot from the devastating Christchurch earth quake and the ability to respond with speed and capacity are essential elements to saving lives by getting much needed equipment and personal on the ground as fast as possible and this Country with all its volcanoes and been subject to been earth quake prone this makes having a responsive and capable air transport capability of extreme importance. From an internal disaster within New Zealand the current C-130 and 757 do the job fine as the helicopters can easily transport them selfs with speed to any given situation within this Country. However this is not the case should a natural disaster take place in our close back yard such as the Pacific Islands and Asia and you only have to look back to the Boxing Day Tausnami where a major reaction was required with atmost speed...if such an event happened right now how would we be able to react?..sure we could send medical aid by C-130 or we could transport via C-130 the Iroquois or the A109 but the A109 is a light utility helicopter..great for training and internal search and rescue but a major disaster is out of its real purpose especially overseas. The NH-90 is our main helicopter for such an event and getting it overseas with speed and in a disaster speed is vital and saves lives is highly important and thus brings the C-17 into its own...some may argue you transport them on the Canterbury but this is not a fast reaction and subject to sea worthiness and sea conditions at the time. Some may argue we could rely on Australia for C-17 transport at the time but again they would be assisting with their own response and taskings. Over the past decade New Zealand's Defence Force has been modelled around humanitarian and peace keeping roles and the ability to transport equipment with speed anywhere in the World makes the need for a capable airlift capacity capable of delivering current and future needs so important. When the opposition Defence spokesperson Phil Goff says looking into the pricing of buying the C-17 is a good move it makes you start taking this more serious because Phil Goff was the Minister of Defence who signed the sale and purchase for the NH-90's back in 2006 and would have been fully aware of the pros and cons for the NH-90 at the time and one of the cons would have been how they are transported overseas in a disaster emergency when speed is required and with the NH-90's now part of NO3 Squadron and almost capable of all taskings been able to fully utilise them overseas becomes paramount and thus the most likely reason the Government is asking for pricing on the C-17's. Very interesting times but I see the pros outweighing the cons surrounding the C-17 and when the opposition spokesperson on Defence States the Governments decision to seek pricing is a good move that to me speaks volumes on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Dec 28, 2014 11:54:15 GMT 12
Sorry Raptor ,i think you put far too much faith in the abilities of our politicians to make a reasoned and logical decision.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Dec 28, 2014 12:19:06 GMT 12
Someone needs to ask whether the C17 is allowed to carry the NH90.
A little bird tells me NHI wont certify the transport of the NH90 in a C17.
Might be entirely mistaken of course, I stand to be corrected.
|
|
jaybee
Squadron Leader
Posts: 122
|
Post by jaybee on Dec 28, 2014 12:27:45 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by htbrst on Dec 28, 2014 13:40:00 GMT 12
Someone needs to ask whether the C17 is allowed to carry the NH90. A little bird tells me NHI wont certify the transport of the NH90 in a C17. Might be entirely mistaken of course, I stand to be corrected. Italian NH-90's were transported from Italy to Afganistan via C-17 in 2012: What role would NHI have in certifying transport?
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on Dec 28, 2014 14:30:53 GMT 12
I think you will find the Government is stuck between a rock and a hard place on this and the C-17 is really the only option they have. The A-400M is a great aircraft but unproven at the moment and will mainly been seen in Europe and the risks involved are most likely too high. I am unsure on a stretched version of the C-130J on if an NH-90 would fit in. I cannot see the Government doing nothing here as it would beg the question was the NH-90 the right choice back in 2006 and I cannot see them going down that track. Sure it's a huge capital investment but so to was the purchase of 5x new C-130H Hercules back in 1965 and that investment has been paid back several times over.
|
|
|
Post by Mustang51 on Dec 28, 2014 15:06:14 GMT 12
From this side of the Ditch, and please excuse me knowing nothing about NZ politics (I barely show an interest in it here), but I think IF a purchase was to take place that the C.17 would be the go. It is proven and has a worldwide track record.... When I think about the A400M and its yet to be proven capabilities I shudder and recall the wonderful attack helo purchase for Oz.... I believe that they are now in service with a final ops clearance - and how many years ago did we buy them? Why oh why did we not get the AH.64 off the shelf or even the Pommie version? At least they are compatible with our allies. MRH.90 same......... plastic floors with grunts and all their clobber.... Go for something proven I say !
|
|
|
Post by phil on Dec 28, 2014 15:18:29 GMT 12
What role would NHI have in certifying transport? Because ours are undergoing OT&E, covered by warranty and must be used within a fairly strict set of operating restrictions, which if what I have heard is accurate, doesn't include transport in a C17. It does however include transport in an A400M. I had heard that NHI wouldn't permit the transport of the NH90 in the C17, however the same person also said the Aussies couldn't transport theirs by C17 for the same reason, which appears to be incorrect, so the whole statement is called into question.
|
|
|
Post by htbrst on Dec 28, 2014 17:13:41 GMT 12
What role would NHI have in certifying transport? Because ours are undergoing OT&E, covered by warranty and must be used within a fairly strict set of operating restrictions, which if what I have heard is accurate, doesn't include transport in a C17. It does however include transport in an A400M. I had heard that NHI wouldn't permit the transport of the NH90 in the C17, however the same person also said the Aussies couldn't transport theirs by C17 for the same reason, which appears to be incorrect, so the whole statement is called into question. Thanks Phil that does make sense - a bit rough to only certify it for A400 given the low numbers actually produced by that stage . I haven't seen any evidence that the RAAF routinely moves NH-90's via C-17 so it may have been a one-off and the warranty issues may apply to them too. Maybe we just need to buy a couple of the new production AN-124's - NHI must be OK with them given that's what they arrived in
|
|