|
Post by Calum on Oct 16, 2018 13:28:56 GMT 12
I hope you're right about c130j but I just can't see us operating an orphan aircraft as the A400 in our region,I as everyone else on this forum are truly mystified as which way this will eventually pan out. sssh the moderator coming ,thou shall not speak of transport replacements on this thread. Why do you say it's an orphan in our region? Malaysia operate it. And anyway what difference would that make? The other side of the world is only 20 hrs away. And fancy discussing such an important RNZAF replacement program in a NZ aviation discussion board
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Oct 16, 2018 14:55:30 GMT 12
I hope you're right about c130j but I just can't see us operating an orphan aircraft as the A400 in our region,I as everyone else on this forum are truly mystified as which way this will eventually pan out. sssh the moderator coming ,thou shall not speak of transport replacements on this thread. Why do you say it's an orphan in our region? Malaysia operate it. And anyway what difference would that make? The other side of the world is only 20 hrs away. And fancy discussing such an important RNZAF replacement program in a NZ aviation discussion board Plus our northern neighbors are talking about getting them. But realistically how often will you transport the NH-90 or LAV by air A400M used strictly as a strategic lifter is a no brainer too me, the RAF are showing it can do those roles no problem, pick up 1-1 on C130J as it’s a known quantity. I honestly don’t think a C295/27J would fit into the lift or at of RNZAF tactical loads strategic distance. But in saying that a few CH-47F won’t go astray for HADR work in the home islands as well over the greater Realm of New Zealand, but that’s for another future program.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Oct 16, 2018 20:10:36 GMT 12
A400 for rnzaf highly unlikely,C130j only real choice,bring on the naysayers. Mate, I’ll give you 5-1 for 2 A400’ and a 5-8 J Models to enter RNZAF service? Also I wouldn’t be surprised if they bolt on an additional A400 or a couple more down the track once they see what the A400 can do in a Strategic Airlift role. As you can’t fit a NH-90 in a C130 and you should see when they try and squeeze a Blackhawk into one. 5 - 8 J model herks. If ya can't make a decent comment, don't bother making one
|
|
|
Post by fiftythree on Oct 28, 2018 17:43:10 GMT 12
We still can't write off C-17 as an option, nor should we (by we I mean the government). As for A400, if it has a PSR for Antarctic flights, it's no good for New Zealand.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Oct 29, 2018 3:07:22 GMT 12
We still can't write off C-17 as an option, nor should we (by we I mean the government). As for A400, if it has a PSR for Antarctic flights, it's no good for New Zealand. Well there is a small possabilty that the US might restart production of C17, but my money is on rebuilding the early aircraft that were put out to pasture, don't know how many were parked up but the article is suggesting that the USAF needs another 74 at the expence of C130.
But the problem I see is that NZ needs to replace C130 sooner rather than later and any USAF seconds might not be forthcoming.
www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/airlift-tanker-annual/2018/10/26/could-the-air-force-restart-the-c-17-production-line/
|
|
|
Post by foxcover on Oct 29, 2018 10:39:46 GMT 12
What does NZ need a C17 for?
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Oct 29, 2018 11:31:26 GMT 12
What does NZ need a C17 for? We don't need one, we need 3 or 4! The C-17 (even second hand) is still a far more suitable option for the RNZAF than A400s in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by tbf25o4 on Oct 29, 2018 11:44:54 GMT 12
At the end of the day, it will depend on the deal. If we can procure US originated aircraft through FMS options then it will be the obvious choice monetary wise
|
|
|
Post by foxcover on Oct 29, 2018 11:46:08 GMT 12
What does NZ need a C17 for? We don't need one, we need 3 or 4! The C-17 (even second hand) is still a far more suitable option for the RNZAF than A400s in my opinion. What do you need 3-4 for? What will you carry and to where, and how often?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 29, 2018 12:02:32 GMT 12
Foxcover, go do some reading up on No. 40 (Transport) Squadron and what they do. Either that or give it a rest.
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Oct 29, 2018 15:18:39 GMT 12
At the end of the day, it will depend on the deal. If we can procure US originated aircraft through FMS options then it will be the obvious choice monetary wise Yes FMS offers initial financial benefit but must be weighed against the through life costs for management and configuration.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Oct 29, 2018 16:35:36 GMT 12
We would seriously struggle to utilise more than 2 C-17, I guess the other couple could be used for affordable housing in Auckland. We'd be better of with the Shin meiwa flying boat, at least it'll be easier to convert to electric (remember no 'affordable' oil) and well placed for the alleged sea rise inundations...
|
|
|
Post by fiftythree on Oct 29, 2018 16:39:41 GMT 12
I won't quote everyone, but New Zealand needs two C-17's for the following reasons:
This is the ideal aircraft for Antarctic flights. The aircraft can offer a respectable ACL to the continent and still carry the fuel to hold at the approach point for an hour should the weather close in. Then still return to New Zealand safely if there's no chance of landing. It's proven in this environment and can also operate down there in the months of total darkness on NVG. Current NZDF documentation states that Antarctica is a top priority.
During HADR operations a C-17 can deploy it's own power cart, a forklift, Air Movements, Security and initial assessment personnel, their essential equipment and more aid supplies than a C-130 - with one aircraft. The next one can deploy and NH90 and the personnel and equipment required to assemble and operate the chopper. After that you've got capability to move over 100,000 lbs of aid supplies into a staging air field capable of handling a C-17 while your C-130's follow up to distribute aid into remote, austere and damaged airfields. I've seen this in action by the RAAF and it's more efficient than marathon inter-theatre back and forward efforts by smaller aircraft.
Deploying P-8 is alleged to be over two C-130's worth of equipment.
Deploying 3 SQN rapidly currently isn't possible.
There's other reasons why this strategic air lifter with proven tactical capabilities would work well for us. The concept of operations would have to change but the increase in capability would be massively beneficial and we'd use it more than the nay sayers have any idea.
|
|
|
Post by fiftythree on Oct 29, 2018 16:47:27 GMT 12
On availability of C-17's -
I don't think India paid for the last white tail so that last aircraft may still be available.
The USAF closed two West Coast C-17 SQNs in 2016 and the aircaft went into a maintenance pool so that when the USAF puts aircraft into deep level maintenance, they get a replacement promptly. So they may be willing to sell the odd one.
Currently the USAF has retired one of their originals and it's in a museum. Other than the maintenance pool from the closed SQNs, there aren't any in the USAF inventory to regenerate.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Oct 29, 2018 17:15:10 GMT 12
All these new scenarios are great, but the reality is we would have the same troubles with C-17(with a military price tag)as we currently do with the 757. We could not utilise the aircraft enough, we would struggle to maintain them due to low usage (ie.employing pers to scrape off the moss they will gather!) and without a total rethink for NZDF activities and massive injection of funding over sustained period we would be unable to man them. And we would still need a C-130-type lifter.
|
|
|
Post by kiwiruna on Oct 29, 2018 17:35:02 GMT 12
I came across an article in Defense News about the USAF wants to increase the number of transport squadrons and there has been a couple of studies done one of ideas being banded about is restarting the C-17 Production line. It's more of I think someone thinking out loud.But never say never. Plus I vote for C-130J as I've got a half built 1/72nd kit of one which I'd like to something other than a what if.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Oct 29, 2018 18:13:42 GMT 12
We are not going to see a C-17 restart, the US can't sustain its current military spend and the second act of the GFC will hit well before they could get the line up and running anyway. The requirement for more C-17's only exists while they are unwilling to terminate their involvement in the middle east & those wars are completely optional now the US is self sufficient in Oil.
The focus of the last white paper on Antarctic had more to do with finding a focus that didn't involve the PRC, can't call them a threat if they keep paying off the national & labour parties. Airlift to antarctic is better contracted out to civilian operators than the current solution.
|
|
|
Post by foxcover on Oct 29, 2018 19:44:51 GMT 12
The money would be better spent on a small to medium tactical airlifter like a C235/C295, that’s all I’m saying. The 1/3/5 mix I call it. 1 A330 MRTT in a pool with the RAAF 3 A400M 5 C235/C295 with FLIR
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Oct 29, 2018 20:24:00 GMT 12
Dave, Dave, where are you Dave! Get the padlock & chains ready!
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Oct 29, 2018 21:18:17 GMT 12
Time to back off and let the process go through the tender/ supply channels.
|
|