|
Post by isc on Oct 29, 2018 23:19:00 GMT 12
You'v got three choices: What would be very nice to have, what we need, and what we can afford. It will most likely come down to the latter-- rebuild what we'v got and carry on for another twenty years. isc
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Oct 30, 2018 4:53:59 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 What makes you think that the RAAF would be willing to enter such an arrangement?
I cant see any long term benefits to RAAF and AusGov but crikey what a benefit to NZ,we have budgeted for downtime within our fleet hence the expansion of both C17/MRTT fleets, with NZ contributing one airframe has not taken the maintenance into account. you want an aircraft capability but not willing to build in the fat when it comes to heavy maintenance.
Only way something like a pool of aircraft to work you have to buy 3 to cover all aspects of running a fleet, sure in surge onditions then a pool of aircraft will work.
www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20697/germany-france-move-ahead-with-joint-c-130j-unit-amid-budget-woes-and-a400m-delays
|
|
|
Post by joey05 on Oct 30, 2018 7:00:17 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. The difference is that the 757 was designed as a high use commercial airliners with minimal time on the ground. The C17 was designed for the military so can sit for a while just waiting for some action. I really don't think they would have the same issues, at least not to anywhere near the same extent due to the design of the airframe and systems. Ill volunteer to wash them (and any other aircraft really)!
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Oct 30, 2018 17:13:35 GMT 12
the issues related to the 757 is more about low usage of a mid life airframe, its simply BS about commercial verse military designs. A C17 with a similar level of previous use would be just as unreliable.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Nov 22, 2018 11:33:47 GMT 12
You may be in the home stretch in regards to C130H replacement, see if those on the inside are correct!! pointofordernz.wordpress.com/2018/11/20/jacindas-confrontation-with-hard-nose-regional-politics/#more-929“Fortunately for the newbie Ardern, Foreign Minister Winston Peters hit his straps. He had constructive discussions with Pence and several senior US officials including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Singapore as he patiently rebuilds the US/NZ relationship, which has been underscored by the recent order for four P-8 maritime patrolling Poseidons while an order for five new C-103J Hercules is expected by the end of the year.”
|
|
Naki.
Flying Officer
Posts: 65
|
Post by Naki. on Nov 22, 2018 12:20:48 GMT 12
My bet is that they end up buying both. A400 for strategic lift. C-130J for tactical
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Nov 22, 2018 19:01:09 GMT 12
My bet is that they end up buying both. A400 for strategic lift. C-130J for tactical I would like to see something like that or the Kawasaki C-2 ... of something that can carry the NH-90 for quick deployment, instead of Canterbury or self-deployment. But I can't see it happening in reality...
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Nov 22, 2018 19:36:02 GMT 12
My bet is the politicians buy something without using the technical advice so readily available on this forum. And the experts will still find something to complain about.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Nov 22, 2018 19:52:34 GMT 12
My bet is the politicians buy something without using the technical advice so readily available on this forum. And the experts will still find something to complain about. Damn, wrong forum,I thought this was the Working groups Of New Zealand forum...
|
|
|
Post by isc on Nov 22, 2018 22:36:15 GMT 12
Roll on the C-130J and ditch the LAVs for something of more suitable size, same with the helicopters. We don't have an Air Force that could maintain anything bigger, or maybe just anything. The Herc might be a bit slower, smaller, but we know it. isc
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Nov 22, 2018 23:53:34 GMT 12
Roll on the C-130J and ditch the LAVs for something of more suitable size, same with the helicopters. We don't have an Air Force that could maintain anything bigger, or maybe just anything. The Herc might be a bit slower, smaller, but we know it. isc I admire your logic - buy a transport aircraft to deploy stuff but then have to buy smaller stuff because the aircraft you have chosen is too small for the stuff we already have. Problem is the stuff we can no longer carry have roles of their own which sets their size not the size of a future stuff carrier.
|
|
|
Post by kiwirob on Nov 23, 2018 1:15:47 GMT 12
Roll on the C-130J and ditch the LAVs for something of more suitable size, same with the helicopters. We don't have an Air Force that could maintain anything bigger, or maybe just anything. The Herc might be a bit slower, smaller, but we know it. isc Would be a worthy point if armoured vehicles were getting smaller, lighter and less well protected, but alas we want our troops safe so whatever replaces the NZLAV or if we upgrade them to LAV 6.0 standard they will be bigger, heavier, better protected and less likely to fit an aging 1950's design era airlifter, buying more C130's is a dumb idea whichever way you look at it.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Nov 23, 2018 5:05:16 GMT 12
Roll on the C-130J and ditch the LAVs for something of more suitable size, same with the helicopters. We don't have an Air Force that could maintain anything bigger, or maybe just anything. The Herc might be a bit slower, smaller, but we know it. isc I admire your logic - buy a transport aircraft to deploy stuff but then have to buy smaller stuff because the aircraft you have chosen is too small for the stuff we already have. Problem is the stuff we can no longer carry have roles of their own which sets their size not the size of a future stuff carrier. Carrying an upgraded LAV if it happens is not the priority it a secondary capability just like it is now with the H, if for instance you had a fleet of A400M to replace 1-1 the Hurcules fleet you can still only carry 1 vehicle. Sealift is the priority for movement of armoured vehicles and there complete kit
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Nov 23, 2018 9:39:21 GMT 12
Carrying an upgraded LAV if it happens is not the priority it a secondary capability just like it is now with the H, if for instance you had a fleet of A400M to replace 1-1 the Hurcules fleet you can still only carry 1 vehicle. Sealift is the priority for movement of armoured vehicles and there complete kit The A400m can carry 2 LAVIII's not sure about the LAV6 with its weight etc...but we don't know what is happening to them yet... However the capability of simply being able to lift more for HADR instead of the Herc making several trips we can send that all in one hit... We can get a NH-90 there quickly instead of waiting on Canterbury, Make several trips in A400m and we have given more aid than the C130s could do in 10 trips... Canterbury could be up to a week away, usually, 2 or 3 days, organise load, load ship and go and depending on where she is going, could be another day or two sailing to get there... Also, Canterbury could be already deployed overseas so she would then have to sail home first get the NH-90 and aid gear etc. Also, what state of maintenance she is in... a couple of years back she got pulled out of maintenance to do HADR in Samoa (i think) HADR is about getting aid there fast, as soon as you can... and then bring in the big loads on Canterbury etc... it shows the people help is on the way... waiting a few days with no fresh water and no aid from anywhere not good. Personally I would like to see an increase in capability... x4 A400Ms and say 4 or 5 C130j... but I can't see that happening...
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Nov 23, 2018 10:16:07 GMT 12
Perhaps RMAF response for Earthquake/Tsunami hit Palu,Indonesia is good case study between the two.
The RMAF undertook humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions to the stricken city of Palu in central Sulewasi, Indonesia. The week-long operation from October 4-10 involved a single A400M and three C-130 aircraft. Flying from its base in Subang, Kuala Lumpur, the No 22 Skuadron A400M landed at Jakarta’s Halim Air Base on October 4, from where it commenced the first of two flights to Mutiara SIS Al-Jufrie Airport in Palu. The aircraft’s short-field capability and ability to transport heavy, outsize cargo proved especially useful in delivering a variety of loads which included an excavator, fuel trucks as well as items like food, drinks and medical supplies. Also involved in the relief efforts were two C-130s from No 14 Skuadron in Labuan, off Sabah, Borneo, and another from No 20 Skuadron, based at Subang. These aircraft staged out of Balik Papan in Kalimantan from where they ferried Indonesian police personnel to Palu and evacuated tsunami victims from Palu to Balikpapan, in addition to delivering essential relief supplies and equipment. source: airforcesmonthly.keypublishing.com/2018/10/19/royal-malaysian-air-force-relief-efforts-to-palu/
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Nov 23, 2018 13:17:37 GMT 12
nighthawknz Not arguing that A400M has no merit within RNZAF just pointing out that the role of C130 for armour lift was a secondary function, LAV 6 from online source show a weight of 25t max load for A400 M is 37t with LAV III is 17t so that leaves a single upgraded LAV, unless you are planning the whole fleet around A400 both tactical and strategic 8 airframes you could in theory move a troop of upgraded NZLAV By the graphic the VBCI appears to be the same weight range for the upgraded LAV that will be your guide
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Nov 23, 2018 13:25:53 GMT 12
When would we ever need to urgently deploy LAV...never!. They have only been deployed to the sand pit in a support role and to Australia on exercise, both having long lead times.
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Nov 23, 2018 13:45:53 GMT 12
When would we ever need to urgently deploy LAV...never!. They have only been deployed to the sand pit in a support role and to Australia on exercise, both having long lead times. I was mainly talking about the nh90 for HADR was just pointing out that the A400m can currently take 2 LAVIIIs, It's not only urgent which I agree is very slim but more about being able to deploy our own gear ourself not relying all the time on our allies... ie when we deployed the LAVs to Afghanistan and back...
|
|
|
Post by delticman on Nov 23, 2018 13:48:25 GMT 12
Perhaps RMAF response for Earthquake/Tsunami hit Palu,Indonesia is good case study between the two. The RMAF undertook humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions to the stricken city of Palu in central Sulewasi, Indonesia. The week-long operation from October 4-10 involved a single A400M and three C-130 aircraft. Flying from its base in Subang, Kuala Lumpur, the No 22 Skuadron A400M landed at Jakarta’s Halim Air Base on October 4, from where it commenced the first of two flights to Mutiara SIS Al-Jufrie Airport in Palu. The aircraft’s short-field capability and ability to transport heavy, outsize cargo proved especially useful in delivering a variety of loads which included an excavator, fuel trucks as well as items like food, drinks and medical supplies. Also involved in the relief efforts were two C-130s from No 14 Skuadron in Labuan, off Sabah, Borneo, and another from No 20 Skuadron, based at Subang. These aircraft staged out of Balik Papan in Kalimantan from where they ferried Indonesian police personnel to Palu and evacuated tsunami victims from Palu to Balikpapan, in addition to delivering essential relief supplies and equipment. source: airforcesmonthly.keypublishing.com/2018/10/19/royal-malaysian-air-force-relief-efforts-to-palu/Does it come with it's own plywood factory as well?
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Nov 23, 2018 14:00:59 GMT 12
thats how we fast track funding! - what do you think the 1 million extra trees we are planting are for?
|
|